Scottish Parliament, 10 November 2011

378 contributions from 82 members. The official report.

Protecting Scotland’s NHS

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01275, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on protecting Scotland’s national health service.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am very pleased to lead the debate on protecting the NHS. It is true to say that the NHS is probably one of our most-valued public institutions. We are all very grateful to the staff who care for us and our relatives daily, contributing to the NHS that we know and love: the doctors, nurses, laboratory technicians, porters, cleaners, occupational therapists and so many more besides. All of them play a critical role in the patient journey and are central to the quality of healthcare and the experience of patients. I think that that view will be shared across the chamber.

I say at the outset that I regret the tone of the Scottish National Party amendment. It is inaccurate, but what is perhaps more worrying is that it reflects a degree of complacency about how wonderful things are that is absolutely not mirrored by the experience of health service workers on the ground. It is incumbent on politicians of all parties to be honest. People understand that times are tough. They understand that budgets are tight—for goodness’ sake, it is happening to families across Scotland, too—yet they are treated to spin, fudge and dissembling. I recognise the tactic in the SNP amendment: in a tight corner, blame somebody else. In fact, SNP members are masters at playing the blame game; they excel in the it-wisnae-me school of politics. However, the NHS is just too important to play those kinds of games with.

I want to shatter two myths that the Scottish Government is fond of peddling. The first is that it protects health service spending and the second is that there are more staff in the NHS now under the SNP than there were under Labour when we were last in office. Let me start by talking about resources. The SNP makes great play of protecting the NHS. It promised increased spending and promised to pass on the Barnett consequentials. It added up all the money and stuck a figure up on a billboard, which the First Minister unveiled during the election. There was a veritable plethora of promises, one surpassing the other—promises, promises, promises.

Perhaps someone can explain to me why, when health funding was rising under the previous United Kingdom Labour Government, the SNP failed to pass those increases on. Let me see, the rises in England were an average of almost 6.7 per cent year on year, yet the SNP passed on an average of only 4.1 per cent. Historically, the SNP has not passed on the extra money for health, leaving the NHS in a weaker position to deal with the cuts.

Perhaps someone can also explain to me why there is a real-terms cut in funding. There is a cut of some £319 million over the spending review period. Those are not my figures but independent analysis by the Scottish Parliament information centre.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

I am grateful to my critical friend for giving way, but does she not understand that the failure to pass on all the Barnett health consequentials, as Labour proposed in May, would have meant that there would be less money, not more money? When will she acknowledge that fact?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

We did, indeed, agree that all the Barnett consequentials should have been passed on. I made that commitment in the chamber—the member can check the Official Report.

However, what the SNP provided was not an increase, as promised, but a cut. When we consider that health service inflation runs at more than 4 per cent, we begin to understand the scale of the challenge ahead. It will be tough for health boards. They are faced with ever-increasing demand on services and a declining budget. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that it will be difficult for them to spread their resources even more thinly without that having an impact on patient care. Rather than acknowledging that openly, the SNP simply changes its mantra from, “We are protecting health,” to, “We are protecting health boards.” Yet, is the SNP doing that?

The briefing from the Royal College of Nursing prior to this debate is instructive. Again, we see that some of the so-called new money passed on to health boards is not that at all: it is in effect money that has already been committed. The briefing points to the £76 million of waiting times funding that has simply been transferred from one health directorate budget heading to another—from non-recurring funding in 2011-12 to health boards core recurring funding allocations for 2012-13. Removing the impact of that money, which the RCN points out is not new funding, on health boards means that their combined cash uplift drops to 1.6 per cent. If we look again, we see that, for the first time, the cost of delivering healthcare in the prison service is being transferred from justice to health without the corresponding transfer of resource. That will cost the health service an additional £20 million a year. Strip that out and we are left with an uplift of 1.4 per cent set against inflation pressures of more than 4 per cent. Even a primary school child can understand that arithmetic.

Simply transferring already committed money from one heading to another and pointing like a conjurer at what you want people to see does not hide the reductions elsewhere. The alcohol treatment and tobacco control budget lines have reduced by £3 million in real terms, the mental health budget line is down in real terms, the budget for specialist children’s services is down in real terms, and the clean hospitals and MRSA line is down in real terms, too. Let us have an honest debate about what our priorities in health should be, because the money is not there. Demand is increasing, resources are decreasing and we cannot just stick our heads in the sand.

The second substantive issue that I want to raise is staffing. It is truly astonishing and breathtaking that the SNP expects us to believe that, while there are unprecedented cuts to staffing levels, it is still somehow protecting the NHS. Since 2009, 4,000 staff have been cut from the NHS. Some 1,700 of those are nurses and a further 1,000 nurses will be out by the end of the year. However, it is not just nurses. There are fewer occupational therapists, fewer speech and language therapists and fewer physiotherapists. Numbers have declined across many staff groups, and the situation is worse than the figures suggest because they include posts that are frozen and unfilled. The staff left behind are having to shoulder the burden, pick up the pieces and cope with the increasing workload. It is interesting that staff reporting of safety concerns has risen in the same period. The Government cannot remove that level of staffing without having an impact on front-line patient care.

I know that, in the modern world and in the Parliament, too, we like to talk about outcomes, but let me talk about some old measurements that should give us an early warning of the problems that lie ahead. The number of operations cancelled by health boards is up. Bed numbers are being reduced, which is not in itself a bad thing except that the data show that readmissions are going up in cases where people have to go back into hospital because they were discharged too early.

If members are not convinced by any of that, let me tell them about the RCN survey of employment and morale. Less than a third of nurses felt that nursing will continue to offer them a secure job. Two years ago, the figure was 82 per cent. Some 74 per cent reported increased stress at work and 66 per cent were more worried about job cuts than they were a year ago.

Members will remember that the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy is fond of telling us that there are more nurses in the NHS than there were when Labour left office. She has repeated that mantra time and again, and her boss, the one and only Alex Salmond, who was keen to get in on the act, said in the chamber on the day before the summer recess began:

“The protection of the health budget has meant that, even in these difficult times, health”

unemployment—sorry, I mean employment; that was a Freudian slip—

“in every single category—through medical consultants, general practitioners, dentists and nurses to allied health professionals—is substantially up today on the level that we inherited in 2007.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2011; c 1270.]

