Scottish Parliament, 23 September 2010

401 contributions from 79 members. The official report.

Forensic Science Services

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a Labour Party debate on motion S3M-7045, in the name of Richard Baker, on the future of forensic services in Scotland.

I call Richard Baker to speak to and move the motion in 13 minutes. I advise members that time is very tight, so I ask them to stick rigidly to the advice that they are given.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Point taken, Presiding Officer. Members across the Parliament are keenly aware of the crucial role that our forensic services play throughout Scotland in detecting crime, convicting those who are guilty and thereby—we hope—reducing crime in the future. The progress in forensic services in recent years—in scene-of-crime examination, biology services, drugs and DNA analysis, fingerprinting and other specialist services—is a vital facet of modern policing. Those services are central to solving crimes that are as wide ranging as housebreaking, car theft, sexual assault and homicide.

We can be proud of the forensic scientists who work with enthusiasm and commitment in our four laboratories. Without them, fewer cases would be solved and fewer criminals would be held to account for their crimes. Recognition of the importance of forensic services to local policing has been the catalyst behind the great anxiety in the north and north-east and in Lothian and Borders about the threat to the future of the laboratories in Aberdeen and Edinburgh.

A recommendation to the cabinet secretary by the Scottish Police Services Authority’s board has been decided on, following consultation on its “Forensic Services Modernisation Options Paper”. That recommendation has not been made public and—curiously—it does not appear to have reached the cabinet secretary in time for the debate, although we understand that the board decided on it more than a week ago. In any event, it is feared that the recommendation to the cabinet secretary is to close the laboratories in Aberdeen and Edinburgh or to remove from them key forensic services, which would begin to run them down.

The ultimate decision resides not with the SPSA but with the cabinet secretary. I hope that speeches from members of all parties will persuade him that the two labs should not be run down or closed and that the Parliament will express that view at decision time.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Does Richard Baker agree that the overriding reason for maintaining the service is to do so for the service user? Grampian Police and its chief constable say that they receive a first-class service now, which they want to remain and not diminish. Is that not the key point?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

That is the key point—I agree entirely with Mike Rumbles. We should take seriously the views that Grampian Police’s chief constable and others have expressed publicly. That should inform the decision, which should be to retain the two labs.

Keeping the laboratories open in Aberdeen and Edinburgh has been the subject of cross-party campaigns and I hope that it will attract cross-party support today. From my experience of the situation in Aberdeen as a North East Scotland MSP, I know that my colleague Lewis Macdonald, as the constituency member for the Aberdeen laboratory, has been joined in the campaign by Nicol Stephen and Brian Adam—the two other city constituency MSPs—as well as Mike Rumbles in west Aberdeenshire. Several of us list members from all the parties have also been involved. In the previous debate on the subject, Mary Scanlon spoke from a Highlands and Islands perspective about concerns for the Aberdeen laboratory’s future. The same has been true in Edinburgh.

Of course, it has been a joint campaign with the staff and their trade union, Unison. I am pleased that staff from the laboratory at Howden Hall in Edinburgh are here and that Unison members from Aberdeen have come to Holyrood today, because they know the importance of the decision and of the debate. We can be sure of their commitment to providing excellent forensic services.

It has been a long and trying process, particularly for the laboratory staff, to get to this stage. The first proposals were made in “Delivering forensic services to north and north-east Scotland”, which was published in 2008. That was not a consultation document—rather, it gave 10 reasons why the SPSA wanted to close the lab in Aberdeen. Its flawed arguments, married to a total lack of consultation with staff, made for a counterproductive and inadequate process. At that time, as George Foulkes and Jeremy Purvis said in the chamber, fears emerged about the SPSA’s intentions for the lab in Edinburgh. Since then, David McLetchie has joined those members in campaigns on that laboratory’s future.

Given that, the cabinet secretary’s announcement that that consultation should not proceed was welcome. Several north-east MSPs met Vic Emery, who had just become the convener of the SPSA’s board as the SPSA’s management emerged from a period of turmoil. We were assured that a new consultation would be embarked on to consider the service’s future as a whole and that that consultation would be genuine. I concede that the second consultation was superior to the first, but a high bar had not been set. Like other MSPs, I made a submission to the process, as did Unison as the staff trade union, although I recognise that Unison has broader concerns about the new consultation process, too.

The concern remains that the SPSA entered the new process with a clear determination to run down or close the two laboratories. That fear springs from the history of the process that I have outlined and from the new consultation document. It suggests four options for change. We do not ignore the need for efficiencies at times of great strictures in public sector finances. Option two would make savings, including those from post reductions. However, it would—crucially—retain the laboratories and introduce a new information-technology-based laboratory information management system, which would benefit the efficiency of the national service and of local services in the laboratories.

The document goes into a full list of advantages and disadvantages for options three and four, but far less time is spent on scrutinising the first two options. That raises the concern that they are not being presented with the same priority. Option three would result in the closure of the laboratories in Aberdeen and Edinburgh—I will go into further detail about just how damaging that would be—while option four would mean that those two laboratories lost key services such as DNA processing, volume crime biology analysis, fingerprint examinations and drug analysis. Options three and four would not only result in greater reductions in staff but risk the loss of highly skilled staff to our forensic services in the process of relocation.

Option three might present greater savings on paper, but it does not include the cost of a courier system to transfer evidence to the central labs from local forces, for example, let alone the wider costs of a reduced service in the affected areas. Option four would run down services significantly in Aberdeen and Edinburgh, but it would not save significantly more money—about £700,000 more in year three than option two would save. That is in the context that Scotland already spends about a third less per capita on forensic services than England does, according to the figures in the consultation document.

I will spend some time on what would be lost by closing or running down the laboratories. I had the chance to visit the local lab in Aberdeen with Lewis Macdonald and lain Gray and I was hugely impressed by the facilities and by the skills, expertise and commitment of the staff. Grampian Police’s chief constable, Colin McKerracher, has said that the strong relationships between his officers and the staff at the Aberdeen lab have played a crucial role in murder inquiries. Grampian Police and Northern Constabulary have been prepared to invest significantly in the lab, because they recognise its importance to their work. The Aberdeen laboratory won an SPSA award for innovation in light of the role of staff in working on the tragic Super Puma helicopter crash.

On a range of measures, both the Aberdeen and Edinburgh laboratories are performing excellently and efficiently in their delivery of forensic services. I have seen the drugs analysis service that is provided in the Aberdeen laboratory. It is working at full capacity. Presently, chemists at the laboratory provide the police with a 24-hour call-out drugs analysis service, specifically for custody cases in which a drugs analysis result using the instruments at the laboratory has to be secured within six hours of detention in order to secure custody. Without that system at the Aberdeen laboratory, such a call-out service would not be available—it would be only a retrograde service that was not sufficient for court use. That of course raises concerns about the prosecution of cases.

As we know, the further away the scene of the crime is from the laboratory, the longer it takes to get results. The concern is that closing the laboratories would be damaging to local policing, and that it would not serve our justice system, with cases being delayed or evidence not being provided in time.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does Richard Baker accept that the question of getting analysis results within six hours feeds into broader agendas about whether people can be detained in custody—for other reasons, but particularly for forensics reasons? Does he agree that the difficulties of keeping people in custody and of dealing with things within that time will be exacerbated if local services are removed?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I certainly agree with Robert Brown, and that whole area will need to be examined. He will agree with me that it remains crucial to have as short a turnaround time as possible for drugs analysis evidence. That is another reason why the laboratories in Aberdeen and Edinburgh must be retained.

There is concern that closing the laboratories can have only a detrimental effect on public safety and tackling crime in the areas of Scotland concerned. No wonder the plans have provoked public comment from Grampian Police and Northern Constabulary. Colleagues will go into greater detail on their concerns about the local impact of closing laboratories.

We understand that, nationally, there is a backlog of about 3,000 drugs analysis cases and more than 3,500 crime scene cases requiring DNA analysis.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Has that not been rebutted by the SPSA? The press release that the member put out last night has been challenged by the SPSA. The SPSA has told the member that those figures are not correct but he has persisted—through the media and again today he seems to have repeated a libel.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Those were official figures that were in a press release. I stand by them and I will give them to the cabinet secretary immediately following the debate.

The current situation is impacting on the prosecution of justice in this country now. I cannot see how the situation will be improved by the closure of two excellent forensic laboratories.

We support the amendments from John Lamont and Robert Brown, which we believe make further important points in relation to the debate. I had hoped that we might see something of substance in the Scottish Government’s amendment, and that it might have engaged properly in the debate. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and it rather seems that its amendment is an attempt to evade debate. It looks like the cabinet secretary saw our motion and reached for the panic button.

The recommendation has been decided by the SPSA. It is a recommendation to the cabinet secretary, even if, curiously, it has not reached him, despite having been decided more than a week ago. He cannot avoid the fact that it is his decision to make.

For the Parliament to support the Government’s amendment would be to miss the opportunity to agree a motion that makes clear our view that we must retain excellence in forensic services for the whole of Scotland. I ask members of every party to affirm what so many of us have been saying to our constituents: that we support the retention of the laboratories in Aberdeen and Edinburgh. We should, therefore, support the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the importance of a national forensic service which is able to serve the needs of the whole country; acknowledges the key role of forensic services and speedy access to evidence for the detection of those responsible for crimes and the prevention of further offences; notes the consultation by the Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA) on a number of options for the future of forensic services in Scotland; believes that the recommendation for the future structure of the service which has now been made by the SPSA Board to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice should be made public immediately; further believes that Option 3, which would result in the closure of the laboratories in Aberdeen and Edinburgh, and that Option 4, which would see their services very significantly reduced, would be detrimental to very many communities in Scotland, and accordingly believes that Option 2 should be the basis on which services are developed.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I begin by stating what we agree upon. The forensic science and fingerprint service in Scotland is truly outstanding. Representatives from the Aberdeen and Edinburgh laboratories are in the public gallery and I pay tribute to them as well as to the Glasgow and Dundee laboratories. Many crimes in Scotland, serious and minor, would go undetected and unprosecuted, without a conviction or closure, were it not for the service and dedication of the staff. I pay tribute to them.

It is absolutely accepted that this is my decision, and we do not seek to hide that. I make it clear, however, that no decision has been taken and that the SPSA has not yet submitted to the Scottish Government its plans for the future delivery of forensic science.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

We received a note from Tom Nelson, the director responsible for the modernisation, dated 14 September. He says:

“a preferred option has been discussed and debated with the SPSA Board and will go forward in the next week to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.”

That was nine days ago. Can the cabinet secretary tell us why he has not been able to secure the recommended option from the SPSA?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

The short answer is no, I cannot, because I am not responsible for that board—I am not responsible for those matters. I can assure the member that I do not have the recommended option. Not having it, self-evidently I have not yet seen the recommendation and I cannot possibly reach any decision.

Although it is clearly too early for me to enter into any detailed discussions about the SPSA’s options, I am here to listen to the various views that I am sure will be expressed in the debate. I assure all colleagues in all parts of the chamber representing all parts of Scotland, including Mr Baker and Mr Kelly, and also the staff who are present in the public gallery, that, when it comes to considering the SPSA’s proposals, I am willing to take on board its views along with those expressed by chief constables, police boards and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Does the minister agree that the complete lack of openness and transparency from the board of the SPSA serves democracy in Scotland ill? Does he acknowledge that there is a fear and suspicion among MSPs that as soon as the debate is over, an announcement may be made? Would he be surprised if that were the case?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

That is gross hypocrisy on the part of a Liberal Democrat member who is one of the people who set up the SPSA. I supported the setting up of the SPSA, although that was under the previous Administration. The SPSA had a difficult birth and everybody recognises the difficulties that there have been and the changes that have taken place. It was at the request of this Government that further consultations were carried out. We were not satisfied that appropriate consultation had been undertaken previously. To the credit of the chief executive and the chair of the SPSA, that was done.

I assure Mr Rumbles that I have not received the recommendation and I have had no opportunity to read it. I will not make a judgment until I have had the opportunity to see the SPSA’s recommendations and to take on board the views that are expressed in today’s debate or in any other submissions that might be made.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I must make some progress. Members have my assurance. That might not have been how matters were conducted under the previous Administration, but it is most certainly the way in which we seek to conduct matters.

I reiterate my gratitude for the hard work and dedication that has been shown by all the expert forensic staff in the SPSA. I understand the concerns that have been expressed by some affected staff in my own constituency and in letters from numerous members of the Parliament. I reiterate that the SPSA was established in 2007 under the Labour-Liberal Administration, with cross-party support in the Parliament, reflecting a shared ambition to deliver better and more efficient police support services, including in forensic science.

It is right and proper that the SPSA has undertaken a forensic modernisation review at this time. We expect no less, as it is clear that forensic science has moved on significantly. That is down to the efforts of science and to individual contributions that have been made by members of staff—it is they who have driven forensics on significantly.

The development of more effective and efficient services across our justice system remains the purpose of the SPSA. In the current financial climate and in the difficult times to come, its role is more important than ever.

When it began its work, the SPSA inherited forensic science laboratories in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow, which have been developed and adjusted over a long period. Speaking in a previous debate on SPSA forensic services in January last year, my colleague Fergus Ewing made it clear that the laboratories were far from ideal, and that “urgent investment” in Scotland’s forensic science capacity was needed. That is why we are building the crime campus at Gartcosh, something that Mr Baker seems to wish had been done yesterday, so as to accelerate things. We have also fully funded the construction of the new state-of-the-art forensic science laboratory in Dundee, which I opened earlier this year. The two new labs will provide the SPSA with the capacity to meet ever-increasing demand for the analysis of forensic evidence and they will provide police forces and procurators fiscal with faster turnaround times and a more effective service.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that the proposals for investment in the Aberdeen laboratory that were in place three years ago were postponed because of the consultation process that began in December 2007, and that those plans have never been put back in place?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Yes. A variety of matters have been on-going at the Aberdeen lab, including the police expressing a desire to have space returned to them, given that the lab is located within the police headquarters.

What lies at the heart of today’s debate is what the continued improvement of the SPSA forensic service will mean for the existing laboratories. My position is simply that we must ensure that the service that is delivered to every police force and every procurator fiscal is consistent, high quality, rapid and value for money. After all, we should bear it in mind that not every police force has a forensic laboratory on its doorstep, and no one is suggesting that the ability to fight crime in Stirling or Stranraer is compromised as a result.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does the cabinet secretary not accept that a situation in which there were no forensic science facilities north of Dundee would be in a slightly different category from the Scotland-wide picture that he has outlined?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

It seems to me that in places such as the Western Isles and the west Highlands, it is arguable where one should go for forensic services; the choice is made on the basis of what is most effective. [Interruption.] Liberal Democrat members seem to be talking about centralisation but, on their watch they seem to have had no desire to provide a forensic science facility in the Northern Constabulary area or in Dumfries and Galloway, so “cant” and “hypocrisy” are words that spring to mind. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

The process of modernising the forensic service should not discount any options to achieve the goal that I have set out.

Of course, the need to deliver services more efficiently is more pressing than ever. Although we have delivered 1,000 additional officers and crime in Scotland is at a 32-year low, we face huge budgetary challenges, from which the SPSA is not immune. The damaging Westminster cuts make it imperative that Scotland secures economic powers and financial responsibility. It is all very well for suggestions to be made about how we can expand forensic services, but given that the money for that has to come from the SPSA budget, Mr Baker and others will have to say whether money should be cut from the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency’s budget or from the broader justice budget, which would result in fewer police. Is the proposal for less money for police or less money for the SCDEA?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary not recognise that the option that we support—option two—would provide significant savings to the SPSA?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

The member talks about significant savings, but given the size of the cuts that are coming down the line, which were started by Labour in Westminster and have been accelerated by the coalition down south, matters require to be dealt with.

When the Parliament debated the modernisation of forensic services in January 2009, it focused on the future of the Aberdeen laboratory. Since then, the SPSA has set about gathering views and evidence on how it could better meet the national needs of all Scotland’s police forces and procurators fiscal while at the same time generating the best efficiency for the public purse.

I understand that the SPSA board has now considered the findings from that exercise. Mr Kelly kindly told us about the note that he received in that regard. I emphasise that I have not yet received the board’s recommendation.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

There has been a lot of speculation in the Parliament and in the press about the SPSA’s recommendations. The cabinet secretary knew that the debate was to take place this morning, so why did he not contact the SPSA to ask it to deliver its recommendations? Has he had any contact with the SPSA on the matter over recent weeks?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am afraid that you have only 45 seconds left, cabinet secretary.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

All that I can say is that I have not received the SPSA’s report. We are open to recommendations. I will be happy to take on board the Parliament’s views, as will the SPSA. I will also be happy to receive representations from members who are present on behalf of others. We are in listening mode. We have not made a decision. We will receive the SPSA’s recommendation and will ensure that the excellent forensic science service that is provided to communities across Scotland continues to be provided. I pay tribute to the people who provide that service and will listen to them in due course.

I move amendment S3M-7045.2, to leave out from first “believes” to end and insert:

“notes that the recommendation for the future structure of the service has not yet been made by the SPSA Board to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and that the cabinet secretary, in making the decision, should listen to the views of the Parliament, and further notes the valuable work done by SPSA’s expert staff across Scotland and the positive way that they have engaged in this process.”

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I thank the Labour Party for using its time to debate the future of forensic services in Scotland. It is all too easy to forget the difficult and challenging job that the people who are involved in the forensic service do and the role that they play in the investigation and prevention of crime.

For many people, their knowledge of forensic services will extend to what they have learned from occasionally tuning into episodes of “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation” or watching the actors in white jump suits on “Taggart”, but to the victims of crime, the role of forensic services is pivotal, as they are involved throughout the process, from the crime scene investigation through to the case being brought to court.

The passing of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 established the Scottish Police Services Authority, under the umbrella of which forensic services have fallen since 2007. The new structure brought together the existing forensic labs, fingerprint bureaux and scene-of-crime offices that were located across the country.

I have long argued in the Parliament that crime needs to be dealt with swiftly and in an efficient and effective manner. Forensic services play a massive part in ensuring that that happens; they are an imperative part of the process. They ensure that the facts are reliable and are produced in time, they give victims the closure that they require, and they ensure that the police and the Crown Office have the information that they need to make appropriate decisions.

The services that are provided range from crime scene investigators, fingerprinting and DNA testing to drug analysis. Those are vital services that must continue to meet the demands that are put on them by service users. As the SPSA’s modernisation paper sets out, demand for the services varies across the country. That variation is down to not just crime patterns and volume, but practices and policies in specific areas.

The current economic climate holds many challenges and will involve making tough decisions. It is against that backdrop that the SPSA presented its modernisation paper, in which it states:

“We continue to face considerable challenges in the short to medium term at least with likely year-on-year real term reduction to our budget, rising cost (extra inflationary) of consumables and changes to demand that will place significant pressure on our ability to meet financial targets and customer expectations.”

Four options are presented, three of which offer alternatives; the other is basically the status quo. Although we realise that spending must and will be reduced, we must strive to reduce it by achieving efficiencies that do little to take away from the vital services that continue to be required. It would be irresponsible simply to look towards the option that saves the most money, regardless of the consequences.

We accept that it would be wrong to continue with no change, even though that would offer the quickest savings—it would produce total efficiencies of around £1 million in 2011-12, as opposed to the £140,000 that the other three options would result in—and we recognise that short-term spend on the evidence management solution will allow for longer-term savings.

Option three has generated the majority of concerns, as it suggests the closure of facilities in both Aberdeen and Edinburgh. Grampian Police, Northern Constabulary and Lothian and Borders Police have all expressed their alarm at the potential impact that those closures would have on local service delivery. Further concerns have been raised about the loss of specialist jobs. Given that forensics play such a crucial role in the delivery of justice, I must ask what the full consequences of such closures would be, not just for the police, but for the running of courts and, of course, for the wider public’s access to swift justice.

In July, my colleague Mary Scanlon, who will speak later in the debate, lodged a motion that recognised the importance of forensic services to policing and crime detection in the Highlands and Islands and the Grampian area, and which highlighted what the closure of the Aberdeen facility would mean for jobs in that area.

The process that the SPSA has gone through in coming to its recommendation should be transparent, and I am more than a little disappointed that the responses that it received to its paper have not yet been published, although I understand that the SPSA is awaiting authorisation to do so from those who submitted evidence. Furthermore, it appears that we will not find out what recommendation the SPSA has made or how it came to make that decision until the future structure of forensic services in Scotland has been decided, which is also unfortunate.

A new structure is inevitable, but it must allow the forensic services to continue to provide a first-class service. In my opinion, option two appears to offer the best alternative, in that it would allow services to be maintained across Scotland, thereby protecting access to services for the police and, more widely, access to justice for all. That should be our principal aim.

I move amendment S3M-7045.1, to insert at end:

“; acknowledges the concerns raised about the loss of specialist jobs, and further notes the concerns of local communities and the police about the proposed changes.”

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

First, I apologise to members for having to leave before the end of the debate—I do not usually do that, but I have a long-standing engagement to fulfil this morning.

This is an important debate on a subject that has been characterised by fixed agendas, inadequate consultation and the wrong priorities. The Scottish Police Services Authority has had, to say the least, a chequered career since its inception, but its record on handling the debate on the future of the forensic services in Scotland must stand at the nadir of its fortunes.

The SPSA’s plans to merge the units at Aberdeen and Dundee go back to 2007. At that time, neither Grampian Police, the Procurator Fiscal Service, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland nor the laboratory staff had been consulted. The users of the service and the people who provide it were left out of the loop. One might imagine that it would be difficult to progress plans in that way, and that any plans that were produced might be a trifle defective.

After huge local protest, the cabinet secretary—to his credit—asked the SPSA to re-examine the issues and engage in fresh consultation. The SPSA then constructed a consultation that merely outlined and justified the closure of the Aberdeen laboratory; it did not even include an option for the service to remain in Aberdeen. The Minister for Community Safety described the paper as

“a question and answer paper ... not a consultation”.—[Official Report, 8 January 2009; c 13920.]

The common feature throughout was that the SPSA regarded the closure of the Aberdeen service as a foregone conclusion. Perhaps uniquely, that botched consultation attracted the condemnation of all parties, including even the Scottish National Party MSPs for the area.

To echo my earlier intervention on the cabinet secretary, it would be totally amazing if the end result of all that was that there were no forensic services north of Dundee. That is a different proposition to the non-event of services in Inverness, Wick or Dumfries: we do not have such services and nobody is proposing that we should, but that is not to say that we should not have suitable and reasonably accessible services throughout Scotland.

We eventually got the 2010 proposals, which presented four options, but a proposal to close the forensic unit in Edinburgh had appeared. That seemed to be a rather bizarre result of the way in which thought on the matter had moved forward, and it went against what seemed to be a categorical assurance from the cabinet secretary in answer to a parliamentary question from Mike Pringle in February 2009.

I say to the cabinet secretary that it is highly unsatisfactory that we do not have the recommendation—which is a different issue to the Government’s response to the recommendation—today. I accept his assurance that he has not personally received it, although I bet that his officials have received it—which is not quite the same thing—and are awaiting the report going to the cabinet secretary.

Secret government is not the way forward. There is a major debate on the issue, and members must be properly informed about the proposal. It is hardly the full, frank and transparent consultation that the cabinet secretary promised in May 2008.

There are a number of specific considerations. The first is that a decision to end forensic services in Aberdeen or Edinburgh would be very costly to reverse in the event that the Government and the SPSA got it wrong and it led to the problems that staff have predicted—and perhaps some that have not been predicted. It has taken some years to build up both the facilities and the staff complement, so there is an element of irreversibility if the decision proceeds in the way that the SPSA appears to wish it to.

The second—and driving—consideration must be the effectiveness of the service, which is a point that Mike Rumbles has repeatedly made, not least during today’s debate. It is clear that police forces have confidence in the current arrangements but that there are issues of varying demand and practice that reflect different practices and procedures throughout the country. Both option one and option two in the SPSA’s paper progress that consideration with significant annual savings; I am not sure whether the two options are mutually exclusive, or if elements of both could be incorporated. The debate should take place, and the decision should be made, around that consideration.

The third consideration is the need for timely and local responses to need. Some procedures need to be turned around within hours, as I think Richard Baker said, and that will manifestly not be possible if samples have to be sent from Aberdeen to Dundee or from Edinburgh to Glasgow.

The fourth consideration is the question of scarce finance. Even in these days of financial pressure, decisions should not be dictated by that concern if the result is otherwise unsatisfactory. All four options—as has been pointed out in the debate—offer significant savings on top of the efficiencies that have been obtained in recent years.

The Liberal Democrat amendment brings out a further aspect, which is the mantra of centralisation that appears in many respects to drive things these days. We see it with the proposals to merge the Scottish police forces into a single Scottish police force, and we see its hidden hand too in the proposals to reduce the number of forensic science laboratories. I say to the cabinet secretary that although those issues cannot be approached dogmatically, Scotland does not suit a one-size-fits-all approach from Government. Centralisation can mean loss of local control and access, and it certainly means the removal of local jobs and services.

There has been a high-handedness and arbitrariness about the approach to the forensic science laboratories issue. There is a strong sense that people are going through the motions and that there is impatience with the troublesome concerns of democratically elected representatives of the relevant areas from all parties. Even now, as has been mentioned, we are in the ridiculous position of today’s debate taking place in a vacuum, because we do not know—although we can guess—the recommendation that the SPSA has made to the Scottish Government.

Members have the opportunity to tell the Government today that that is no way to proceed, that the concerns are not just valid but persuasive, that the loss of local forensic services will damage policing in Scotland and that the uncertainty that has dogged the issue for three years should be ended.

The debate has taken place with the cabinet secretary and members of the Government sitting off to one side, almost as arbiters. They are not: the SPSA is a Government agency that is responsible to the Government, and it is working to a Government agenda. In 2008, the SPSA’s director of forensic services stated:

“That’s why the Cabinet Secretary has given a clear signal that ‘doing nothing’ around the existing lab infrastructure is not an option.”

If that is not a direction of travel, I do not know what is.

If that agenda means modernisation, greater efficiency or improved standards, we are with the cabinet secretary. If, as it sounds, it means the closure of local services, the cabinet secretary should be for turning post haste. The debate gives him the opportunity to recognise a mistake in the direction of travel and to act to keep local services throughout Scotland.

I move amendment S3M-7045.3, to insert at end:

“; believes that decisions on the future of the national forensic service should be driven by the quality of the services needed and provided; regrets the history of inadequate consultation and consideration by the SPSA over the structure of the service; deplores the way in which the SPSA regarded the closure of regional services as a foregone conclusion, and considers that the controversy surrounding the issue serves as a warning as to the dangers of dogmatic centralisation.”

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Before we come to the open debate, I tell members that I have received a request for a question of an urgent nature, under rule 13.8 of standing orders, on the subject of the Scottish team’s participation in the Commonwealth games in Delhi, from Bill Butler MSP. I have accepted the request, and I therefore intend to alter business to allow the question to be answered by the Minister for Public Health and Sport at 11.30 this morning. I will allow 10 minutes for that item of business, and that time will have to be removed from the debate that we are currently holding. We may have to reduce the number of speakers, but we will let those members know as soon as we possibly can.

We now move to the open debate.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

It is now some 40 months since the Scottish Government took office, and some 33 months since staff in the forensic and fingerprint services in my constituency were told that the SPSA had launched a review that would result in advice to ministers to close the Aberdeen forensic laboratory. That review is, one way or another, still going on. The cabinet secretary will perhaps recognise that this long-running saga will, for those scientists, be the defining feature of his term in office.

There have been times when Mr MacAskill has recognised the anger and dismay that are felt by those staff and by many other people who have an interest in the quality of forensic services in the north of Scotland. The cabinet secretary met MSPs on a cross-party basis early in 2008. He responded to the concerns that we raised, and he told the Parliament in May 2008 that he had asked the SPSA to engage in fresh consultation, which he promised would be

“full, open, transparent and meaningful.”—[Official Report, 8 May 2008; c 8447.]

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I agree with Lewis Macdonald, and I congratulate the cabinet secretary on taking an interest at that time, finding out what the issues were and doing something about it. Does Lewis Macdonald agree with me, however, that it seems strange that now, one week after the decision has been made by the SPSA—under the cabinet secretary’s own department—he cannot be bothered to lift the telephone to ask what it has decided?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Indeed. I think that members will all return to that point during today’s debate, because the second consultation process has fared no better than the first. When I brought a member’s debate on the subject to the chamber on 8 January 2009, there was broad agreement from all parties that the new consultation document amounted to little more than a more polished package that still proposed the closure of the Aberdeen laboratory.

The Government accepted that the consultation had not been good enough and that there was a need for another look. The SPSA wrote to MSPs and other stakeholders 18 months ago to present a new set of propositions on which it intended to consult. That third exercise resulted in the publication in July this year of the options paper that we are debating today. Options three and four in that paper pose a threat to the jobs of those who work in the Aberdeen forensic lab that is just as real as it was at the initial staff meeting in December 2007. The staff union Unison states:

“Close reading of the document suggests that Option Four would appear to be the preferred option of SPSA.”

Forensic scientists are, of course, experts in the close reading of evidence, so that interpretation should be taken seriously.

Of course, option four would not result in the outright closure of the Aberdeen and Edinburgh laboratories as soon as the minister made his decision. Instead, the laboratories would be run down to the point where they could no longer do their job. One example that I might expand on is the chemistry that is required to achieve rapid drugs analysis to secure the custody and eventual conviction of the drug dealers who ply their trade in my constituency and elsewhere. The Aberdeen lab can currently turn round large numbers of such cases because its chemists have the necessary equipment to identify new substances or complex compounds in less than six hours. Because they are on the spot, they can deliver results that can secure the necessary outcomes. Option four would remove most of those staff from Aberdeen and would leave perhaps a single forensic chemist, who would supposedly deliver urgent drugs analysis when required. However, from the briefing that we have heard, the remaining chemist at the Aberdeen laboratory would be expected to do that without the state-of-the-art equipment that is currently used to carry out much of that drugs analysis, which would be relocated away from the city along with most of the staff. The benefits of a comprehensive local service would be lost and only a token presence would remain.

Much was said before last week’s SPSA board meeting about the importance of openness and transparency. In May 2008, Mr MacAskill told us that that was what he wanted of the consultation process; the new convener of the SPSA said much the same in April 2009. Instead, as we know, the board made a decision behind closed doors and, according to what has been said today, has still not managed to convey its views to the cabinet secretary.

Given the detailed treatment of option four in the document, staff are rightly concerned that the drive to close Aberdeen and Edinburgh remains, even though it might have taken a new form. The fear is that, instead of closure at Christmas, the cabinet secretary will be asked to endorse closure in two stages. He might even be invited to proclaim that by supporting option four he has actually saved, rather than closed, two of Scotland’s four forensic laboratories. I hope that he will resist that temptation.