That is simply not the case. The First Minister and his Government are coming to believe their own propaganda. His statement is a complete fantasy and has no basis in fact. The Government’s own statistics on workforce numbers demonstrate that one has to go back to before 2006 to find fewer nurses and midwives in our hospital wards and communities. The SNP has taken us back almost six years and there are even more cuts in nurse numbers to come.

The SNP promised to protect the health budget and promised that there would be no compulsory redundancies, but we are seeing a real-terms cut in the health budget and thousands of staff are being shown the door. Those are real cuts that are happening to our health service right now. The SNP’s promises on the NHS are sounding hollow to me.

Back in 2010, the SNP had an election slogan, “More nats, fewer cuts”, to which Scottish Labour replied, “More nats, fewer nurses”, a claim that the SNP vigorously denied. I take no comfort in being right but, today, there are more nationalists in the chamber and, regrettably, fewer nurses in Scotland’s hospitals.

I believe that we are on the brink of a crisis in the NHS, but do not take my word for it. This is what the RCN had to say about the workload and morale of staff: It is “at breaking point”.

It is time that we had an honest debate about the challenges that the health service faces. The SNP must stop spinning and wake up to the reality of staff struggling to cope in hospital wards, health centres and communities across the country.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern that, since 2009, almost 4,000 whole-time-equivalent NHS staff have left their jobs, including more than 1,700 nurses and midwives, leaving the number of nursing and midwifery posts in Scotland’s NHS at its lowest point since 2006; further notes that the latest NHS workforce statistics also show a decline in other workforce categories, including consultants and allied health professionals; notes that the declining trend in Scotland’s NHS workforce began prior to 2011-12, at a time when the overall Scottish budget was rising; believes that the proposed £319 million real-terms cut to the overall health budget over the spending review period threatens further frontline job losses, including the reduction of nearly 1,000 whole-time-equivalent nurses and midwifery posts that have already been projected by NHS boards in the current financial year; further believes that such a rapid and disproportionate reduction cannot be explained by changes to service delivery and that it will impact adversely on the care of patients as well as the workloads and morale of remaining staff described as being at "breaking point" by the Royal College of Nursing in Scotland, and calls on the Scottish Government to take responsibility for its own cuts and to accept that such a deep and disproportionate loss of frontline healthcare professionals is not compatible with protecting Scotland’s NHS.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I begin by congratulating the Edinburgh-based Veterans First Point medical team for its outstanding success in winning two awards at this year’s military and civilian health partnership awards ceremony, which is a tremendous achievement for a team that does tremendous work.

I also take this opportunity to welcome the news that Jackson Carlaw is returning to the Tory front bench as health spokesperson. I wish him a quick recovery from his recent illness and thank Murdo Fraser and Mary Scanlon for the contribution that they have made to the health portfolio in this Parliament. I hope that we will see them in future health debates.

Protecting the NHS is my job. It is my responsibility as health secretary, which I take extremely seriously. It is what I spend every waking hour striving to do. It is, of course, for others to judge the success of that but, for my part, I am incredibly proud of our NHS. I am proud of the quality of care that it provides and—particularly this morning, as we hear of the first NHS hospital in England to be handed over to the private sector—I am proud that, in Scotland, under the SNP Government, we have an NHS that is true to its founding principles and which Nye Bevan would recognise.

It is because I care so deeply and so passionately about our NHS that I agree with Jackie Baillie that honesty in this debate is paramount. I therefore make no apology for starting by pointing out the hard reality that Labour’s motion tries to gloss over, which is that, if Labour were in power today, the NHS would have less money in its budget than it currently does. I will give two quotes that demonstrate that.

Before the 2007 election, Jack McConnell said that, if Labour were re-elected, every extra penny would go to education and that that would mean

“other budgets having to cut their cloth”.

In simple terms, that means that, if Jackie Baillie or one of her colleagues had been health secretary, the extra £1 billion that the NHS got in the previous session, under the SNP Government, would instead have gone to education. The NHS budget would have been £1 billion less. That is a fact.

Secondly, in September 2010, Iain Gray said:

“Labour would not ring fence the health budget.”

That presumably means that at least some of the extra £1 billion that we will give to the NHS during this session would have gone elsewhere, too. Based on either of those quotes, the inescapable conclusion—the hard reality that Jackie Baillie and Richard Simpson do not like to recognise—is that, if they were standing where I am now, the NHS would have significantly less money in its budget than it currently does.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Nonsense. Not true.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

That is a fact. That is true.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The Scottish Labour Party manifesto might not be bedtime reading for the cabinet secretary, but would she accept that it contains an absolute commitment to pass on all the Barnett consequentials to protect health spending?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

It is not bedtime reading for anyone.

If Jackie Baillie is correct, those Barnett consequentials, given what Jack McConnell said, would have been applied to an NHS budget that was already £1 billion smaller than it was under this Government. Also, if she is correct, the best that we can say about Labour’s position is that it promises to provide not a single penny more for the NHS than the Government has. Let us have some honesty. The issues in the motion are serious, but Labour’s position on them does not have a shred of credibility. That is no doubt part of the reason why, despite all Labour’s rhetoric before the election and the snazzy campaign slogans that Jackie Baillie has reprised today, in overwhelming numbers the people of Scotland trusted the SNP with the future of their national health service.

I will talk about the Government’s record on health, of which I am proud. More important, I will talk about the achievements of the NHS, of which I am also proud. It is shameful that they do not rate a mention in Labour’s motion. Every penny of the Barnett consequentials has been passed on—£1 billion of extra cash that has been deployed to protect front-line services. In each of the next three years, NHS board budgets will rise in real terms. When Jackie Baillie talks about a real-terms cut, she is being economical with the truth, as that reflects the cut in traditional capital spending, which in turn reflects the 36 per cent cut in the Scottish Government’s capital budget—a cut that was implemented by the Tory-Liberal Government but planned to the very last penny by the previous Labour Government. In short, I will take no lessons from Labour on NHS funding.

In true, age-old Opposition style, Jackie Baillie wants to talk down the NHS to get at the Government. In doing so, she does a great disservice to the women and men who are delivering a first-class NHS in tough times. The reality of the health service today is that it is treating more patients than ever before and more quickly than ever before. Waiting times are at a record low. In seven out of the 11 most common hospital procedures, our NHS has the lowest waiting times in the entire UK. Scotland is the only part of the UK where waiting times continue to fall. Infection rates are also at a record low, and there are more day cases than ever before. That is the reality of our NHS.

The issue of staff numbers is hugely important. There are 4,850 more staff working in the NHS today than there were when Labour left office. There are also no compulsory redundancies in the NHS—something that I am not sure could be said about the NHS in England when Labour was last in office. Yes, the shape and size of the NHS workforce is changing; I recognise the challenges of that and the anxieties that it can cause. However, it is my job to work with staff and NHS boards to make sure that those changes happen at an appropriate pace, reflect service redesign and do not compromise the quality of care. That is my job and I take it very seriously.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am concluding, Presiding Officer.

In my view, there is no more sacred duty of any Government than the duty to provide free universal high-quality healthcare for the people and to protect our national health service. That is what I will always strive to do, and it is what the SNP Government will always do. From the bottom of my heart, I thank all those who work so hard in our NHS to deliver those high-quality services.

I move amendment S4M-01275.1, to leave out from “with concern” to end and insert:

“that despite real-terms cuts in the Scottish block grant by the UK Government and the previous UK Labour administration, NHS resource spending in Scotland has been protected; further notes that, over the next three years, NHS boards’ resource budgets will increase by £740 million and in real terms, ensuring that resources are directed to frontline services; recognises that, under the SNP administration, cancer waiting times targets have been met for the first time, waiting times are at record lows, MRSA and Clostridium difficile rates have been cut substantially, day case rates are at an all-time high and length of stay in hospitals at a record low, and welcomes the fact that the SNP administration has rejected the NHS privatisation agenda pursued by both the UK Government and the previous UK Labour administration.”

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in the debate on what will be my last outing—at least, for the time being—as the Conservative health spokesman. I say to the cabinet secretary, to Jackie Baillie and to others how much I have enjoyed debating with them over the past couple of years. They will shortly have a new face, or perhaps a returning face, to contend with when someone else fills my current role as I move on to pastures new. It is fair to say that those are not the pastures that I had originally intended to move on to, but I am sure that the grass will be just as green.

Jackie Baillie’s motion makes some fair points about the decline in NHS staff numbers over recent years. Indeed, the statistics that have been cited this morning have been raised frequently in the chamber over recent months. However, the motion, which I read in great detail when it was published yesterday, refers to a real-terms reduction in the overall health budget, and, on scrutinising the figures, it becomes apparent that the situation is not quite so clear cut.

Revenue spend on the NHS remains more or less constant in real terms, in line with the commitment by the UK coalition Government to ring-fence NHS spending and the subsequent commitment by the Scottish Government to pass the Barnett consequentials of that on to the NHS in Scotland. The reduction in funding referred to in Jackie Baillie’s motion is, as the cabinet secretary said, in the capital budget. It is not entirely correct to say, as the motion states, that the reduction threatens further front-line job losses. Indeed, I would have to say to Jackie Baillie that there is more than a little whiff of Labour opportunism about the motion as I cannot see anywhere what the Labour Party is proposing as an alternative.

We all know that the public finances are in a horrendous situation, and that that is a legacy of Jackie Baillie’s colleagues in the previous UK Labour Government. We also know that, with a fixed Scottish budget, if the Labour Party proposes to increase spending on the NHS, it has to tell us what other area of the budget it would cut. We have heard nothing from the Labour Party this morning about how much it would increase health spending or how it would afford to do that in the current budget round. Perhaps later contributions from Labour will set out in detail whether it thinks that the NHS in Scotland is underfunded and by how much, how much extra it would spend, and where that money would come from.

That said, there are serious issues affecting the NHS because of the standstill budget and continually rising costs, more expensive treatments and—[Interruption.]

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am not used to such disruptive womenfolk, Presiding Officer. I am glad that you are keeping them in order.

We know that costs are rising in the NHS and that the population is ageing. I am sure that we have all met people working in the NHS who have extreme concerns about workforce cuts. The RCN briefing for the debate highlights the fact that the number of nursing staff who are in post is at its lowest since 2006. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, which held an event in Parliament just a couple of weeks ago, also raised concerns about vacancies not being filled and about that having a knock-on effect on patient care. That is particularly concerning, given that we are all supposed to be investing more in preventative spending. If the problems that such therapists deal with are not dealt with early, they will cause greater problems and incur more costs further down the line.

Service redesign and change are always going to be a part of the NHS, with treatments that used to take weeks in hospital now being reduced to a day or two, and workforce reductions in themselves are not always a bad thing, nor do they always mean poorer services. However, we need to be careful that we are not impacting adversely on patient care.

We remain of the view that it was an error to take more than £50 million out of the health budget to give free prescriptions to all, including members of the Scottish Parliament who can well afford to pay for their prescriptions. If given the choice, I am sure that the public would rather make a small contribution towards the cost of their medicine than see cuts in NHS services. I am delighted that our new leader, Ruth Davidson, is maintaining our opposition to the policy of free prescriptions for all, and I hope that, in time, other parties will realise that the policy is a good example of a wrong choice with serious and negative consequences for our public services.

We have some sympathy with the terms of the Labour motion, which raises some serious issues. However, it would have been better if Labour had offered an alternative rather than simply being on the attack. These are serious issues and they deserve more than a superficial treatment.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I begin by telling the Labour Party a few home truths about this morning’s debate, if the cabinet secretary has left me any to give following her opening speech.

I hope that by the end of my speech I will, unlike the Labour Party, have made a few constructive suggestions on the NHS. The Labour motion alleges:

“the declining trend in Scotland’s NHS workforce began prior to 2011-12, at a time when the overall Scottish budget was rising”.

Labour does not tell us that the budget settlement from the UK Labour Government at the time the motion refers to was the worst ever settlement to Scotland since devolution. Labour fails to tell us that fact. I also acknowledge that Labour’s fellow London-based colleagues have since given increasingly damaging cuts to Scotland.

I am disappointed that the Lib Dems are not here this morning to share the blame.

That point is vital for a number of reasons. First, at the last election, the Labour Party in Scotland refused to commit one additional penny to Scotland’s NHS, despite being asked repeatedly and directly to do so in interviews with Iain Gray, the party leader. I thought that he, and not Jackie Baillie, spoke for that party. Perhaps she is making a belated leadership bid—who knows? The SNP Government, however, promised to give NHS boards a real-terms increase and to pass on future Barnett cash consequentials in full. That is why the NHS has seen a 2.5 per cent increase in cash terms and a 0.5 per cent increase in real terms. I shall return to NHS inflation later in my speech, if I have time.