For almost three years, forensic scientists in my constituency have lived with profound uncertainty about the Government’s intentions. Senior staff have gone and potential new recruits have looked elsewhere. Perhaps before the cabinet secretary comes to his closing speech today—he should pay attention to this point—he can ask officials to do what they have not yet done: pick up the phone and have a conversation with the SPSA so that he can at least tell the staff who are here today which recommendation he will consider in the next few weeks.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Perhaps Mr Macdonald when he was a minister acted differently, but I would have thought that it is my duty to read all the recommendations in the report without having a closed mind and, thereafter, to make my decision having taken into account the views that Mr Macdonald and others have expressed. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of my duty. I require to read the report in full and to balance that with other matters.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Mr MacAskill is correct that he requires to read the report in full. Nonetheless, he also has a duty to be accountable to the Parliament and to come to the Parliament properly briefed for a debate of which he has had proper notice. I am disappointed that he does not see that as equally part of his duty.

If he does not see fit to tell us in his closing speech which of the recommendations in the options paper will go forward, my constituents will face a fourth Christmas not knowing what the Scottish ministers intend to do. That will give no comfort to them and bring no benefit to the communities that they serve.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I remind members that speeches should be no longer than six minutes.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I should first declare an interest, in that I worked in the field for most of my working life prior to coming to the Parliament, although I did not work for the SPSA or any of its predecessor organisations.

Since we last debated the issue on 8 January last year, we have had the promised full consultation process, for which I thank the SPSA. Extensive dialogue on the future of forensic services in Scotland has taken place with staff, trade unions, the police, the Procurator Fiscal Service and other interested parties. I have met Tom Nelson and the affected staff on several occasions to discuss the consultation process and the options for the future. I have also written to Tom Nelson and Vic Emery to ask them to release whatever recommendation they make to the cabinet secretary as well as the evidence that they have collated.

I express my gratitude to the staff of the Aberdeen fingerprint service and forensic laboratories who, throughout the process, have provided reasoned and well-argued responses to the SPSA’s proposals and have continued to perform at their best while their jobs have been under threat.

In my view, closing or downgrading the Aberdeen lab would reduce the crime-fighting ability of Grampian Police and Northern Constabulary, which would be an unacceptable consequence for my constituents. While bearing in mind the financial implications, I have no doubt that the number 1 priority for the SPSA should be the quality of the service that is delivered to local forces and to the Procurator Fiscal Service. I believe that a national service that is delivered to international standards and delivered locally is what is needed.

I have been provided with examples by the Aberdeen staff of how their work has been vital in the quick apprehension of suspects, which has taken those people off our streets and kept my constituents safe. A prime example is the recent bomb hoax directly opposite the office of the Procurator Fiscal Service in Aberdeen, which caused considerable disruption to local bus and train services and to local businesses. The fingerprint service was able to provide immediate assistance, which led to the suspect being identified. If the Aberdeen facility was to close or to be downgraded, at least an extra hour would be added to the time taken to process a product, which could result in a criminal being released back on to our streets.

We know that the speed of service delivery is important for public safety, but there are other implications of a two-lab model, which could also result in higher costs for the SPSA. The increased amount of handling that would occur would increase the risk of contamination of samples. To my mind, that proposal is unacceptable.

Recent examples give further cause for concern about resilience, if we move to a two-lab model. As we know, the Edinburgh lab recently had to close after being attacked. If that happened under a two-lab model, the remaining lab’s staff would be swamped, because they would need to deal with all the cases in Scotland. A similar situation could arise if there was another event like Lockerbie or the Piper Alpha disaster that required one lab to work at full capacity on the incident.

For the reasons mentioned above, a two-lab model is an absolute non-starter, whereas keeping four laboratories would be of continued benefit to local communities. However, the SPSA has put forward the idea that smaller labs might be left in place in Aberdeen and Edinburgh. We have yet to receive a final recommendation on how many staff might be located in the proposed satellite laboratory facilities, but we are led to believe that the number would be between two and 12. Again, I have concerns about resilience. No description is given of what cover would be available if staff were away for a length of time due to holidays or illness. I am also concerned that the staff would be required to cover multiple disciplines instead of specialising in one area. Being posted to a satellite laboratory might be seen as detrimental to an individual’s career development and would therefore have little attraction to staff.

I am not against modernisation for the sake of it, and I agree with the review’s proposals on the implementation of a new evidence management system, which will help to standardise methods across Scotland. There is a strong case for standardising operating procedures and equipment to provide better consistency of approach. A discipline-led rather than geography-led approach has much to commend it.

From the staff analysis, there is little difference between the total five-year costs of option two and option four: the difference is extremely modest. However, if we take option four rather than option two, there will be additional risks in terms of loss of staff experience, added time for transport, additional handling and potential errors, and uncertainties about the costs of transport and other matters. Are those risks acceptable? I think not.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should be finishing now, Mr Adam.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

The SPSA has proposed four options for the future. Options one and two give scope for improving service delivery while options three and four are driven by cost. I regret that I cannot support the motion that is before the Parliament, and I have three reasons for that. It is poorly drafted, Mr MacAskill has not yet received the recommendations, and he cannot publish what he has not got.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should finish now, Mr Adam.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

While I prefer option two, I would prefer it to be amended by the staff in Aberdeen.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I have already had to ask two members not to speak, so if members speak for longer than their time I will have to ask someone else not to speak.

George (Labour, Lothians)

I am pleased to be following Brian Adam’s thoughtful and well-argued speech. The cabinet secretary ought to listen to it very carefully indeed.

I thank the Labour front bench for initiating the debate. I know that we could have discussed all sorts of other topics, but this one is important to me and I am grateful. However, it is a pity that we are considering some flawed options and that, sadly, as I predicted during Lewis Macdonald’s debate, there is now also a threat to the Edinburgh laboratory.

My primary concern is for the safety of the people in Lothians and to maintain the vital work that the forensic staff at Fettes and particularly Howden Hall do to protect them. I also add my welcome to the staff who have come here today—in their own time and unpaid—because of the importance that they attach to the debate. I have visited Howden Hall twice, and I was tremendously impressed by the staff’s great skill and dedication. Lothian and Borders Police gets a top quality forensic service from them.

I was dismayed to hear the cabinet secretary imply that, because Dumfries and Galloway does not have forensic services on its doorstep, we in the Lothians should not have them either. That really is a counsel of despair.

That brings me to the consultation process, which, I am sad to say, has been a sham. The consultative paper is flimsy, particularly because it contains no costings and misses some vital points. It is also a sham, because the management of the SPSA has a fixed view on the outcome. I met Tom Nelson, the director of forensic services, and we had a cordial and useful discussion, but he spent half the time arguing for option four, which was a bit of a giveaway that he had made up his mind in advance.

The Howden Hall staff are open to change. They believe that modernisation is right, but it can be achieved without the major structural change that is being proposed. That is why they support option two, as do Unison, Lothian and Borders police board, and I and many other members who have already spoken and will speak. Option two would allow the SPSA to develop a national service while maintaining a top-quality service for Lothian and Borders Police. It would involve radical change, but without risk. It would centralise the specialist services that are not used frequently while preserving locally core functions such as drugs analysis and DNA processing. It would preserve the 24-hour drugs analysis service as well as the biology and chemistry section. It would see the smallest reduction in staff and expertise. The other options would inevitably mean more criminals roaming the streets unchecked.

Only a few weeks ago, because of evidence that was produced quickly by the forensic lab, a man who had raped a teenage girl in Livingston was caught and pled guilty. Before the forensic evidence was obtained speedily—because the lab was close by—he was not even on the police radar.

To illustrate the value that Lothian and Borders Police places on the local lab, I will quote from a letter it wrote to the lab about a drugs operation that took place partly in Kenny MacAskill’s constituency. It says that operation erase

“resulted in 50 drug dealers being arrested.”

It goes on:

“I can assure you that without your support the operation would not have achieved the same level of success.”

I fear that that kind of service would be lost if we were to take any option other than option two. The link between the police and forensic staff must remain close and strong to act as a deterrent to potential criminals.

The SPSA seems to be being driven by the awful desire to centralise that has come to pervade public services in Scotland since devolution.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

If we were to go down the centralisation route, how many more miles would it be from Livingston to Gartcosh than it is from Livingston to Howden Hall?

George (Labour, Lothians)

You see what I mean, Presiding Officer, about the issue already having been decided. We now have the minister arguing the case for option four and closing the laboratory. It is as plain as a pikestaff.

There is also the pressure to cut costs. Earlier, when talking about the scale of the cuts, the cabinet secretary said:

“matters require to be dealt with.”

What an ominous phrase. However, such as they are, the costings show that there is little difference in cost between the various options, and they do not include the hidden costs, particularly to Lothian and Borders Police, if Howden Hall closes, because the police own the building and many other costs would be involved. I urge Kenny MacAskill to remember that he is a Lothian MSP as well as a minister. If he takes action that could endanger his constituents as well as throwing some of them out of work, he will face serious consequences.

Earlier this year, Howden Hall was firebombed. As Brian Adam said, if we had had only two centres, that would have created some problems for maintaining the service. Thankfully, the firebomb did not succeed in destroying the centre and it is now back up and operating. It would be a tragic irony if Kenny MacAskill succeeded where a firebomb failed.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

First of all, I apologise for missing the opening of the debate. I also declare an interest as my partner works for the SPSA on the DNA database in Dundee, and I point out that DNA services for the whole of Scotland have been carried out in Dundee for some time.

In today’s debate we have heard a number of arguments in favour of the options to reform forensic services in Scotland. I favour option three, because I believe that using the two laboratories in Glasgow and Dundee would offer a real opportunity for more effective utilisation of resources and greater standardisation and consistency of service. Option three would provide the highest level of efficiency for the lowest cost and would therefore be in the best interests of providing the best possible crime detection service to Scotland’s police forces and the wider public at optimum cost.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

Perhaps later.

Option three would also secure public service jobs in Dundee, which receives cross-party support in Dundee. Clearly, if we are looking to relocate jobs to Dundee, they will have to come from somewhere else, just as they did when the previous Administration relocated jobs from Edinburgh to Inverness. There will always be issues for the staff who are involved in relocations, so there will need to be proper consultation.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does Mr FitzPatrick understand that the issue is not just about the loss of jobs in the laboratories in Aberdeen and Edinburgh, but about the loss of service to the wider communities in the cities that currently benefit from the service being on their doorstep?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

I am absolutely clear that a national service would mean a better service for the whole of Scotland: the two-lab model would provide a better forensic service across Scotland.

Although I disagree with Brian Adam’s choice of option, I understand his position. It is right and proper that constituency members should protect the interests of those whom they represent. Brian Adam is a great advocate for the city of Aberdeen, and if the decision is made to take on my preferred option and to close or scale down the Aberdeen forensics labs, it will not be because of lack of action on the part of Brian Adam on behalf of his constituents. However, the Government and Opposition spokespeople should consider the issues in the round and seek to deliver what is best for Scotland as a whole.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Of course we should consider the issues in the round. Option two would retain the excellent new facilities at Dundee. We would also have a new facility at Gartcosh, while retaining the local lab in Edinburgh, which would mean winners all round.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

A report is being produced by the SPSA that will go to the cabinet secretary soon: he will consider it before making his final decision. It would have been responsible for the Opposition spokespeople who call themselves shadow cabinet secretaries to have considered the report, and to have read, before making their choice, the facts from the people who are doing the work on the ground. However—and not unusually—that has not happened.

The facilities at the new police forensic laboratory at Rushton Court in Dundee could be the key to winning the battle against crime over the next decades. The centre is at the cutting edge of technology; every square inch of the new facility is carefully designed to optimise the analysis of evidence. The new laboratories are lit with natural light, which is the best environment for forensic examination, and include a range of high-spec measures that are designed to protect the chain of evidence, such as controlled air pressure, control of environmental conditions to support temperature, sensitive equipment and specialist anterooms adjacent to each main laboratory to limit and control access. For the first time, forensic experts have laboratory space that has been specifically designed for carrying out blood-pattern reconstructions.

Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD) rose—

There is a wet examination room, which will use new techniques for recovery of fingerprints on plastics, while general search labs will be used for body-fluid examinations and DNA analysis.

Mike Pringle rose—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Will the member give way?

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Will the member take an intervention?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Mr Pringle!

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

As the cabinet secretary has indicated, the Scottish Police Services Authority report highlighted that a reorganisation of Scotland’s forensic laboratories is vital to provide a more cost-effective and consistent crime detection service to the nation’s eight police forces and its procurators fiscal. Option three would mean an increased role for the new Dundee lab and would fully utilise its state-of-the art facilities, and secure public service jobs in our city.

A national forensic service is vital: it is a key element in consistency and standardisation. At the same time, we need to take account of financial challenges that face the public sector. The SPSA report identifies the real opportunities for more effective utilisation of resources through a two-laboratory structure. That is seen as the most cost-effective option. We must recognise that if we want the best service, the relocation of posts and a concentration of expertise is necessary. Although under the new structure we will still have local crime scene examination services at each of the eight police force headquarters, the overall system will be more efficient, more cost effective and ultimately more effective at tackling crime.

The custom-built laboratory at Rushton Court in Dundee is crucial to the future of the service. With savings of £3.5 million by 2015, the two-lab option will provide the highest level of efficiency for the lowest cost, and therefore the best possible crime detection service to Scotland’s police forces and the wider public, at optimum cost. However, the cabinet secretary needs to consider the evidence from the SPSA before making his final decision.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Members of Joe FitzPatrick’s party should get used to the word “shadow” in front of their names by next year, especially given the speeches that we have heard from them today.

I thank the Labour Party for giving us the opportunity to praise once again the work that is done by the talented and skilled staff at our forensics laboratories around Scotland. I thank, too, the members of all the main parties who supported my motion, which was lodged in July, stating the Parliament’s concerns about the modernisation options that could result in the closure of the Aberdeen lab.

In a members’ business debate in January 2009, concerns were raised about the future of the Aberdeen lab, the lack of consultation and the secret nature of some of the discussions. Now, 19 months later, we are raising the same concerns about discussions and decisions being made behind closed doors. I would have thought that the Scottish National Party would have learned from the flawed first consultation and worked to ensure that this one would be done properly. The tone that was adopted by the justice secretary today was disappointing, to say the least. It did not sound to me like he was in listening mode. If he had wanted to know the views of the Parliament, we would have been having a Government debate today rather than a Labour debate, welcome it though I do.

The forensics lab in Aberdeen is vital to the Highlands and Islands, which is one of the main reasons why the Northern Constabulary was, understandably, disappointed when it was not consulted when a previous decision to close the lab looked likely. In fact, the information that the Northern Constabulary got was gleaned from The Press and Journal.

While north-east members are right to question the additional time that will be taken to transport evidence to Dundee, and the added costs that that will bring, those issues are of even greater significance to the Northern Constabulary. Cases from Orkney and Shetland can currently be delivered to Aberdeen by police officers, who can return on the next flight or ferry to the islands. It would be far more difficult if they had to go to Dundee and back. Incidentally, I spoke to a senior police officer at the weekend who asked me to mention the excellent forensic service that was provided by the Aberdeen lab during the investigation of the recent murder on the Orkney island of Sanday. An overnight stay would add further cost and leave a police officer on the mainland while others would have to fill the void on the islands. Most important, though, is the loss of valuable time in the investigation of crimes. That is why I believe that option two is the modernisation proposal that best meets the needs of people in the Highlands and Islands and throughout Scotland.