I appreciate the challenges faced by the NHS, including nurses. My wife is a nurse and she leaves me in no doubt about the challenges that she faces daily. Let the message go out loud and clear, however, that despite the continuing pressures and challenges facing the NHS in the years ahead, the position would have been significantly worse had Labour been re-elected. That is simply a fact. More nats, less cuts. Woe betide us if Jackie Baillie’s party was in power and she was in charge of the health department, as who knows how many fewer nurses there would be. Do not take my word for it, take Iain Gray’s, as he refused to pledge any extra cash.

The same element of Labour’s motion highlights a second deficiency in Labour’s thought processes as it focuses on the NHS head count before 2011-12 without giving any thought to the reconfiguration of NHS services. The staff reduction will have been due at least in part to forms of service reconfiguration. That shows that there is an underlying and complete misunderstanding of the workforce management complexities that are at play when we move NHS provision away from acute service delivery into community delivery.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I wish I had longer than four minutes, but I do not, so I will continue.

In effect, we are talking about NHS staffing levels that are roughly comparable with those when Labour left office in 2007. Does the Labour Party believe that, when it left office with staffing levels unsustainably low, the NHS was in crisis? Labour presided over eight years of failure of the NHS—thank you, Jackie Baillie, for putting that on the record—[Interruption.] I know that Ms Baillie does not like the truth, but she should put her listening ears on.

Let me try to highlight a couple of positive elements. NHS inflation is notoriously difficult to calculate, and the problem that the Scottish Government has is that the Barnett consequentials from London do not take it into account. I wish that they did. I wish that Labour was saying that they should, so that we could build a consensus to challenge the UK cuts, but whenever the Scottish Government challenges the UK’s spending commitments, Labour runs feart and terrified that that will open up more powers for this Parliament. Labour would rather put—

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

That is why I cannot support the motion this morning.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

Let me start by picking up on a point that the cabinet secretary made. It is both outrageous and offensive to say that if anybody in this chamber tries to point out some of the inadequacies of the present Administration they are, as Nicola Sturgeon asserted about Jackie Baillie, trying to talk down the NHS. We are not trying to talk down the NHS or those who work for it if we express genuinely felt concerns. If we try to express the concerns articulated to us by our constituents who work in the NHS, how can we possibly be trying to talk it down? We are simply repeating what they are telling us. Surely those SNP members who represent constituencies must have some constituents expressing concerns to them—it cannot be the case that they are not receiving any complaints about what is going on in the NHS. Nurses are probably the biggest source of complaints to me about the NHS. I cannot be talking down the NHS if I say what nurses are telling me.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

The member mentioned constituencies and nurses. My case load from nurses is to do with the car parking charges at Glasgow royal infirmary, which the Labour Government implemented under a private finance initiative. That is my biggest case load.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

There may be a specific issue in Glasgow, but across Scotland, nurses, who are overworked, stretched and concerned, are the biggest source of complaints about the NHS. They are caring professionals who are concerned about impacts on their patients. They are worried and scared about what will happen not only to their jobs, but to the future of the NHS.

We have heard a lot of talk about the SNP wanting honesty. Bob Doris and the cabinet secretary mentioned that. The SNP’s manifesto said:

“We have increased the number of ... nurses”.

Fair enough. It went on to say:

“In the next Parliament”—

that is, in this session—

“an SNP Government will ensure that we continue the progress that has been made.”

Fair enough. From September 2009 to January 2011, nearly 2,000 nurses lost their jobs. That is 2,000 fewer nurses. How is the SNP ensuring progress and maintaining the increase in the number of nurses? Something does not stack up.

If we are going to have some honesty, let us forget the rhetoric from all the parties in the run-up to the election, and the SNP should tell us whether there are fewer nurses now than there were in September 2009 and how that squares with the promise that it made. The SNP owes it not to members who support the motion or to other MSPs, but to the nurses and doctors who deliver the services and, more than that, to patients to say that they will be safe and secure in a health service in which there is an adequate number of nurses.

It is surely not beyond the wit and capacity of members to have a debate at some point about what is happening. Surely we can reach an agreement, leave aside election rhetoric and all the posturing, do the right thing, and ensure that we have nurses who can deliver.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

After Jackie Baillie’s track record last year, when she combined the housing budget with the NHS budget to claim wrongly that health spending was going down, I thought that she might be a bit more circumspect in her selective use of figures, but it seems not. She might wish to choose 2009 as her starting point for employment figures, but it is far more illustrative to compare the current situation with the situation when Labour was in power. Even with the recent changes to staffing levels, there are still significantly more whole-time equivalent staff than there were when the SNP first entered government.

Unlike what happened in the dark days of Labour control, the NHS is meeting its targets and improving the incredible service that it provides to the people of Scotland. Before the 2007 election, there were 32,000 out-patients waiting for more than 12 weeks. Last year, there were just 150. Before the SNP Government, Labour utterly failed to meet its 62-day waiting time target for cancer patients. Under the SNP Government, we have not only met that target; we have halved it to 31 days and met that, too.

The NHS budget is going up in absolute terms, from the £10.2 billion that it stood at under Labour to a record £11.9 billion in 2014-15. That is an increase of £1.7 billion under the SNP Government. The NHS’s share of the devolved budget is going up, from 42.4 per cent of the resource budget this year to 44.2 per cent by the 2014-15 financial year. As promised, the Scottish Government has passed on the full consequentials from Department of Health spending south of the border and, as promised, it has protected the NHS budget at a time when UK Government decisions have led to savage cuts to the Scottish budget.

Labour motions usually contain demands for infinitely more resources, but there are never any indications of where those resources should come from. Is Labour suggesting that the proportion of the budget that goes to the NHS should be even higher than it already is? If so, what cuts to the rest of the budget is it asking for?

The Scots have seen through the Labour Party, as was clearly demonstrated in May. It thought that, if it kept throwing money at the organisation and taxing Scots more highly in the process, things would only get better. That is not true. This is about how we make best use of the money and the tremendous talents of all in our health service to achieve the best outcomes for patients.

It is the nature of the NHS that, as Bob Doris said, it needs ever-increasing resources to maintain its position as new treatments and drugs are developed. The biggest threat to the NHS is clearly not the actions of the Scottish Government, which is straining every sinew to protect Scotland’s health budget; the real danger is the rampant rate of inflation in the health service, which drives up costs while budgets are falling.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

How does Maureen Watt square the fact that the Government repeatedly says that there is a real-terms increase with what she has just said?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

I have just given the Parliament all the figures. Dr Simpson obviously was not listening earlier.

Why else does the Royal College of Nursing say:

“the NHS settlement is as good as we could have expected in the current climate”?

As long as we are tied to the dead hand of Westminster’s failed economic policy, we will continue to face those challenges. That makes the need for preventative spending more important than ever before. It must be at the heart of future plans for the NHS, and the money identified for that purpose in the spending review is perhaps the most significant part of the Scottish Government’s budget plans.

I support the amendment in the name of Nicola Sturgeon.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

As I have only four minutes, I do not plan to take any interventions.

The motion is about one of our most respected institutions, and it must be—I put this in the best way possible—the most breathtaking piece of hypocrisy ever. Even Dick Turpin could not have hijacked 60 minutes of parliamentary time like the motion does.

A week ago, the motion might have won a Hallowe’en prize. We are bewitched. It is a trick, not a treat. It is full of doom and gloom, gripe and groan and hypocrisy. It is a melange or a cauldron of distortive numbers and an attempt at sorcery over our memories.

The Labour Party is waving its wand, hoping that we will forget that, when it was in power, it tried to close the accident and emergency departments at Ayr and Monklands and then had a Damascene conversion just before an election. For the record, Ayr accident and emergency department treated nearly 20,000 people over the summer.

A party whose London leadership called for cuts a little deeper and tougher than Thatcher’s is asking the Scottish Government to take responsibility for its own cuts. They are not our own cuts. In what school of wizardry is £11.03 billion—the Government’s proposed resource spending in 2012-13—less than the £10.8 billion planned for 2011-12? What magic compels a rich country that is desirous of creating a caring, compassionate and concerned society for its sick, elderly and ill to be Hogwarted because it is reliant on handouts from another Government?

Ms Baillie and the Labour Party in Scotland again focus on the wrong target. She and her party may find it acceptable, even desirable, to go down the road to Damascus, following her English colleagues, who changed their views just before the previous election. What did they call for? “Our health, our care, our say”. However, unless she can clearly tell us where she would find cuts to fund her unexplained, mythical aspirations, we might end up with an NHS like the one in England, where people do not know whether it is new year or New York.

The NHS in Scotland has 25.3 members of staff per thousand head of population, compared to 20 in England. Ms Baillie uses her mythical numerical powers to move her baseline conveniently to 2009. However, she knows that, since 2007, NHS staffing has gone up by 1.4 per cent, support services staffing has gone up by 0.4 per cent and the number of allied health professionals has gone up by 5.2 per cent.

We do not deny that times are tough, but even the RCN briefing that Jackie Baillie quotes acknowledges that health is in a relatively strong position in the proposed 2012-13 budget. The RCN and the British Medical Association say that the demographics and financial constraints are challenging, but they accept that challenge.

I have been going round to meet boards and staff in the NHS in the south of Scotland, who are focused on achieving better clinical outcomes and results and on long-term restructuring, buttressed by quality care, and who are targeting increased participation and consultation locally, to marry clinical service with efficiency.

The challenge for Ms Baillie is to leave aside the gripe and groan and the doom and gloom. Let us—the Government, the Opposition and participants in the national health service—work together to provide a health service and health workers with international distinction. I support the amendment.

Hanzala Malik (Labour, Glasgow)

Good morning. I will be a little different today. I am new to the game of politics in the Scottish Parliament, so I will try not to criticise anybody.

It is important to find a solution. We have a tremendous service, of which I am a customer—I have been so since birth. I continue to enjoy the services in our hotels—I call hospitals that because the only time that I get a rest is when I am in hospital. As a patient in hospital, I have noticed the tremendous work that all the people there do. Every one of our staff does tremendous work for us in what we accept are extremely difficult circumstances. I know for a fact that no member would disagree with that.

The important issue is how we retain and develop that service. I have reams of figures for all the cuts that departments face. Cuts are a reality. I have been in politics for 17 years and I have not experienced a year in which a cut has not been made. I have seen cuts and cuts. A lot of times, I have wondered when the cuts would stop. I do not see the light at the end of the tunnel—the tunnel is circular and there is no light at the end of it.

We need to start thinking outside the box and to ask how we deal with the situation. One way of dealing with it is to develop the service. We are proud that the national health service is one of the best health services in the world. We are also proud that we work with people overseas, but we have done so through token gestures and not seriously. We do not invite patients from overseas to come here, as is done in other countries. Australia, India, China and now Malaysia all sell facilities. We should look at encouraging such trade, if we are looking for new input to inject cash into our hospitals and our service. If we do not have money at home, we must look for it elsewhere. The market is global and we must compete.

At home, we have a lot of issues. We have people from 140 communities who travel all over the world and return with all sorts of challenges for us with diseases. Recently, I was in Lahore in Pakistan. It is a twin city of Glasgow, which has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Punjab Government. The Chief Minister there sent a message to the Scottish Parliament in which he asked the Parliament for assistance in dealing with dengue fever, as people out there have been challenged by a new outbreak. At a meeting there, I realised how fortunate we are to be protected by so much. However, we are also vulnerable. Developing our international links and encouraging such trade would be helpful.

I plead with the cabinet secretary—although I know that I do not have to, as I am pushing at an open door—to save the service. I am keen for the Government to develop opportunities for fresh input into the service that is not just from Government funding. We need a new injection of resource into the service, for which we need to look outside the box for once.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

The debate has been somewhat disappointing so far—apart from Hanzala Malik’s speech. We have heard the usual scaremongering from Labour about the state of the NHS in Scotland. I for one do not recognise the image that it presents of an organisation on its knees; I recognise an organisation that is delivering for the people of Scotland.

I do not think that the NHS is perfect—I do not have a blinkered view on that. The NHS needs to change, and reducing its senior management by 25 per cent over this session of Parliament will be a welcome change. It will certainly make the organisation more efficient and I am sure that the public will be happy with that, too.