The previous consultation process and the current discussions about the modernisation options have had a negative impact on staff morale. Staff have been questioning the future of their careers not just for months but for years. However, the discussions have also allowed the public and politicians a greater insight into the work that those staff do for our communities. The Aberdeen laboratory processes evidence from an area of 14,500 square miles, which is nearly 50 per cent of the land mass of Scotland, including three groups of islands. The lab serves more than 813,000 people from Unst in Shetland to Glencoe in the south. Any option that would result in that resource being moved to Dundee should not be accepted by the minister as a modernisation option. It is not. Such an option would have a detrimental impact on our communities and would be seen for what it is—a backwards step and not the model of modern policing that we should be aiming for.

As Lewis Macdonald said, the 47 staff at the Aberdeen lab have built up a great level of expertise. Their base at Nelson Street has enhanced the policing efforts in Grampian and the Highlands and Islands for many years. The SPSA recognises that relocation of staff will have a financial impact and could result in a loss of experienced staff, who are unwilling to move. Those jobs have in the past proved to be difficult to fill with the right people with the correct skills: that is surely another reason not to forge ahead with plans to close the Aberdeen and Edinburgh labs.

I support the amendment in the name of my colleague John Lamont, which acknowledges the concern about the loss of skilled jobs and the benefits that the labs deliver to local communities. There are genuine concerns that if the minister accepts option three or option four, the time that would be taken to process evidence would increase, as would the time to secure convictions. Both options would have a negative impact on the effectiveness of our police forces and on the public’s confidence that the perpetrators of crime will be brought to justice.

The minister has the ability to make that decision. I hope that his tone and approach will change in future debates. However, he also has a responsibility to make public the recommendations from the SPSA. I hope that he will acknowledge the wide public interest in this debate and reveal those details.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I spoke to a class of secondary pupils recently and asked them what they want to do when they are older. As members can imagine, few hands went up when I asked who wants to be an MSP. However, after a few pupils had mentioned it, I asked who wanted to be a forensic scientist or a crime scene examiner, and a roomful of arms was raised. That is probably testimony to the power of American television and the popularity of “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation”, because it certainly does not reflect the way in which the SPSA and forensic services have been treated in Scotland or reported in the media. Over the past few years, the SPSA could not have bought a good headline. It is worrying that—as I believe—that reflects a lack of political support and leadership and that it is, which is more important, very damaging for everyone working in the forensic services and to our confidence in what lies ahead.

As many members in the chamber know, many of the negative headlines were generated initially by those who were involved in the McKie campaign. As if that was not enough, the service has had to face interminable internal restructuring, job revaluation, cuts and now redundancies. Despite being established only in 2007, the SPSA has already been reorganised, most recently with a replacement of the regional bureaux with function-based or subject-based departments. The staff are not only awaiting the outcome of the fingerprint inquiry, but are facing confirmation of further restructuring, the proposed closure of regional offices and the loss of more than 100 posts. Because of the impact that they are having on the morale of all those who work in this vital public service, such changes and cutbacks are bound to have a negative effect on our ability to solve crimes and to prosecute offenders effectively.

What particularly concerns me is the SNP’s failure since coming into government to show any kind of strategic leadership. Many leading lights in the McKie campaign are part of the current Administration, and that overly aggressive campaign unfairly targeted the fingerprint services and shamefully hounded decent public servants who, by the very nature of their employment, were unable to defend themselves. What I would have hoped for when the SNP came to power, and with a newly reformed service in the shape of the SPSA, was an opportunity to invest in that service, to provide a boost to staff morale and to rebuild a sense of loyalty, belonging and pride. Instead we have had a series of decisions that have left staff not knowing which way to turn. Worse than that, in fact, is that the SNP has typically managed to face two ways at the same time with local members like Mr Adam trying to profess undying loyalty to his local service while his own leaders and front benchers are pulling the rug from under his feet with plans to break up the service, shut down Aberdeen and close or merge bureaux.

I appreciate that Government ministers are not supposed to involve themselves in operational decisions, but when so much bad news emanates from one organisation, I certainly expect the minister to take a more hands-on approach. As several members, including Cathie Craigie, have already pointed out, it is not good enough for the minister simply to sit back and say that he does not know. He should be asking questions himself.

If, as we all expect, the fingerprint inquiry, which is about to report, makes a number of recommendations about the organisation’s structure or practices, why on earth is the SPSA pre-empting the findings by restructuring now? I note, too, that Audit Scotland is also due to report in a matter of weeks.

On an issue of even greater insensitivity, why has the minister approved the appointment of three new directors of service at a time when they are supposedly trying to get rid of dozens of members of staff? I have nothing against the individuals involved, but advertising such highly paid posts when the organisation is trying to make savings, and people all around are worried about keeping their jobs, strikes me as being crass in the extreme.

More objectionable still is the way in which the minister has allowed the SPSA to offer large redundancy sums to people in senior positions only to rehire them on even more generous consultancy fees. In its first year of operation, the SPSA spent just under £1 million on private firms to advise on training, management, consultancies, computers, advertising and public relations and, in the six months after that, spent a further £800,000 on consultants.

Personally, I had little or no faith in the action plan for the fingerprint service that the previous chief executive, David Mulhern, brought in. However, from what I can gather, those reforms have been abandoned less than three years after their introduction. Given that the fingerprint verification unit, too, seems to have gone, we now have the bizarre situation in which, even before the fingerprint inquiry has reported, the SPSA has abandoned both anonymity and any kind of hierarchy of expertise in the checking system.

A very worrying development for our criminal justice system’s integrity is the suspicion that these changes are already having an effect on scene-of-crime examinations and the collection of evidence. I have heard that some case loads are being reduced by simply not sending examiners to crime scenes that would in the past have automatically received the full spectrum of analysis and examination. When I have asked parliamentary questions on the subject, I have found, as with other issues to do with the SPSA, the answers to be far from satisfactory. If the information is not available to the Parliament, is not it time that the minister started asking questions for himself? The very suggestion that processes are being allowed to slip or that we do not have total confidence will be pounced on by defence lawyers. The SPSA is an accountable public body; the minister, too, needs to demonstrate that accountability.

The common theme that has run through this debate is that we need greater transparency. When public services are under siege, it is up to the Government to be straight, not secretive. Ministers need in their dealings to offer honesty and openness. The picture is not a good one. The SNP has made a mess when it had every opportunity to revitalise and renew the service. I call upon the minister now to be open and transparent. He needs to truly involve staff, and to make them feel wanted and help them feel proud. That way we will have a service that we can rely on.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

As far as the speeches we have heard so far are concerned, no one will be surprised to hear that members are standing up to seek to protect important jobs and services in the areas that they represent. That is entirely appropriate; indeed, it is to be expected, given the duty on MSPs to do their best for their constituents.

I fear, however, that we will see more of this pattern of debate in the coming months as Scotland’s reducing budget bites harder and harder and more jobs are put under threat around the country. As we have no control or flexibility over the size of Scotland’s budget, difficult decisions must be made that balance value for money with protecting essential services. Clearly, policing and supporting services such as forensics must be one of the Scottish Government’s most fundamental priorities, so I am sure that all members agree that we must do all that we can to continue the progress that has been made under this Administration in driving crime levels in Scotland to a 32-year low.

Although we do not know the precise cuts that the Treasury will impose on Scotland, it is clear that all budgets are facing unprecedented pressure. The SPSA report, which lays out the four options for forensic services, concludes that the most cost-effective option in the long term is the reduction or closure of services in Aberdeen and Edinburgh. However, it is important to acknowledge that all four options will deliver savings of varying amounts and that the proposals have been based on estimated projections instead of having been subjected to a detailed cost analysis. Although the intention is to conduct such an analysis after an option is chosen, surely it would be better for a decision of this kind to be based on a financial analysis that is beyond question.

That said, the decision is no simple balance sheet equation. Just as important as delivering value for money is the need to maintain the quality of the service that is available to police forces around the country. There are real concerns that centralising forensic services will make it harder for police forces to access the knowledge and expertise of the highly skilled people who work in Scotland’s forensic laboratories. When forces set local priorities and seek to influence the work allocation of forensic services to match them, the efficacy of operations can significantly increase. With greater centralisation, it seems doubtful that that would continue to be as readily possible. When minutes and hours can make all the difference in an investigation, it also seems to be only common sense to conclude that it is a good thing to maintain reduced travelling times to laboratories.

Moreover, the inevitable risk with any relocation of this kind is that highly experienced members of staff who have developed invaluable skills might find themselves unable to relocate, thereby depriving the police of their expertise. The SPSA’s own options paper clearly states that it has already experienced difficulty in attracting people with the right level of skills, so if centralisation goes ahead there is a real risk that the quality of the forensic services that will be available in the short term will decline.

In their in-depth response to the proposals, the Aberdeen lab staff make the valuable point that reducing the number of laboratories will have a knock-on effect on the service’s resilience. In the event of power cuts, attacks or other unforeseen circumstances, the ability to continue to provide vital forensics services could be drastically compromised.

I acknowledge that this is one of the many difficult decisions that falling budgets will force upon us in coming months, and that providing value for money is a major concern. These are difficult times and making uncosted spending demands without weighing up whether the benefits justify them helps nobody. However, I believe that the case for option two is robust and has been laid out best by the Aberdeen laboratory staff. I sincerely hope that, when the decision is made, we will continue to see forensic services in Aberdeen at the forefront of efforts to combat crime.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Politicians from across the north-east, from every political party, come here today not to bury the forensic lab in Aberdeen but to praise it. The only person who can bury the lab is the minister, and our fears on that front have only escalated this morning. I hope that the strength of feeling and the strength of our argument will change his mind.

The issue is vital in itself because, if the lab closes, more crimes in Aberdeen and the north-east will go undetected and more criminals will walk the streets of our city, but it also highlights another crucial issue—the increasing instinct of the SNP Government to centralise services, or the monolithic ministerial mandate. Right across not only Aberdeen but the whole of the north and north-east of Scotland, we are increasingly against centralisation, and especially against the building of a flagship new facility in the central belt.

Let us be clear that people in Aberdeen are astonished and appalled that, in the face of opposition from the local police, the local police board and the forensic service, the closure of the Aberdeen lab remains a real and present danger. My first question is why, when the minister could remove the uncertainty today, is there still doubt about the lab’s future? Why does the sword of Damocles still hang over it? Why have the recommendations of the SPSA been kept secret? Why has the minister not demanded to see those recommendations before today’s vital debate? Why has he not made it his priority to reveal those recommendations to the Parliament today? Minister, your excuses today simply do not stack up. It smacks of cover-up.

My next question is why the SNP is increasingly against Aberdeen and the north-east. We all know that, in opposition, SNP members would have been clamouring and clambering over each other to mount the barricades and to fight to save the lab. We now have an SNP Government that wants to close our local prison with no proposals for community or remand facilities, that wants to close our local forensic lab, and that refuses to give our council a fair funding settlement.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I remind the member that the issue is not only about Aberdeen and the north-east. The closure would probably have an even greater impact on the Highlands and Islands.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I understand the point fully. At the many points in my speech where I say “Aberdeen”, please include the north-east, the whole of the north of Scotland and the islands.

Why has the Government changed? Let me suggest an answer. The minister is in the closing months of his time in office and he is increasingly under the influence of the officials and the bureaucrats, whose instincts are unerringly for secrecy and centralisation. We are told that the SPSA failed to forward its recommendations to the minister before today’s debate. Let me quote from section 8 of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006, which established the SPSA. It states:

“The Authority must comply with any reasonable request from the Scottish Ministers to provide them with any information on the Authority’s activities.”

That is what is called a catch-all. It means that the minister can ask for anything. Minister, at the stroke of a pen, we could—we should—have had from you today the information that we require to make a proper decision and to have a proper debate and argument on the issue.

My simple plea is this: get a grip of these crucial issues. You do not have to centralise. You do not have to target Aberdeen, the north-east and the north. You have the power to decide. The buck stops with you. However, if you choose to close the lab in Aberdeen when you eventually get the recommendations from the SPSA, you should remember that politicians from every political party in the north-east will be against you, the police will be against you, and the forensic experts in both in the laboratories and the universities will be against you. Closure would be a criminals’ charter and a decision that nobody in Aberdeen would understand or support.

Minister, please stand up for local decision making and local excellence in tackling crime. Stand up for the forensic lab in Aberdeen, because in the final analysis there can be only one correct decision. If you keep the Aberdeen forensic lab open, you will, on this issue at least, receive the overwhelming backing and support of the Parliament and all the political parties who are here this morning.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I learned everything I know about the issue from constituents who work at either Howden Hall or Fettes. I hope that the cabinet secretary will also meet his constituents who work in the local forensic service as that is not inconsistent with his position and responsibilities. I welcome his and my constituents and others to the public gallery today.

We all know that we have to make hard decisions about saving money in the next few weeks and do that in a way that is consistent with not having a serious adverse effect on services, but what is strange about the subject before us is not only that striking adverse effects would result from centralisation but that centralisation does not even save very much money. In the official costings in the options paper, there is very little difference between options one and three or between options two and four. Also, questions have been asked about some of the costings. To give one of several examples, the stated transport costs of centralisation are questionably low, at £160,000, and there is no allowance for the initial capital cost of vehicles for transporting samples around Scotland. Moreover, the hidden costs to customers are not addressed at all.

I will go on to talk about that, but before I do, I want to mention a general concern about the lack of detail in options three and four and the lack of detail on the views of stakeholders. An e-mail from Tom Nelson to staff said that no unanimous view has come from stakeholders. We would not expect that, but was there a clear majority view? We need to know how the selection was arrived at. There has to be a clear presentation of the selection process, with documents, to show how customers’ views were taken into account. If that is not released, I am sure that it will be asked for in a freedom of information request.

Of course we need modernisation and savings, but whichever option is chosen, we already have a common IT system and a five-year transformation plan. Moreover, option two includes provision for centralising less-used services, standardising procedures and systems and integrating the four sites into one management system although, strangely, the use of automated disclosure processes is applied only to options three and four.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Will the member take an intervention?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I will if I have time, but I will see whether I can get through my material first.

Turning to Edinburgh, my main concern is that the excellent facility in the city should not be closed or radically downgraded. It is a highly respected facility and its closure would lead to results not being obtained fast enough and to investigations being jeopardised. Only yesterday, the forensic service in Edinburgh had a key role to play in a massive drugs operation in my constituency, on which I congratulate the police and the forensic service. Without the forensic service, it simply would not have been possible. The 24-hour drugs service that we have in Edinburgh allows the charging within six hours that various members have mentioned, but it also allows a rapid turnaround for test purchasing and other purposes.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Does the member agree that, although the SPSA produced four options in its consultation, it is clear from the submissions that we are aware of that variations on those options are already before the SPSA? Would it be unfortunate if members decided that they were in favour of only one of the SPSA options rather than modifications of them that could be beneficial all round?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I listen to my constituents, and I am sure that Brian Adam listens to his constituents. Those who have put views to me are in favour of option two.

Over and above the drugs service to which I have referred, the service is important for many other types of investigation. For example, it provides crucial DNA analysis and fingerprint identifications in many cases. Local scientific experts are also able to attend major scenes quickly. Fast responses in all such areas are vital for the police and the procurator fiscal, but speed is not the only issue. I will give just one example. I have been told that, in Edinburgh, the percentage purity of drugs in all seizures over 1g is analysed, whereas the figure in Strathclyde is over 250g. Therefore, if there was centralisation in Glasgow, there would be either a greatly increased workload there or a significant loss of an element of the service for Lothian and the Borders.