Jackie Baillie spoke about the SNP playing the blame game—I think she used the phrase “it wisnae me”. I know that there are financial difficulties across the UK. This Parliament received a £500 million cut to the budget from the previous Labour Government and a £1.3 billion cut to the budget from the current Tory-Lib Dem UK Government. So, with less money coming to Scotland, the funding allocated to the NHS in Scotland by this SNP Government is actually a good deal.

I know that Labour does not appreciate the issue of balancing the books. The situation that the UK Government—and the whole of the UK—is in is not all the fault of the banks, but Labour does not understand that. At least Alistair Darling had the decency towards the end of his term in ministerial office to be honest by telling us that the cuts that he would initiate would be tougher and deeper than those of Thatcher. Labour members might not want to hear that unfortunate truth about Alistair Darling. I hope that they are not proud, but ashamed, about what we have heard this morning about the NHS in England.

The cabinet secretary spoke about the first moves to privatise NHS facilities down south. Unfortunately, there is no Lib Dem in the chamber this morning, which just shows what they think about the NHS. Labour needs to accept that the Tories and the Lib Dems are moving on, at pace, the project of privatising the NHS, which was started by the previous Labour Government.

I firmly believe that the NHS should remain free at the point of need. Of the range of public services over which this Parliament has control, our NHS is, for me, the jewel in the crown. Every member should be proud of what the men and women in the NHS deliver for us on a daily basis.

Some of their achievements need to be highlighted again. Waiting times are at record lows; cancer waiting times are being met for the first time; day case rates are at an all-time record high; and the length of stay in hospitals is at a record low.

I said at the beginning of my speech that the NHS is not perfect—no organisation is. The NHS can still improve, because there is always room for improvement. Unfortunately, in their speeches today Labour members provided no suggestions for how to improve the NHS, apart from the usual mantra of “more money”. I mentioned Hanzala Malik’s speech in my opening comments; his was the exception.

Every person in Scotland and the UK is now suffering on a daily basis as a result of the profligacy of Labour colleagues in the previous Government in London. Throwing money at an organisation is not always the answer. I know that the NHS in Scotland is safe in the hands of Nicola Sturgeon. I also know that the population in Scotland trust Nicola Sturgeon to safeguard the NHS. Yes there are challenges, but nobody outside this Parliament wants to go back to the dark days of Labour in control not delivering for the benefit of Scotland and not delivering the NHS that Scotland needs.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the health secretary for her kind words. I know that Jackson Carlaw will be a great asset to the health debate in Scotland and I am sure that he is looking forward to coming back to health. Although I am leaving health, I certainly do not intend to leave some issues, such as mental health and care of the elderly. I am not quite sure whether I will feel as passionate about carbon capture in my new role, but I certainly do not intend to leave the issue of mental health.

I thank the Labour Party for using its time to discuss the NHS workforce. Plenty of figures have been mentioned this morning, but the one that I cannot forget—and which should be at the back of our mind in everything we do—is the £120 million of interest that this country pays each day on its national debt. Given that, we should all be committed to better-quality and more efficient and effective healthcare that provides the best value for taxpayers’ money.

Although, like others, I acknowledge the value, commitment and dedication of our NHS staff, I must recognise a very good point that Hugh Henry made. I, too, find that the complaints that I am getting are coming not just from patients but from the workforce—and from nurses in particular. The Government needs to explain why, of the 3,910 staff that have been lost in the past 21 months as a result of efficiency savings, 1,747 have been nurses and 1,100 administrators.

Jackie Baillie also made a good point about the NHS providing services in prisons. That work has only just started, but we need to know what impact it will have on existing NHS service provision. After all, as the prison population amounts to more than 7,000, the move represents a huge increase in responsibility for the health service.

We should also consider areas such as mental health, where more staff might be needed. A first-class example of preventative spending, early diagnosis and treatment can, as we know, prevent mild depression from becoming severe, chronic and enduring. That is why I was so shocked and disappointed by the response to a recent freedom of information request that I submitted recently, which revealed that children seeking mental health treatment can wait up to 182 weeks—or more than three years—in Tayside and 56 weeks in Glasgow and that, in adult mental health, an individual might have to wait more than two years in Grampian, Tayside and Highland for psychological services. Moreover, many health boards simply did not have the data. Given the increased demand on the mental health workforce to meet waiting times in future, which I welcome, I ask the cabinet secretary to look at whether retraining and redeployment opportunities are being offered to existing staff where appropriate.

No one has yet pointed out that, compared with levels when the Parliament was established, the percentage of procedures carried out as day cases has risen by 10 per cent and the number of nurses by 5,000. As a result, we should be concentrating not just on the workforce itself but on what it is doing.

In conclusion, I want to quote from the RCN. I do not wish to be flippant but I have to say that I do not remember a time in the past 13 years when the RCN has said that morale is good. Nevertheless, I accept that, as Jackie Baillie pointed out, it is making a comparison with the situation two years ago; indeed, I was going to make the same point in my speech. In its briefing for this debate, the RCN says:

“a decision to close a hospital ward may be sound in the context of shifting more care to community settings. However, if the nursing posts from that ward are simply cut, rather than transferred to the community, the capacity to deliver increased preventative interventions is lost.”

We need more honesty and accuracy with regard to current and future workforce planning in the NHS.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

In summing up, I will make three points, the first of which concerns—to use Murdo Fraser’s rather polite terminology—Labour’s opportunism. I recognise the importance of the issues that have been raised in the debate; indeed, I spend every day dealing with them. I say very directly to Hugh Henry that I know that staff have anxieties and concerns. In a time of change such as the one we are living through, that is only understandable and it is for me as health secretary and indeed for the Parliament to respond to such concerns. However, it is simply not good enough for Labour to come to the chamber simply to criticise and not offer any alternative.

The key moment in the debate was when Murdo Fraser asked Jackie Baillie the crucial question: how much more money would Labour spend on the NHS and where would it take that money from? Jackie Baillie blushed a wee bit at that moment, but she stayed firmly in her seat—“No answer” was the very loud reply. Jackie Baillie tried to clarify Labour’s position on NHS funding by saying that Labour would have passed on all the Barnett consequentials. If that is true, the most charitable thing that we can say about Labour’s position is that it would have spent exactly the same on the NHS as the SNP is spending and not a single penny more.