Finally, there are some strange assumptions about a reducing workload in the options paper. For example, it mentions having two or three gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, or GCMS, machines for the whole of Scotland, but I have been told that control samples have not been factored into the calculations. A second example is Cozart testing. The paper assumes that that will reduce the workload, but I have been told that there has been no significant drop in demand for laboratory analysis in Edinburgh. That is the chemistry side. There has also been a big increase in biology cases and in the demand for DNA analysis.

I will conclude, as my time is up. Options three and four are full of risks. There are cost risks, but more important, risks that perpetrators will not be identified and that insufficient evidence will be generated to secure convictions. Members should therefore reject options three and four and support option two.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I, too, acknowledge the invaluable service that Scotland’s forensic services provide to our justice system and communities. As the director of the SPSA said:

“forensic science is the key to unlocking many investigations which in turn can save thousands of hours of expensive police time.”

He said that it can also play an increasingly important role that could ultimately help prevent crime.

There is no doubt that, in the past, there have been inconsistencies in forensic service provision throughout Scotland, and there is no disagreement about the need to modernise. If crime is to be dealt with swiftly and effectively, speedy and efficient forensic services that can produce fast results for all crimes, from murder right down to robberies and housebreakings, are needed. It is accepted that that requires a national forensic service that recognises the needs of local communities, the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. There is ready acceptance that modernisation is required and that the status quo is not an option. It is also recognised that on-going efficiency savings have to be made, given the inevitable impact of the current financial strictures on our public services.

The consultation that the SPSA embarked on last year was welcome, as it followed what was widely seen as a flawed and biased original consultation process. I found the words of the SPSA’s director in July to be quite encouraging. He said that he and his colleagues, together with customers and stakeholders, wanted to ensure that, within the available financial resources, forensic science made the best possible contribution to delivering safer communities in Scotland.

As we know, four options were presented for consideration, and the SPSA board’s recommendation has now been decided. It is deeply disturbing and frustrating to many people that the chosen option is not being made public. It is clear that members across the chamber believe that we should be told what future structure for the national forensic service has been recommended. We feel very let down by the cabinet secretary.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I share Nanette Milne’s view that it would have been better if the recommendation had been published, but does she accept that that recommendation may not be option one, two, three or four, and that it could be a modification on the basis of the submissions that have been made?

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We do not know that. We are being kept in the dark on the issue. I hope that we can be assured that, in reaching the recommendation to the Government, the SPSA board gave all four options equal and unbiased consideration.

As a North East Scotland MSP, I have concerns that closure of the forensic laboratory in Aberdeen would have a detrimental effect on future service delivery throughout the Grampian Police and Northern Constabulary areas. There is no doubt that Lothian and Borders MSPs have similar concerns about the potential closure of the Edinburgh lab. The issue has united politicians across the political spectrum, because we all recognise how important the forensic services are to the wellbeing of the communities that we serve.

I do not intend to rehearse all the concerns that have been expressed about the potential loss of the Aberdeen lab, but I want to highlight the inevitability of an increased turnaround time, which would adversely impact on the speed with which criminals are identified and brought to justice. That could be a significant issue for the Aberdeen area, which has a particularly high incidence of drugs-related crime and a serious incidence of crack cocaine abuse. There would be significantly more movement of forensic material between the Grampian and Highland areas and the Dundee laboratory, which would lead to as yet unspecified transportation costs, security issues and environmental impacts as a result of repeated journeys by road.

From our study of the options paper, my party reached the conclusion that option two—the base case and evidence management solution—gives the most viable alternative to the status quo, as it would ensure that services would remain accessible throughout Scotland and lead to savings of £5.6 million over five years, followed by savings of £2 million a year thereafter, from 2012-13. Option two is also favoured by staff in the service, who are very receptive to change and are ready to move forward. They are dedicated and expert providers of the service, and I hope that their views have been given the attention that they deserve.

The past few years have been extremely worrying and unsettling for the many people involved in providing the essential forensic services on which we all rely. I hope that, having listened to members, the cabinet secretary’s response to the SPSA’s recommendation will allay our fears and lead to a modernised national forensic service in Scotland that we can all be proud of.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I always take great delight in such debates. They are full of hope, partnership and the desire to engage constructively in the subject matter, and arguments in them are presented in a positive and forward-looking manner. They are a pleasure.

To be serious, the commitment and passion that members across the chamber have demonstrated clearly show the high esteem in which they hold our forensic services in Scotland.

It is important to know the background facts, so I would like to remind members of some of the SNP Government’s great achievements. I know that members always like to hear about those achievements—I can tell by the noise—and I am delighted to indulge them.

The SNP manifesto commitment on an extra 1,000 police officers has been more than achieved, and they have had an effect. They are part of the reason why there has been a 32-year low in crime rates. That is an excellent effect that the SNP Government has produced, and it demonstrates that Scotland is safer.

Anyone who has been following the news cannot have failed to notice the emphasis that there has been on tackling serious and organised crime. Drug dealers are getting longer sentences under the SNP Government. With strong political backing, our police forces are putting the bad guys behind bars. The SNP Government is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime: the criminals.

Part of the force—the successful team—that is arrayed against those criminals is, of course, our forensic capability. That forensic prowess, from a service that is essential to policing, relies on the specialist staff who are employed in each of Scotland’s eight force areas, as well as on the experts who are employed in the fingerprint departments and laboratories by the Scottish Police Services Authority. The services that are under review, which are mentioned in the motion, are the four laboratories, not the scene-of-crime teams or the fingerprint teams. The services that are under review are provided by the forensic scientists.

I have been told that the fastest way to upset a police forensic scientist is to compare their work to what happens in the “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation” television programme and to say that our forensic teams would love to be able to stroll into a crime scene, spray some magic powder, shine an ultraviolet light, and then be able to tell whodunnit and how. However, the reality is that we are talking about serious and dedicated professional scientists who deliver an excellent service and help us to make Scotland a safer country.

They do not sweep in with sirens and flashing lights and they do not make arrests—they leave that to the police. They do not make prosecution decisions or construct a case—they leave that to the procurators fiscal. They do not decide what can and cannot be used as evidence or take sentencing decisions—they leave that to the courts. What they do is to provide analysis of the evidence that is presented to assist those other people to do their jobs. They do that well and conscientiously and without fanfare. They work as quickly as possible, but take as much time as is needed to get the job done properly, and they make sure that it is done properly. They will continue to do that.

The idea in the motion that the possible reorganisation would somehow threaten the

“speedy access to evidence for the detection of those responsible for crimes and the prevention of further offences”

is an insult to those scientists. They will not hold up the processing of evidence and nor will they take longer than is necessary. Neither the individual scientists nor the SPSA would suggest any reorganisation or new practice that would impact adversely on their ability to do their job well and in good time.

Employment concerns will surface in the mind of anyone whose place of work is under review. Everybody’s place of work seems to be under review these days and everybody is nervous about it.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The member’s certainly is.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am sure that members across the chamber, including Mr Rumbles, will understand those employment concerns. Trying to use them to make a partisan political point cannot be understood. That is little-boy politics, when this country—at this time perhaps more than at any other—needs real, grown-up politics.

While the Cabinet Secretary for Justice waits for the recommendations of the review—I note that the motion suggests that they have already been delivered—the Parliament could have spent its time better on other topics. As eloquent as the debate is, it can add nothing without the report having been delivered.

We should praise and thank the forensic scientists of the SPSA. Without their help, the job of our police forces, prosecutors and courts would be much harder. We should do those scientists the courtesy of waiting until all the evidence is before us before we debate the future of the service that they provide. The SPSA was established in 2007 and has done a tremendous job since then. It is reviewing the tools that it needs to do the job effectively. We should allow it to complete its review and we could do with some adult politics when it has done so.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I call Peter Peacock, who has three minutes.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

As my time is limited, I move straight to the remarks that the cabinet secretary made about Northern Constabulary—I speak from its perspective and that of west Grampian—and the fact that it should not be concerned about a move of services from Aberdeen to Dundee, as Dundee is not much more distant than Aberdeen. The point that comes out the most is that the current arrangements work perfectly adequately and have served the region well. I am not aware of any analysis that suggests failings in the current arrangements that could be remedied by the move that is on the cards.

Northern Constabulary brings a regional perspective to the debate. In our country, it is important that we disperse jobs and share the prosperity of highly skilled jobs throughout the country. We should resist the centralising tendencies that all bureaucracies tend to bring to the table.

As members are aware, there is a debate about the future configuration of police services. One scenario that is being developed—although no one knows whether it will come to pass—is the merging of Northern Constabulary and Grampian Police. In the light of the possibility—it is only a possibility—of such wider reorganisation, it seems premature to remove services from Aberdeen, which is in the Grampian Police area, to another force area.

One option is to leave some services in Aberdeen but ask Northern Constabulary to refocus and send some of its work to Dundee. That would split the way in which the force works and interrupt the trusting and strong relationships and good working practices that have developed over a period. It would also leave less capacity in Aberdeen, which might have consequences for the work that would still go from Northern Constabulary to Aberdeen, so there is a risk attached to that option.

There are strong transport connections from parts of the Highlands to Aberdeen, particularly the ferry and plane services from Shetland and Orkney, and also from Wick. Those connections can aid the speed of response. However, there are no similar direct connections between Inverness and the wider Highlands with Dundee.

The Northern joint police board has expressed concern that every one of the options presents some risk for the force, as Malcolm Chisholm set out, and it has stated that it is not necessary to entertain that risk given the satisfactory nature of the current arrangements. When ministers decide on the issue, they need to be aware of Northern Constabulary’s position on the matter, which Mary Scanlon and other members have mentioned. There is clear concern about the direction of travel, the interruption to good existing services, the potential loss of expertise and experience, the loss of transport connections and the lack of attention to volume. For all those reasons, I hope that the minister will listen carefully to that perspective in making a decision.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

As George Foulkes and others did, I welcome to the public gallery the staff from the forensic laboratories in Edinburgh and Aberdeen.

The debate has more importance than almost any other debate in which I have taken part in the past four years, because wrong decisions with regards to forensic laboratories in Scotland would have serious consequences for the solving of crime throughout Scotland, but most particularly in Edinburgh and in Aberdeen and the north, as Peter Peacock highlighted. I accept that the minister has not yet seen the recommendation from the SPSA, but I hope to provide him with reasons not to accept options three or four, if that is the proposition from the SPSA.

We heard recently that crime rates are falling. The figures that were published at the beginning of September show that recorded crime decreased by 10 per cent between 2008-09 and 2009-10 and that, in the Lothian and Borders area, the number of incidents fell from 70,524 to 64,943, which is a reduction of almost 8 per cent. It is even more encouraging that, in 2009-10, the figure for crimes and offences that are cleared up by the police as a percentage of those recorded reached its highest-ever level, at 49 per cent, which is up by 5 per cent from 2000-01.

I believe that much of that improvement in solvency rates is a result of quick forensic examination by labs on the spot locally. Lothian and Borders Police is at the forefront of that, because the lab in Edinburgh gives quick access and turnaround of cases. As Robert Brown said, the loss of the labs in Edinburgh and Aberdeen would have a serious effect on the capacity to turn round cases quickly, not just in those areas, but in other places.

I recently met a large number of the staff at the Edinburgh lab. As Lewis Macdonald and others said, they are concerned for their future. They explained to me that many of the cases with which they deal are sent by other police forces, particularly Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary. That is because, as Ken Macintosh highlighted, the closest lab, which is in Glasgow, is busy and the turnaround time is not good. Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary therefore sends its cases to Edinburgh, where the lab is much quicker and the range of cases that are dealt with is much greater. Malcolm Chisholm referred to the fact that even seizures of 1g of drugs are frequently analysed. He also referred to the crime bust on drugs in his constituency. That sort of thing happens all the time in Lothian. The loss of the lab in Edinburgh would produce much greater delays, which would lead to less solved crime. In the long term, will we be able to maintain the solvency rates at 49 per cent or will we go backwards and have less crime solved as a result?

MSPs from Lothian recently met Chief Constable David Strang, his deputy, Steve Allen, and other senior police officers. Any one of them will confirm that senior police officers in Lothian are extremely concerned at the prospect of losing the lab in Edinburgh. Indeed, the deputy chief constable has written to the chief executive of the SPSA expressing serious concerns about the possibility of option three or four being adopted.

The week before I met the chief constable, the police board in Edinburgh voted unanimously not to support options three or four and to support option two. I understand that it is not the only police board or authority to take that stance; I understand that Grampian Police and Northern Constabulary have also voiced very serious concerns about proposals to adopt options three or four.

I am not sure that I agree with Richard Baker about the quality of the consultation. I thought that Maureen Watt made a very good speech that highlighted a number of issues that the consultation did not address, particularly the cost analysis and what will happen to the staff.

When I visited the lab in Edinburgh, the staff said that they were the ones who were telling the police and the procurator fiscal’s office that the consultation was going on and what it was saying. There seemed to be a real lack of awareness among the front-line services about what the SPSA was proposing.

The SPSA wants to save money and in its options paper it outlines various ways of saving anywhere between £1.75 million and £3.5 million up to 2015. The review must be not just about saving money. As David Strang and others said, the most important thing is to ensure that the service continues to be provided on the same basis as it is provided now.

I agree with Brian Adam and Nicol Stephen that if the service is diluted by closing either or both the Aberdeen and Edinburgh labs, we will end up with greater delays in solving crime, which will allow criminals to get away with their crimes: they will be back on the street and crime rates will start to go up again. What will we do as a consequence of that?

I hope that the minister finds the necessary savings, which the SPSA wants, to which he—or somebody else—referred, from another part of his budget. I suggest that those savings might come from police budgets or other budgets. Police forces might not like that, but the national forensic service is the most important service that we have. If we want to keep the present high-quality forensic service in Scotland, we have to reject options three and four. I urge the minister to accept option two.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

This debate has reflected the wholly unsatisfactory nature of the consultation process on the review of forensic services, which bears all the hallmarks of a rush to reach a predetermined conclusion, despite all the usual warm words and blandishments about openness and engagement.

Intriguingly, the SPSA options paper states:

“Once we have captured and assessed views on the options from staff, customers and stakeholders across Scotland, it will be for the SPSA Board to agree the way forward to recommend to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.”

The SPSA might well have captured views, but it has certainly not released them. Indeed, this whole process is an affront to the very concept of openness in decision making.

The SPSA board took a decision on the recommendation that it would make to the cabinet secretary at its meeting on 13 September. That decision was made on the basis of a report from its executive officers, to which was appended a summary of the responses received from the various stakeholders who had participated in the six-week consultation on the options paper. That report, and that summary, remain secret.

I am told by the SPSA that it is now seeking permission to publish the responses, but quite why the consultation was not conducted on the basis that all responses would be published as a matter of course, unless there was a very good reason to the contrary, is beyond me.

I have a copy of the submissions that Lothian and Borders Police and the Lothian and Borders police joint board made, but that is because the police made them available to me and other members—it is no thanks to the SPSA. I would like to have known what other police boards and other police forces had to say for the purpose of this debate, but I do not know, because that information is deliberately being withheld.

The Government amendment states that the SPSA has still to make a recommendation to the cabinet secretary. That is sophistry of a very low order, because, as we all know, the SPSA board has already made a decision. Does anyone here truly believe that neither Mr MacAskill nor any of his officials know what that decision is? If that were the case, Mr MacAskill would have a great career ahead of him in the United States military as the supreme exponent of the don’t ask, don’t tell policy.