However, the reality is different. The positions of Jack McConnell in the 2007 to 2011 session of Parliament and Iain Gray in the current session show that, had Labour been in power during those years, the NHS budget would be smaller today. Labour members do not like the reality to be pointed out, but either Jack McConnell and Iain Gray were not being honest then, or Labour is not being honest now. They cannot have it both ways.

My second point is about the changing shape and size of the NHS workforce. Those changes are the reality, and I recognise the challenges that they pose and the anxieties that they cause. I laid out clearly in my opening remarks my responsibility in that respect, which I take incredibly seriously. Let us look at some facts. The fact is that more NHS staff are in post today than when Labour left office. I will give Jackie Baillie the precise numbers: between September 2006 and June 2011, the NHS workforce grew by 4,850 whole-time equivalent posts. That is more staff in every single professional group, with, I accept, the exception of nurses and midwives. The number of nurses and midwives has reduced by 0.2 per cent from the level that we inherited. Of course, that figure does not take account of the increased number of nurses working in primary care. If we add that in, the number of nurses has increased from the level that we inherited from Labour, as with every other professional group. In Scotland, we have more nurses per head of population than in any other part of the UK.

None of that means that it is easy out there. I know that it is not easy and that nurses and other members of the NHS workforce are finding this time of change tough. They are finding it incredibly tough to be faced with the prospect of increases in their pension contributions at a time of a wage freeze. I put on record the Government’s opposition to that cash grab on the pension schemes of NHS workers. I know that things are tough, but I have set out the reality of the NHS workforce, and it would do Labour good to recognise that reality.

My third and final point has already been made by other members, particularly Maureen Watt, Chic Brodie, Bob Doris and Stuart McMillan. What matters most about the NHS is what it delivers for patients, but that is the bit that Labour members do not want to talk about. The hard reality is that the NHS today is performing better than at any time in its entire history. Hanzala Malik made a good speech in which he recognised the quality of service in our NHS. Waiting times and infection rates are lower than they have ever been. Thanks to our world-leading quality strategy and patient safety programme, which is admired throughout the world, we have higher quality and safer care than ever before in the NHS. Jackie Baillie calls all that a crisis, but I call it a fantastic achievement on the part of the people who work in our national health service and, again, I thank them for that.

I have been where Jackie Baillie is, so I know what it is like—her job is to criticise from the sidelines. I understand that that is in the nature of opposition. However, my job is to preserve the progress that we have made on our national health service, to build on that progress and to do everything in my power to protect it. That is what I will do, because I am proud of our national health service and of every single member of staff who works in it.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I hope that we all agree that the debate is extremely important, even if it has been fractious. It centres on the fact that there is a denial of the reality of what is happening on the part of the SNP. It is not that Labour is saying that budgets are not tight—we know that budgets are tight—but let me add to the facts that have been read out so far. In 2007-08, the gap between expenditure on the health service in England and expenditure on the health service in Scotland was £216. In the coming year, it will be £26 and, in 2013, it will be a negative balance. That is the reality.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I simply want to ask Richard Simpson the question that Jackie Baillie did not answer when Murdo Fraser posed it: how much more money does Labour propose to spend on the NHS and where in the Scottish budget would that extra money come from?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is the reality of the per capita spend.

Regardless of what we said or what the SNP purported to say, the reality is that, year on year, the cash increase in the SNP’s budgets in the times that were good was 2.4 per cent less than the increase in England. [Interruption.] You can shout from a sedentary position as often as you like, but the reality is that we had an advantage in health service spend, which you have taken away during the good years.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Richard Simpson did not answer my question. It is not good enough to come here and criticise. How much more would Labour spend and where would it take it from?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry; I am trying to make it clear—

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Dr Simpson, could you speak through the chair, please?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Labour spent considerably more when it was in government in England and Labour would have spent more if it had been in government in Scotland, so we would not have been at the same starting point.

I say to the cabinet secretary that the issue is not the amounts of money that are spent. We know that budgets are tight; we also know—every speaker has said this—that in Scotland, unlike in England, productivity has been going up. The fact that our staff are doing a fantastic job is reflected in parts of the SNP amendment. I accept that things have improved—I am not saying that they have not—but that is down to the fact that staff are working extremely hard.

We are asking the SNP to join us in starting from a position of reality. The SNP’s complacency in saying that all the cuts are due to change is breathtaking. The reality is that, as of June 2011, the number of nurses, who are critical to front-line delivery, was lower than it was in 2006. [Interruption.] The figures from ISD Scotland show that the number of nurses is down. If ISD is wrong, the cabinet secretary should correct it, but she should not come to the chamber and tell us that the figures that she has published are not correct.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I read out the figures for the period between September 2006 and June 2011. Did Richard Simpson not hear me when I said that the nursing and midwifery workforce had reduced by 0.2 per cent, not taking account of the increase in the number of nurses working in primary care?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

So the numbers are down. You said that the numbers would be up, but they are down.

As Hugh Henry and others said, the reality is that NHS staff are coming to our surgeries to tell us their concerns—perhaps it is because we are the Opposition that they have more to tell us than just complaints about car parking charges, which is what the SNP’s back benchers are getting. My postbag is increasingly full of worries and expressions of distress from staff. In the short time that remains, I will deal with some of those.

I will start with the position that we are trying to get to: everyone wants us to increase prevention. If we are to improve prevention, we need the number of specialist nurses to increase rather than decrease. The number of specialist nurses who deal with heart failure, whose work prevents readmissions, reduces costs and improves patient quality, has gone down since 2008. The number was 50.5 and it is down to 46. The cabinet secretary might say that that is a reduction of only four, but it is a reduction of 9 per cent. The cabinet secretary can play with figures all day, but the fact remains that, instead of increasing, the number of specialist nurses is decreasing.

There have been cuts of 20 per cent in speech and language therapy for adults with learning disabilities. Jim Eadie referred to that yesterday and that is a concern that we share. Argyll and Bute is planning cuts of 50 per cent in its speech and language budget, and there are other cuts. According to a report from the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, there is a reduction in service, a reduction in budgets and a reducing workforce. Is that not a reality? Are we being fed misinformation? Are we being told the wrong thing? I do not know.

The statistics are difficult. We know that the ISD statistics on speech and language do not count frozen posts, maternity leave or family-related leave. They do not reflect the changes in skill mix and they do not expose the long-standing gaps in provision, which go against national guidelines. We have a dearth of good statistics, but those that we have tell a clear story.