Why is there an apparent delay in submission? Why do we have this elaborate pretence and charade that the cabinet secretary does not know, which leaves him today without a shred of credibility? Why have the responses and the SPSA board report not been published in time for today’s debate, which was known about a week ago?

This Parliament’s ability to have a debate on the four options that is informed by the various submissions, and our ability as individual MSPs to take a wider-Scotland view, as well as argue quite properly for our local interests, is severely circumscribed by the elaborate and secretive nature of the process put in place by the SPSA in cahoots with Mr MacAskill and the Scottish Government. That is a disgrace and an insult to the Parliament and the staff who work in forensic services. That is the answer to the SNP members who have complained about the motion and the timing of the debate. If the SPSA had published all the evidence, we could have had a more informed discussion on it, but it has not and that is the SNP Government’s fault.

As the constituency member for Edinburgh Pentlands, I have had representations from constituents who work in the Edinburgh laboratory. Along with George Foulkes, I met a staff deputation here in the Parliament at the end of last month. Clearly people are concerned about the loss or relocation of their jobs and the impact that that would have on their family, which is understandable. We have been here before with job dispersal programmes, which have a difficult human dimension, however good they might sound in practice. However, what shone through in our discussion was not just the professionalism and skill of the staff, to which other members have referred, but a real concern about the effect that the adoption of any option that involves the closure or scaling down of the Edinburgh laboratory will have on the quality of the service available to police and prosecutors in the Lothians and the Borders. That concern is quite properly reflected in the submissions that our police board and our chief constable made. Just like George Foulkes and Mike Pringle, as an MSP for Edinburgh, I am not prepared to vote for such an option.

I am strengthened in that view because, even in these difficult financial times, the savings that can be achieved by adopting any of the four options in the paper are speculative, marginal and superficial, because in some cases they would result simply in the transfer of costs from the SPSA budget back to the Lothian and Borders Police budget, which might please one set of accountants but would make no overall difference to the public purse.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Will the member give way?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I must finish.

I ask the Parliament to support Richard Baker’s motion, the amendments in the name of my colleague John Lamont and the amendment in the name of Robert Brown, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I also invite the cabinet secretary to respect the decision that Parliament makes today when he finally gets round to reading his papers and making his decision. He and his department have a reputation for being at odds with this Parliament. This would be a very good time to get on side.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I reiterate what we agree on: the excellent service provided by the forensic science and fingerprint service, to which Mary Scanlon referred in relation to incidents in Orkney and to which others referred in relation to incidents in the city of Edinburgh and elsewhere. I know how grateful the Lord Advocate was to the service when forensic science played a fundamental role in ensuring that justice was done after the recent tragic murder of Moira Jones in the city of Glasgow. It is appropriate that we put on record once again our support for forensic science staff.

It is regrettable that Nicol Stephen, as a former Deputy First Minister, should seek to traduce those who work within the justice department, whether at St Andrew’s house or elsewhere. We as a Government think that we are blessed and well served by all those who work within justice, whether at local or national level, in agencies, as part of the police or Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, in prisons or anywhere else. Mr Stephen’s comments were unfortunate and disrespectful to those who previously served him.

However, let us also accept that there have been difficulties. I refer both to the genesis of the SPSA, which happened, of course, under a previous Administration, and to the initial consultation. As I said, as a Government, we accepted that the initial consultation was not done appropriately, and we ensured that the SPSA went back and did it again. I reiterate that we have made no decision. Matters are on a steadier keel under Vic Emery—

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The cabinet secretary touched on the importance of taking advice. Will he take advice from Steve Allen, the deputy chief constable of our police force in Lothian and Borders, who said that the

“financial assumptions in the report lack detail and rigour”

and that “further work” still needs to be done to ensure that the decisions that are taken are taken properly? I agree with him: the decision should be option two.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I made it clear at the outset that I am prepared to listen to anyone who seeks to correspond with me and that I will await the report from the SPSA. I will take cognisance of that and I will take on board the views of the chamber. As I said, I am prepared to take representations from elsewhere. Clearly, Mr Allen falls within that category. I would have thought that that was self-evident, but for the avoidance of doubt, I reiterate that if Mr Allen or anyone else at Lothian and Borders wishes to speak to me, I am more than happy to hear them.

As I said, the SPSA came into being under the previous Administration. At the time, the Parliament felt it necessary to set up such an authority; we agreed with that. Clearly, changes are coming, and we require to address them. Some of them are financial, and we are required to take them on board.

It is regrettable that Labour has come—certainly, its front-bench spokesmen have—with the argument that it is simply no fair that somehow or other the report has not reached my desk. They are immensely upset about that. The report will come, but it is not here and it is not with civil servants. I am assured that it has just not arrived. I do not know whether it has been despatched or not. The fact of the matter is that I do not have it. [Interruption.] I say to Mr Rumbles that the Lib Dems may say that they would have acted differently, but I think that I have to read the report. I assume that it is not going to be two sides of A4—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the minister give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

No. Mr Rumbles has had his chance to speak—and usually from a sedentary position.

I will read the report and give it the consideration that it deserves. I will take into account the points that others have made. We should recognise that the changes also have to be taken into account.

It is appropriate that John Lamont and Robert Brown are keeping a more open mind on the subject. Brian Adam made a significant and sensible point in his speech. As he said, we should remember that I will get the report from the SPSA on the four options. [Interruption.] I say to Mr Rumbles that I do not have to accept any recommendations. He and Mr Stephen may feel that they are required to accept the report as gospel—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the minister allow me to answer that?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

No. I will accept no interventions, sedentary or otherwise, from Mr Rumbles.

The fact of the matter is that I will await the report, I will consider it, I will take account of the positions that are stated in representations, and I will then make a decision.

We have to accept that the SPSA is affected by matters, the first of which is the significant financial challenges that we face. Mr Pringle articulated the Lib Dem position, which is that savings can come from a cut in police numbers. We do not view that as a sensible strategy.

The SPSA could make cuts elsewhere, and I listened to the points that the Tories made in that regard. However, let us look at the arguments that the Tories and the Lib Dems in particular have made about the matters that we are debating. The Home Secretary south of the border has announced that the Security Industry Authority may be abolished. The UK Border Agency took unilateral action at Stranraer and Cairnryan that had a fundamental effect on justice in Scotland. I say to David McLetchie that I recall no one discussing those decisions with us—there has been no consideration of them. I view the decisions as extremely detrimental to the safety and security of communities from the north-east to the south-west of Scotland. I will take no criticism on these matters from members who represent the coalition forces south of the border.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

There is, of course, the cabinet secretary’s duty to ensure that the Executive consults properly the Parliament on issues of this import. Advice could surely have been given on the SPSA recommendations. When he makes his decision, will he give a statement to the chamber so that members can question him on the matter?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Whether statements are made is a decision not for the Government but for the Parliamentary Bureau.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

No.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

If Mr Baker wishes such a statement, no doubt he will arrange for that to happen, and, as a member of the bureau, Mr McLetchie will deal with the matter.

The SPSA has to address matters. We face significant financial challenges. We can cut police numbers, we can cut the SPSA—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

No. I am coming to the end of my time.

We must also recognise that forensic science has moved on. How we deal with these matters is subject to change. Some will be scientific changes and some will be innovative and significant changes that come from those who work within the SPSA, who have driven forward the boundaries of forensic science. Equally, as Mr Brown said, we have made legislative changes, in the length of detention, for example, and change has come from Supreme Court judgments. All of that has an impact on how we conduct forensic science.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I think that you have now consulted the standing orders. The minister has misled the Parliament, whether intentionally or unintentionally—I assume unintentionally. He must be aware that it is not up to the Parliamentary Bureau to decide on ministerial statements. The request for such a statement must come from the Government.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Mr MacAskill.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I will take that on board. If the chamber feels that a parliamentary statement should be made, I am more than happy to make one. Mr Baker and Mr Rumbles frequently ask for parliamentary statements. A limited amount of time is available—[Interruption.] We can discuss and debate the matter—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am afraid that you have to stop now, minister.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I have made no decision. I will listen to representations from outside the chamber and from within it, and I will act accordingly to ensure that our communities are safe and secure.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I welcome the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party. Unlike Christina McKelvie, I believe that the debate has been excellent. Indeed, it was an excellent use of parliamentary time.

We heard from Lewis Macdonald about the 33 months of uncertainty that the forensic service has had to go through and the effect that that has had on staff. That view was also articulated by Ken Macintosh. We also heard from David McLetchie about the unsatisfactory nature of some of the consultation. The debate has acted as a platform to allow members across the chamber, from all parties, to articulate their views and concerns, and their support, in particular, for option two.

Given the SPSA’s spend of £30 million, it is absolutely correct that we examine the best way forward for the service in the 21st century. Like other members, I pay tribute to those who work in the service. There is no doubt that forensic investigation has advanced tremendously in recent years. As many members pointed out, great use of science, DNA and information technology is made—indeed, that is crucial to securing convictions. George Foulkes used the example of DNA evidence in a recent rape case. There are 2,000 unsolved rape cases in Scotland; the conviction rate for that offence is at its lowest for 25 years. There is no doubt that the use of DNA and the support of our forensic services are absolutely crucial.

It would have been better if the cabinet secretary had been able to bring forward the published option from the SPSA, but that is something that we are becoming used to from the SNP. We saw it when there were demands for the budget to be published and when the SNP failed to bring forward its much-vaunted referendum bill. People get the impression of an Administration that is beginning to drift as it reaches the end of its time in office.

It is extremely unsatisfactory that, nine days after the SPSA board discussed the issue, the cabinet secretary has not been able to bring the recommended option to the Parliament. Indeed, he told the chamber that he has not yet had the recommendation. That is the answer of a jobsworth. It is not good enough. In the 21st century, people are looking for cutting-edge leadership, but they are getting something that is akin to Bill and Ben, the flowerpot men.

As other members have said, it is clear that there is strong support in the chamber for option two.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

The Labour Party has decided to support option two before it has even seen what the SPSA has to say. Why is it so anti-Dundee?

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

Having been a frequent visitor to Dundee in recent years, I assure Mr FitzPatrick that I am not anti-Dundee. Option two will allow us both to retain the facilities at Edinburgh and Aberdeen and to seek to maximise the use of the new facilities at Dundee and Gartcosh. It is completely untrue that we are anti-Dundee.

Option two will enable us to retain more local expertise, to maximise service delivery and to make the most of efficiencies, as Ken Macintosh said. In February, Strathclyde police authority indicated that it had issues with cases coming from Dumfries and Galloway and that it was unable to address the resulting backlog of work, which had to be diverted to Edinburgh. There are efficiency issues that need to be addressed to enable us to maximise our handling of demand.

Like other members, I think that there are weaknesses in the other options. I point out to the cabinet secretary that option two represents a saving of £5.663 million. Maureen Watt was correct when she said that we must look not just at the bottom-line numbers but at the effect that each option would have on the service that is delivered.

There are obvious weaknesses in options three and four, in particular. There is the issue of relocation of staff. Linked to that is the issue of losing key staff members. Anyone who has looked at organisations in the public or private sector will know that they operate well when they build up staff expertise over a number of years. It is one thing to have a lot of qualifications, but nothing can beat experience. If we close some existing labs, we will lose some of the available expertise and experience, which will undermine the effectiveness of forensic services in Scotland.

Options three and four fail to take into account the need for local analysis in turning around urgent casework. Robert Brown alluded to the six-hour deadline for interviews, which must be taken into account. As Malcolm Chisholm said, there are also transportation issues that need to be addressed.

It speaks volumes that the cabinet secretary clearly does not have the support of his chief whip, Brian Adam, who spoiled an excellent speech by bailing out towards the end. I point out that the motion is absolutely competent. The SPSA has made its recommendation—it just has not got it down to the cabinet secretary’s office. Perhaps it has been lost because of leaves on the line or some other spurious excuse.

It is time for SNP list members to stand up for their constituents; after all, ballots are now closed in the SNP selections for list candidates. I call on SNP list members to stand up for their constituents and to stand against the SNP machine. Let the Parliament take this chance to speak as one in support of a strong forensic service that will solve crimes in the pursuit of justice, on behalf of the whole of Scotland.

Emergency Question

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Under rule 13.8 of standing orders, an emergency question from Bill Butler, on the Commonwealth games in India, has been selected. We have up to 10 minutes for the question and any supplementary questions, which will need to be very brief.

Commonwealth Games (Delhi)

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the current situation is regarding Scotland’s participation in the Commonwealth games in Delhi, given the Commonwealth Games Council for Scotland’s concerns about the welfare of Scottish athletes in particular and the preparations for the games in general.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Serious health and safety concerns about the accommodation and environment at the athletes village in Delhi remain and must be addressed as a matter of urgency by the Indian authorities. This morning there was a meeting of the chefs de mission, which was attended by the Chief Minister of Delhi. She has taken over control of the situation and has guaranteed action to address the outstanding concerns. There appears to be growing confidence among the chefs de mission that things will now improve, but they will monitor the situation closely to ensure that there is delivery on the assurances that have been given.

The Commonwealth Games Federation will conduct an on-site inspection of the athletes village on Friday morning. We hope that the outcome of that inspection will allow Commonwealth Games Scotland to reassure athletes that the village is suitable for habitation.

Yesterday the First Minister chaired an emergency meeting of the Glasgow 2014 strategic group, at which Commonwealth Games Scotland gave all partners an update on the latest situation in Delhi. We will hold another meeting later today, to provide further updates.

Our people on the ground have reported that the sporting venues for the games seem to be in reasonable order and that there are no security concerns additional to those that were previously anticipated. The Scottish Government and its partners remain committed to the 2010 Commonwealth games and the presence of a strong team in Delhi. However, the safety of our athletes is paramount. All of us support whole-heartedly Commonwealth Games Scotland’s decision to delay our athletes’ departure for Delhi. My hope and expectation is that team Scotland will fly to Delhi in time to compete in the games.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

All of us want the Scottish athletes who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much to be able to participate in the games and to be successful. However, as the minister said, the health, safety and security of our team, officials and supporters are paramount. It is right that the Government has been working closely with the Commonwealth Games Council for Scotland in that regard.

Have Scottish ministers contacted directly counterparts in the Indian Government to seek assurances that matters can be put right? Will the minister continue to do everything in her power to assist the Indian Government? In addition, has the Scottish Government made contact with the other home nations? If so, what has been the result of those discussions? Finally, in the minister’s judgment—and I realise that circumstances can change very quickly—what is the likelihood of the Scottish team being able to begin to leave for Delhi on Saturday?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Bill Butler is right to say that our athletes have spent many years preparing for this event and are keen to go, but they are guided by Commonwealth Games Scotland. They have been very professional, especially when the media have asked them questions about their participation. Not one Scottish athlete has said that they will not attend the Delhi games, as long as Commonwealth Games Scotland says that it is safe for them to do so.

Bill Butler asked about representations. I have made representations to the Minister of Youth Affairs and Sports in the Indian Government, asking for issues and concerns to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Yesterday afternoon, the First Minister spoke to the Indian consul general in Scotland, Mr Anil Anand, and again raised concerns and sought assurances. A lot of discussions are taking place behind the scenes to get momentum. Yesterday I had a conference call with my counterparts in England, Northern Ireland and Wales to discuss concerns and the current position and to co-ordinate our action behind the scenes to put pressure on the Indian authorities to take action.

As I said in my initial answer, I expect that team Scotland will fly to Delhi in time to compete in the games. Whether it flies on Saturday will be a matter for Commonwealth Games Scotland. The Commonwealth Games Federation’s site visit to the village tomorrow will be important in that decision-making process.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Because of all of the concerns that have arisen in relation to the Delhi games, will the minister take this opportunity to give a progress report on Scotland’s preparations for its games in 2014?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Yes. Of course, 70 per cent of the venues in Glasgow are already there, and good progress is being made on the national indoor sports arena and the velodrome, which are on schedule. A commitment has been made to ensure that the handover of the athletes village will happen six months out from the games in 2014. Glasgow will absolutely be in a state of readiness for the Commonwealth games in 2014.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Is the minister aware that the organisational problems in Delhi could cause reputational damage to the Commonwealth games as an institution, with the risk of a negative impact on the games in Glasgow in 2014? What steps can the Government take to mitigate any negative impact?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Nanette Milne’s question is important, but the Commonwealth games brand is 80 years old. The brand has seen its ups and downs during its 80 years but it is a strong brand that will continue for many years to come. I am sure that the brand will survive the Delhi difficulties. The games that we put on in Glasgow will be a tremendous sporting event and, I am sure, will do the brand a great deal of good.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Notwithstanding the difficulties that have emerged and the urgent need to secure assurances, does the minister agree that to suggest or give the impression in any way that the organising committee in India is somehow the enemy is not conducive to securing a resolution or to the best interests of the games in Glasgow in 2014?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I agree with Ross Finnie. It is important that such an impression of the Delhi organising committee is not given. At the end of the day, the brand and its protection are important. We want the Delhi organising committee to resolve the difficulties.

One of the problems has been that for some months the Commonwealth Games Federation has been seeking assurances from the Delhi organising committee. Assurances were quite often given without necessarily reflecting the reality of the situation. I think that we all appreciate some of the cultural issues around the way in which decisions are perhaps made.

The important thing for all of us is to concentrate on getting the real concerns fixed. If there are issues to do with the way in which things have been handled, they are for a later stage. At the end of the day it is about getting issues fixed so that the games can go ahead.

Jack Wilson (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The minister will be aware that the difficulties in the Edinburgh games in 1986 had an impact way beyond the games. In particular, the boycott by African nations affected relationships between the rich and poor members of the Commonwealth.

An important aspect of the events of the next 10 days is that they do not have the impact of making countries from the poorer part of the Commonwealth think that in future their input might be less welcome, because countries that appear to be from the richer part of the Commonwealth questioned the organisation of the games. What action can the Scottish Government take to ensure that difficulties that are based simply on issues to do with organisation do not affect political relationships between Commonwealth countries of the north and the south, thereby ensuring that the games in Glasgow in 2014 are not affected by political challenges, which might lead to threats to pull out of the games?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Jack McConnell made important points. It is important that we focus on the fact that the issues are organisational issues.

I should say that countries from the north, south, east and west are expressing concern on behalf of their athletes—quite rightly—about the state of preparedness of the athletes village. We cannot get away from those real concerns.

The political relationship with India is important. Through Scotland house, we will make a great deal of effort during the Delhi games to make connections and enhance our relationship with India at a political level. I am sure that there will be no lasting damage to that relationship beyond the games.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Notwithstanding practical problems on the site, does the minister accept that non-participation by Scotland or any of the home nations would have serious repercussions for Glasgow 2014?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I am very confident indeed that the Scotland team will be in Delhi to participate and I am sure that it will do very well. I am sure that the Parliament wants to get behind the Scotland team. [Applause.]

River Esk (Management)

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has had discussions with the United Kingdom Environment Agency regarding the management of the River Esk in the south of Scotland. (S3O-11376)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Officials have regular discussions with their counterparts in the Environment Agency concerning the management of the border river Esk.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The minister will be aware of difficulties in recent weeks regarding the rod licensing regime, which the UK Environment Agency administers. During the past few days, the agency indicated that it is prepared to reach a compromise on the issue. The minister is aware that the issue causes great concern to the local communities. There are reports of a decline in business. People are deciding no longer to fish on the rivers because of their difficulties in getting the relevant licence.

Will the minister assure me and my constituents that the Scottish Government will do whatever it can to reach a solution with the UK Environment Agency, so that the issue can move forward and fishing on the rivers can return to normality?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I am happy to give John Lamont that assurance.

Ministers in Scotland currently have no role in relation to rod licences for salmon and freshwater fisheries in the border River Esk. John Lamont might know that the management of rivers on the border is subject to agreements with the UK Environment Agency, so that although English law applies on the Esk north of the border, Scottish law applies on the Tweed south of the border. There is a reciprocal arrangement, which needs to be taken into consideration.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I refer the minister to Sheriff Drummond’s observations in the case that concerned the matter. Sheriff Drummond said that there is scope to resolve the issue within current legislation, without the need to change the law. I presume that he meant English legislation that perhaps predates the setting up of the Scottish Parliament. In the circumstances, will the minister and her department consider exploring the matter with their counterparts in England?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I am happy to do that. I will have to look at the detail of Sheriff Drummond’s remarks. It is the case that the legislation that governs much of the matter goes back to the mid-1970s, and it might be time to reassess whether it is working for where we are now. I am happy to agree with Christine Grahame and John Lamont that we should take matters forward in conversation.

Use of Consultants (Guidelines for Public Bodies)

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive what guidelines it has issued to public bodies regarding the awarding of contracts to consultants. (S3O-11406)

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

The Scottish Government has had tough guidelines in place to control its use of consultants since December 2008. The guidelines are published on our website and set a good example for other public bodies to follow.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

The minister is no doubt aware that during the past few weeks, the Sunday Herald and the Scottish Mail on Sunday have run articles about the amounts that public bodies have spent on consultants, the manner in which certain consultants have been appointed and the need for consultants to be appointed in the first place. Given the content of the articles and the vast sums of money that public bodies and the Scottish Government are spending on consultants, can the minister assure the Parliament that he is satisfied that contracts have been properly awarded and were fully justified?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

As I said, guidance was issued in December 2008 on the use of consultants in the Scottish Government. We published the guidance to provide a common definition of consultancy services, to address probity requirements in the engagement and use of consultants and to ensure that we get maximum value when we use consultants. The guidance applies to all business areas, and agencies and non-departmental public bodies have been asked to implement similar procedures.

I am sure that Bill Butler is aware that under the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, which the Parliament passed recently, consultancy expenditure will be reported.

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Is the Scottish Government considering encouraging public bodies that award contracts to take account of criteria such as pay differentials and matters that are measured by social return on investment methodology?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

The member makes a reasonable point. I should point out to the chamber what the Government has done. John Swinney sent a very strong message to non-departmental public bodies and agencies in June when he asked them to provide leadership in their organisations. In that message he said that we—the Scottish Government—

“cut our centrally-held marketing budget by over five million pounds or over 50 per cent. We now have a presumption against external recruitment, strict controls on staff headcount numbers, and robust limits on the use of consultants”.

He expects non-departmental public bodies and agencies to follow suit.

Rail Freight (South-west Scotland)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to improve freight rail services in south-west Scotland. (S3O-11418)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Although the mode of transport for freight is a commercial decision for freight companies and their customers, the Government is committed to encouraging the transfer of freight to rail from less sustainable modes. We recently completed a widespread consultation with the rail freight industry to help us shape options for future rail freight opportunities across Scotland. That will feed into our next high-level output specification for Network Rail for the period beyond 2014. In the meantime, to enable companies to transport freight by rail or water rather than by road without financial penalty, we continue to offer support through freight mode shift grant schemes.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I thank the minister for the answer and, in particular, welcome his support for moving freight from road to rail. In that context, is he aware of the Ailsa Horizons proposal for a freight facility at Grangestone industrial estate in Girvan? Does he agree that such a development would not only boost the local economy but work towards the Scottish Government’s goal of ensuring that freight is removed from the road and put on to the railways?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am always very happy when I hear of companies that want to bring forward new proposals. In my visits around the country and my interactions with groups such as the Freight Transport Association, I have strongly made the point that we could do with more good-quality applications. I will certainly consider any such applications in a supportive way and with a view to seeing what support we can give.

Banking Services (Rural Areas)

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has had discussions with the banking sector regarding the provision of services in rural areas. (S3O-11444)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government continues to be regularly and fully engaged with the banking sector on a range of issues. I understand that banks are fully committed to finding flexible solutions, an example of which is the agreement reached by a wide range of banks to enable their customers to pay money into and withdraw money from their bank account at their local post office. That is already benefiting customers in small rural areas.

On providing business support at a local level, I am hosting an event on Monday 8 November, which will bring together all those who can support local, small business start-ups and business growth to discuss how that might be improved. They will include representatives from the banking sector, and the event will offer an opportunity to pull out intelligence and resources.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the minister join me in welcoming the expansion plans announced by Airdrie Savings Bank, Scotland’s last independently owned bank, which has announced its intention to open one or two new branches in the next 18 months? Does he share my concern that that stands in stark contrast to the plans by the publicly owned Royal Bank of Scotland to reduce significantly the opening hours of its rural branch in Abington, South Lanarkshire, despite making great play of its commitment to customer service, and with what appears to be very little consultation?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Airdrie Savings Bank goes from strength to strength. It was lauded in September 2008 in The Economist, and it is now looking to take its ethos forward, with the focus on community and customer service very much to the fore.

We need to talk to the banks to ensure that, in places such as Abington, even with reduced hours, we have an alignment with the local community to enable local economic growth to happen and existing businesses to thrive. I suggest to the member that she might want to sit in on the session that we are having in November.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I have had representations from constituents who are concerned about the lack of a helpful attitude on the part of banks in rural areas. It is next to impossible to get an account, and if somebody does get one the charges are exorbitant. That is entirely counterproductive to economic development in rural areas. Will the minister agree to look at the problem? I have written to him about it previously.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will indeed look at the issue and make it part of the on-going dialogue with the banks. Again, I suggest to Mr Stone that he might want to bring his views to the session on 8 November.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Road Accidents (Access to Police Reports)

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has given instructions to police forces regarding how people whose roadside walls, fences or buildings have been damaged as a result of vehicle accidents access their reports. (S3O-11382)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

No. Chief constables are responsible for operational matters in their force area, which would include arrangements for making information on road accidents available to landowners or their agents.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On 8 April this year, the cabinet secretary told me in a letter that

“farmers or other land owners whose property is damaged have the right to request certain information from the police free of charge”,

including

“details of the vehicle involved, including make and registration, the driver’s name and, if known, the insurance company and policy number covering the vehicle.”

That advice was clear and unambiguous. Then, in another letter on 9 August, he told me that

“the decision whether or not to release personal details ... rests with the police”

and that

“in most cases the police will be reluctant to do so.”

Who got at the justice secretary? What changed his mind? How can a right belonging to my constituents—one set out in black and white by the justice secretary—be done away with in a matter of weeks? Will he please instruct the police to provide the information that he believed in April should be people’s right, so that they can avoid costs for accidents that are, after all, not their fault?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

No. I can understand the frustrations felt by Mr McGrigor’s constituents, but let us be clear. First, I cannot direct the police. Secondly, we are talking about reserved law—the Road Traffic Act 1988, which as I recall came in under a Tory Government. It states that it is the legal responsibility of the driver of the vehicle to report any accident that causes damage to property. That would be to the landowner, but if the driver did not know the landowner it would be to the police.

The police have an obligation and, when they know the landowner or the landowner requests it, they usually go out of their way to provide information such as the name of the driver and the vehicle’s registration. Under data protection requirements, however, they cannot provide any information beyond that, such as a personal address. To me, this appears to be a matter of the police trying to be as supportive as they can of those in rural communities. There are instances when the police might not have provided the information and might not be aware of the landowner, but my understanding and experience of the police is that they will try to co-operate.

Let me say to Mr McGrigor that I cannot direct the police. If he has difficulties with the legislation, I am more than happy to argue with the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor that we should devolve road traffic matters to this Parliament and deal with the issue ourselves.

Road Improvements (A92)

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive what actions it has taken to improve the A92. (S3O-11403)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

In the past three years, we have invested more than £1.8 million in maintenance and safety improvements on the A92 trunk road between Glenrothes and the Tay road bridge. This year, we plan to spend more than £1 million on this section of the A92.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister may be aware of the increase in serious accidents on the A92 over the summer. He has previously received representation on the A92 from members and the Glenrothes area futures group but, in light of increasing concerns about the safety and suitability of the A92, will he agree to meet me and other interested parties to discuss a way forward?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I acknowledge the loss that the two families experienced in August on the A92 and extend my sympathies to them. Investigations by the police and Transport Scotland’s operators into the circumstances of such accidents will inform what we do.

I am always happy to meet members who have an interest in road safety, and if Claire Baker cares to contact my office we can make the appropriate arrangements.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister say anything further about the Scottish Conservative proposal, first mooted by my distinguished colleague Lord James Douglas-Hamilton more than a decade ago, to upgrade the A92 to dual carriageway status as far as the Melville Gates junction?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member has heard from me on this issue before. We have completed the strategic transport projects review. The necessity is to address safety issues—my exchange with Ms Baker has addressed some of those issues—and the next step is to maximise the use of the road system. We are investing a great deal in trying to improve road safety in a variety of ways, working with drivers and trainers and looking at parts of the road network where investment will improve road safety.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

The minister is well aware that, in 1999, the incoming Labour Executive did away with the Conservative plans for dualling the A92. I thank him for the money that has been invested in that road in the past couple of years. However, he is well aware—because I have written to him about a constituent in the past few weeks—that despite the money, people lack confidence about the safety of the junctions at Cadham and Balfarg. I would be grateful if he would meet me to discuss the matter further, as I mentioned in my letter to him.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I note what Tricia Marwick says about Cadham and Balfarg. We continue to engage on and consider the issues at a range of junctions. On the existing dual carriageway section, we are taking steps to close some central crossings. We are improving the A92 in response to the various incidents.

I am always happy to meet Ms Marwick to discuss the issue and I extend to her a similar invitation to that which I extended to Claire Baker.

Sheltered Workshops

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive for what reason it has not used the European Union directive for reserving contracts for supported factories and businesses to award a contract to sheltered workshops. (S3O-11410)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government recognises the important role that supported businesses play in the economy and the community and for their customers. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government does not have a large demand for the goods and services that supported businesses commonly supply. However, through the Marine Scotland directorate, we use Capability Scotland’s St Jude’s laundry for laundry services in Aberdeen. We are also looking to use supported businesses in other projects, such as the Scottish crime campus in North Lanarkshire.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I thank the minister for his answer and for “Supported Businesses in Scotland”, which is newly published. The document is good, but it does not go far enough, because it merely encourages public bodies to have contracts with supported businesses. According to that booklet, the public sector has purchasing power of £9 billion for goods and services. The minister can do more than encourage.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Quickly, please.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I believe that the minister should direct. Will he please comment on that?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We have engaged very much with supported businesses. I am delighted that Helen Eadie has drawn attention to the Scottish procurement directorate’s publication, “Supported Businesses in Scotland”, which profiles each of the 24 supported businesses that operate in Scotland.

We and the United Kingdom Government believe that every public body should aim to have at least one contract with a supported business or factory. The procurement directorate is working hard on that and will continue to do so. I would welcome any support from Helen Eadie to push that forward further.

Birds of Prey (Protection)

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

9. To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to protect bird of prey populations. (S3O-11432)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Protection for Scotland’s wild birds of prey is delivered through robust legislation and through the designation and appropriate management of protected areas, in accordance with the requirements of European law.

We are tackling wildlife crime according to the recommendations of the 2008 review of wildlife crime arrangements that was carried out by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland and the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland.

We are providing funding for the national wildlife crime unit and for several projects that are targeted at reducing wildlife crime, including a fund that the Scottish police are to deploy in specialised wildlife investigations.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Last week, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee heard evidence from a Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals officer that he had once discovered 25 poisoned birds on one estate. What consideration has the minister given to making estate owners more responsible for preventing wildlife crime on their land? Is she considering lodging amendments to the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill to address the situation?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I am sure that Elaine Murray would not want me to pre-empt decisions that might be made. We are looking actively at a range of potential measures for which the bill’s progress through the Parliament affords the opportunity. I have read with interest the evidence to the committee, which has heard from a wide range of people.

Several different routes can be taken, as the member knows. We are actively considering all those potential routes. That is important because, every time such a report is publicised, it does Scotland no good in the international community. Most people are appalled when they see raptors destroyed in such a manner.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Before First Minister’s question time, I know that members will wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery the Parliament of Sardinia’s vice-president, the Honourable Michele Cossa. [Applause.]

Engagements

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2576)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today, I have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Two weeks ago, I called for a cross-party campaign, together with trade unions, on the aircraft carrier contracts. I am pleased that that has happened.

At one of the meetings in St Andrew’s house, I could not help noticing on the wall a large, North Korean-style slogan, with a great leader-style quote:

“Our one central purpose is to increase Scotland’s economic growth.”

It was signed A Salmond. If that is the First Minister’s purpose, has he not failed miserably?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Here was me thinking that Iain Gray was going to centre on a consensual point about all the parties represented in the chamber uniting to defend Scottish jobs. As we unite to defend the key jobs in the defence sector in Scotland, which is reliant on the air force bases and the carrier contracts, we should also reflect on the other challenges to Scottish economic recovery. Those challenges are partly in the public sector, with the swingeing cuts that are forecast—two thirds from the previous Administration and one third from the current one. There is also the inability to get finance to our small and medium-sized business sector, which is crippling many companies. Those are the challenges that Iain Gray should focus on.

Despite everything, I am still prepared to welcome the consensus that we have established to fight for Scottish jobs, and we should all be proud of that.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Those are indeed the challenges of the day. The question of the day is this: why is Alex Salmond’s Government failing them?

Let us take yesterday’s report from the independent Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which said that Scotland is getting poorer faster than England. One of the report’s authors spelled it out:

“It had enjoyed a good three years between ... 2005-2008 but since then things have slipped away steadily and are still getting worse and that is before one has talked about the possible effects of the cuts.”

Is that not a damning indictment of the First Minister’s Government?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I do not worry so much about Iain Gray’s inability to predict the future; it is more when he cannot correctly interpret what has happened. Actually, Scotland went through the recession better than the rest of the United Kingdom did, with a lower fall in output. Our difficulty is a fragile economic recovery. When we try to build an economic recovery, we must consider how public sector investment can be maintained and how the private sector can be given the funds to enable it to invest. Those are the challenges for Scotland. The biggest asset in meeting those challenges would be for the Parliament to have the economic powers to raise the Scottish growth rate and take us forward to prosperity.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The First Minister is simply in denial. Let us interpret the present. As of today, unemployment in Scotland is still going up, whereas it is going down in the rest of the country. Compared with last year, there are 50,000 more Scots sitting at home because they cannot get a job. They see Alex Salmond sitting at home in Bute house doing nothing and they are asking, when is the First Minister finally going to take some responsibility?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Let us talk about what the Government is doing today to increase Scotland’s economic prospects. Today, the Minister for Housing and Communities will be announcing a £130 million investment in the Scottish national housing trust, and 12 local authorities have agreed to participate. That will generate 1,000 jobs in the construction industry. Today, I will be announcing officially that Scotland’s renewable energy target is being lifted from 50 per cent of consumption in 2020 to 80 per cent of consumption in 2020, thanks to the 35 major renewables schemes that the Government has authorised in its term of office. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Mrs Craigie, stop please.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

That is the action that will secure Scotland’s prosperity.

I turn to the other thing that is desperately needed. Just as we suffered during Labour’s recession, we do not want to see our recovery impeded by a coalition that is determined to cut public investment without securing the private funds that are required to stimulate the economy. On that subject, Iain Gray and Labour have nothing to say, because they will not accept that this Parliament and this Government need to have the economic powers to do the job for Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The 136,000 Scots on the dole are sick of hearing from Alex Salmond what he cannot do rather than what he can do. It is not just the unemployed who are suffering; it is the 260,000 children who are living in poverty. The rate in Scotland is increasing—[Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

It is increasing twice as fast as the rate in the rest of the country—on his watch.

The Salmond slump cost Scotland 40,000 jobs. He cut 3,000 teaching jobs and 4,000 jobs in the national health service. This First Minister inherited a Scotland where employment was higher than it was in the rest of the country, unemployment was lower and child poverty was dropping faster. He has thrown all that away. This First Minister is leaving Scotland poorer than he found it.

Now the Tory cuts are coming.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Come to a question, please, Mr Gray.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Is that not a legacy of miserable failure?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I think that Iain Gray should occasionally glance at what the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said about the poverty record of the previous Labour Government—it tore it to shreds.

Iain Gray should also know that, when I met the Scottish Trades Union Congress yesterday, it pointed out to me that the number of construction jobs in Scotland had risen by 20,000 in the last quarter, which Iain Gray does not realise or does not accept. I had a look at the comparative statistics on Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. In the last quarter, construction employment in Scotland went up by almost 9 per cent; in the UK, it was down 5 per cent. I know that those statistics are new to Iain Gray, but he really must keep up with the results of the public investment in housing and other things that the Government has supplied.

As far as what will happen in elections is concerned, I am grateful to Bill Jamieson for the election strategy that he offered me today. He said:

“Salmond needs only to whisper the two most deadening words in Scottish politics, a whispered name that could cause his most raging critics to slump comatose on the parliament floor. It is a name that reduces barking dogs to a whimper and makes the most neurotic cats sleep through a march past of mice. Throw away the sedatives and repeat until the urge to fall asleep closes totally in: Iain Gray.”

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2577)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I met the Secretary of State for Scotland last week and I have no immediate plans to meet him again.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

“Via, veritas, vita”—the way, the truth, the life—is the motto of the University of Glasgow, whose principal, Anton Muscatelli, has warned that, in 2013, his university will “run out of cash”. That is certainly showing the way, telling the truth and facing up to life.

Anton Muscatelli accepts, as do many of his Scottish colleagues and Liam Burns of the National Union of Students Scotland, that the present funding system for universities is no longer an option. Change has to be made and made urgently. The clearly growing consensus is that graduates will have to make a contribution. Does the First Minister agree?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I saw Anton Muscatelli’s remarks; Annabel Goldie will, in fairness, wish me to record that he was quite clear that it was investment in the university sector by this Administration that had enabled Scottish universities to maintain their competitiveness and to survive rather better than those south of the border.

There are huge challenges coming up in university funding, as we await the announcement of the review south of the border. As Annabel Goldie knows, and as the parliamentary motion that was passed in June made clear, this Government will set out in a green paper the options for university funding.

I make it clear to Annabel Goldie that tuition fees are not part of our proposals for university funding. Restricting access to university cannot be the right way to fund the university and education system in Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Having listened to that, I believe the First Minister’s motto should be veni, vidi, procrastinavi: I came, I saw, and I haven’t a clue.

At this stage, given the crisis that confronts our universities, talk of a green paper is far too little, far too late. For the record, the Scottish Conservatives rule out up-front fees, and we rule out a pure graduate tax, but we rule in a graduate contribution from income that is based on fairness and ability to pay.

We have put our cards on the table, but from the First Minister and the Scottish National Party we have had three years of dither, delay and indecision. Will Alex Salmond show some leadership? Will he accept that graduates will have to make a contribution—yes or no?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We have had three years of better funding of the higher education system in Scotland than there has been south of the border, which is acknowledged by every major figure in the university and college sector in Scotland. The challenges that are coming—which are going to come quickly—will be put forward in the Browne report, which was commissioned by the previous Labour Government and taken forward by the coalition Government. It is right and proper that we publish a Scottish response to that, which we will do by the end of the year, but we need a Scottish system of funding.

Looking south of the border, I do not think that the systems of funding for universities have been in the interest of students or the institutions themselves. The draconian cuts in the university sector south of the border that were announced by the previous Government and are perhaps intensified under the current Government will not be in the interests of English education.

As we meet these challenges, let us find a Scottish solution that is compatible with Scotland’s traditions—a point, incidentally, that Anton Muscatelli made yesterday.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2578)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I acknowledge that the First Minister chaired a meeting last night on the Commonwealth games in Delhi and I recognise, as I am sure we all do, the delicate and difficult balance between the safety and security needs of Scotland’s athletes and the enormous damage to the games if countries choose, for whatever reason, to boycott Delhi 2010. We all united to support Glasgow 2014. Is it not in Glasgow’s interest that team Scotland competes in India? Can the First Minister tell Parliament what officials are in Delhi to give up-to-the-minute reports that will allow team Scotland to go?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Team Scotland has a substantial delegation in situ at present. When I chaired yesterday’s meeting of the strategic group, we had direct information from people in Delhi who were reporting on the conditions as they found them. That puts us in a rather better position to assess the conditions in the athletes village than many of the other competing countries.

I agree with Tavish Scott that it is in the interests of everyone—not just Glasgow, but the entire Commonwealth—that the Commonwealth games go ahead successfully. However, he must understand that we have—and Commonwealth Games Scotland in particular has—a duty of care to our athletes. We cannot send people into unsafe conditions.

There was a meeting this morning of the chefs de mission, which was attended by the Chief Minister of Delhi. She has taken control of the situation and is offering guarantees on action to address the outstanding concerns. That is progress this morning. There will be an inspection of the village by the Commonwealth Games Federation tomorrow, in which our officials will take part. We will have a direct report on the federation’s view of the improvements that are promised, and we will then be in a good position in Scotland to assess the next decision on the Commonwealth games.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I certainly understand the duty of care to athletes, but does the First Minister accept that he has an enormous task to help to build confidence in the Commonwealth games to ensure that 2014 is as big as it can be? Usain Bolt will not be competing in Delhi because the games come at the end of a long athletics season. Our own Andy Murray will not be at the inaugural Commonwealth games tennis competition because of a clash with the Shanghai open. Scotland’s most successful Olympian, Chris Hoy, will not be taking part because the games clash with another championship that awards qualifying points for the Olympics. Given the need to avoid huge sporting events taking place at the same time, is it not important that the First Minister now speaks with the international sporting bodies to clear the way for Glasgow 2014 so that we can have the best athletes available in the biggest games possible?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Let me say two things. First, there has been a lot of concentration, rightly, on the state of the athletes village. I should say that we are perfectly satisfied with the inspection of the sporting facilities themselves and we have no greater concern about the security implications than we had previously. Assuming that those problems are addressed and solved, we have no doubt whatsoever that the Delhi Commonwealth games will be a magnificent and hugely successful sporting occasion for the people of India and for the Commonwealth as a whole.

Secondly, on clashes with other world and European events, one of the difficulties for the games in Delhi has been the timing, which is required because of the weather and the temperature and conditions for athletes. Of course, the Glasgow games will take place at a different time of year. The time has been established to avoid clashes wherever possible, although I do not say that it is impossible that there will be clashes. We cannot promise that every world-ranked athlete will compete in every Commonwealth games but, as I am sure Tavish Scott knows, across the range of events the Delhi Commonwealth games will have top-ranking athletes, with people in the top 10 in the world competing in virtually every event. The Commonwealth games is a fantastic multisport event, and I think that the Delhi games will be amazing. I know that everyone in the Parliament and everyone in the city of Glasgow will work hard to ensure that Glasgow emulates and, if possible, betters the Delhi games.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a supplementary question from Jackie Baillie.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

As the First Minister will be aware, the Vale of Leven public inquiry has already delayed taking further evidence about the C diff outbreak from September till the end of October, but we discovered today that it will now be delayed until early 2011. Although I believe that it is important that the inquiry does a thorough job, can he confirm that the timescale for the publication of the inquiry’s report will now be put well beyond the Scottish Parliament elections?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I think that, just occasionally, Jackie Baillie should accept that, if we launch a public inquiry, it is a matter for the chair of the inquiry how he or she decides to hear evidence and publish a report. If a Government tried to dictate or alter the timetable one way or another, that would obviate the whole purpose of having an independent public inquiry. When Jackie Baillie starts to think about it, she will see that the suggestion of politicking is rather beneath the standards that we should accept in the Parliament.

Prisoners (Right to Vote)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on prisoners having the right to vote. (S3F-2579)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government does not agree that convicted prisoners should be entitled to vote while they are serving a prison sentence.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Like many in the Parliament, I am totally opposed to rapists, murderers and drug pushers getting the right to vote. They have given up their right to participate in decent society by their actions. It is a disgrace that forces outside Scotland are trying to force such a change upon us. Even worse is the fact that, thanks to incompetence by the previous Labour Government at Westminster, some of these criminals may now try to claim compensation from taxpayers across the United Kingdom. Does the First Minister agree that voters in Scotland should not have to suffer any more bungled handling of elections by Westminster and that responsibility for our own elections must be devolved to the Scottish Parliament as soon as possible?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I agree with that. Apart from anything else, I think that it is quite remarkable that any member should believe that it is right and proper for this Parliament to have legislative competence and authority over climate change—perhaps the greatest issue facing the planet—but not over the running of its own elections. How can anyone possibly believe or sustain that position? If the Scotland Office’s track record on running elections were beyond reproach, there might be something of an argument to be had, but I do not think that anyone would argue that either.

Incidentally, looking at the previous Government’s two consultations and its prevarication and delay on the thorny issue of prisoners and voting, I do not think that it covered itself in glory either.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

The previous Government resisted making the changes for exactly the reasons that the First Minister gave earlier. However, he might be aware that the current UK Government is reviewing the policy. Have any discussions taken place with the UK Government on what impact there might be on retrospective claims by prisoners who are now registered to vote, and what costs there might be to the Scottish Prison Service or the Scottish Government?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

According to our legal advice, any costs would apply to the UK Government, which might concentrate minds.

Something about Mr Baker’s question puzzles me. He said that the Labour Government had avoided coming to a position. It did so by introducing its first consultation paper on the issue in December 2006 and a second consultation paper in 2009, closing the consultation in December 2009 and then handing the thorny problem over to its successor Westminster Government. I think that it would be wrong for convicted prisoners to have the right to vote and the public would be outraged if compensation claims on the matter were made on any Government, whether in Scotland or the UK. However, Richard Baker should face up to the fact that the previous Labour Government’s strategy in dealing with the question was to wait until it was out of office.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The First Minister is missing the point. The UK is signed up to the European convention on human rights, so it is under the obligation to follow the protocol that refers to free and fair elections. Is he not aware that the European Court of Human Rights has made a decision on the matter? Is he suggesting that, if Scotland were independent, it would opt out of the European convention on human rights? What is the Scottish Government’s position on that?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

A couple of things would improve if Scotland were an independent nation. First, we would have the same protection against compensation claims as any other country has at the moment, instead of theoretically being liable for 10 years of compensation claims—members will remember that in connection with another thorny issue. That would be a distinct improvement if Scotland were independent.

Secondly, I know that the Liberals are understandably keen on the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights. However, I cannot believe that, back in 1997 when there was blanket signing up to the ECHR, those of us who argued very strongly that human rights should be observed across the European continent thought that one of the key issues would be to give convicted prisoners the right to vote. For most people, that does not seem to be what we would consider to be an important human right.