The Government’s response to Harry Burns’s concern about early years is interesting. The Government’s response is against the background of an increase from 54,000 to 58,000 in the number of births and of prenatal, antenatal and immediately postnatal stages being recognised as crucial to the development of children. It is against the background of increasing recognition of the problems of drug and alcohol misuse and of the recognition by midwives that they do far more child protection work than ever before. It is against the background that twin births are rising and that more older women are having children. Against that background, and with a static neonatal death rate, what has the Government done? It has cut the midwifery intake by 40 per cent.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary would say, if she got in, that the Royal College of Nursing agreed to that. To be frank, the RCN did not look at the wider picture. Since I raised the issue in a parliamentary question, midwives have been coming to me. I am getting a lot of mail saying, “We are in real difficulty.” All that we ask is that the Government recognises that.

There is a problem. Take the example of radiography, which is one area where there has been a substantial increase, where we have improved things and have improved the skill mix considerably. However, in my own area, NHS Forth Valley, only one radiographer is qualified to read plain films. What happens if she is off sick or goes on holiday? The responsibility goes back to the doctors, but are they not doing other things? Of course they are. They are doing other things, because the skill mix has changed.

We are not saying that things are not tight, that things are not difficult and that there are not problems, but we are saying two things. First, in the good years this Government spent less on health, as a proportion, than it received. The reality is that England, which was always behind us in per capita spend, will have a per capita spend greater than Scotland’s in 2013-14.

That must be down to the decisions of the SNP Government. No matter what the cabinet secretary says that Labour said or did not say, or would have done or could have done, the SNP is the Government, not us. The reality is that the cabinet secretary has eliminated the per capita spend difference, that there are 1,700 fewer nurses today than there were two years ago and that there are 230 fewer allied health professionals than there were two years ago. That is the reality that she must face up to. She is simply in denial and that should stop, now.

Keeping Communities Safe

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01285, in the name of Johann Lamont, on keeping communities safe.

I call Johann Lamont to speak to and move the motion. Ms Lamont, you have 10 minutes.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

That is slightly longer than I expected.

This is an important issue. It is about community safety, confidence in the justice system and securing justice for victims of crime. I am sure that members recognise the importance of an effective justice system, public safety and public confidence.

For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that Labour is not opposing for the sake of opposition and that we are not insulting police staff, or police officers or those in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service who do an important job in serving the public. We acknowledge the important job that they do in difficult circumstances. We are not being negative or partisan; we are doing our job as the Opposition, which is to bring up the concerns that are raised with us about what is happening in our communities and to urge the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to do his job and to pay attention to and address those concerns and the gaps that seem to be emerging in the quality of the service.

The motion mentions concerns that there are 428 fewer police support staff and that unmarked cases in the COPFS have recently doubled. I was struck by two things about the cabinet secretary’s amendment. First, it reflects the continuing notion that 2007 was year zero and that nothing was done before 2007 to address those concerns or to improve the quality of service. Secondly, the amendment reflects a sense of complacency about what is happening in the justice system and the police service. When the cabinet secretary considers what is happening in his area of responsibility, he needs to listen to more than just the people who agree with him. There are concerns among police staff and staff in the COPFS about the quality of the service that they are able to deliver.

I want to cover issues to do with the COPFS and the impact of cuts on police staff, in relation to both the pressure on staff to do their jobs as effectively as possible and the impact on the service then provided. Those issues are critical. We know that there is a real-terms cut in the COPFS budget but the only area in which it has been identified that spending will fall is staff costs, which will have an impact on the service and on those who remain within it. The key issue is what the price of such a cut will be. Will there be a redistribution of the workload to other staff? Will that increase the pressure and stress that has already been identified?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Given that the justice budget and funding for the police have been increased by 20 per cent over recent years, how much more does the member suggest that they should be increased by? Which budget should be raided to pay for that?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

This will be a dialogue of the deaf if the only way in which we can engage in a serious discussion about the choices that the Government is making and the consequences of those choices is if I am able to produce an alternative budget. That is an entirely unacceptable approach by the Government, which must take responsibility for what it is doing and for the budget choices that it is making. People have concerns about what they are expected to do. In October 2011, there were nearly 14,000 unmarked cases—52 per cent higher than at the same time in 2010. The cabinet secretary needs to explain why that is the case; if he does not know why that is the case he needs to show that he is addressing those concerns.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Is the member aware of the rebuttal of those figures by the Lord Advocate, who indicated that there are more lawyers and fewer reports and that the number of unmarked cases that are over four weeks old is significantly down? Does she dispute that?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Lord Hamilton reported to the Justice Committee that there were 100 fewer staff; the cabinet secretary may wish to investigate those figures.

The cabinet secretary needs to explain why the number of unmarked cases has changed as indicated. He cannot simply deny them away. There may be an explanation, but we need to know what it is. There are reports of planned closures of courts, which would impact on jobs and local economies. The cabinet secretary needs to address those reports, too. It is simply not good enough to assert that everything is fine if people who are working in the services say something entirely different. That is an issue for the cabinet secretary to address. It is not about finessing numbers or explaining away: it is about investigating the concerns and addressing them.

The gap between the ministerial view of the world and life in our local communities is also highlighted by the situation of the police and police staff. It was a key strand of policy and delivery in the Labour-led Scottish Executive to civilianise significant elements of police work, thereby releasing police officers from roles that diverted them from the front line and seeking to increase efficiency. Now there are grave concerns that, as one police staff member said to me, we are seeing the decivilianising of the police in a shift that is ineffective, inefficient and illogical at a time of financial pressures. We are potentially taking police officers away from addressing community safety so that they can backfill posts. That is expensive and wasteful, when we know that they should be out detecting crime and giving the public confidence. We simply ask the cabinet secretary to investigate that and have an audit of what roles the police are undertaking.

It is just as critical that we recognise that, in losing police staff, we are not simply losing key administrative staff but losing highly trained staff whose jobs are more than simply admin, whether it is football banning order managers, intelligence analysts, resource managers, citations officers, scenes of crime officers, fingerprint experts, financial analysts or computer investigation and security officers, whose jobs are of course critical in relation to internet offences.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Will the member give way?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

If you let me press on for a minute.

All those jobs are critical to delivering a high-quality police service. If those are going, it will undermine the capacity of the police to detect, identify and act against criminality in our communities. I ask the cabinet secretary to recognise that there are concerns that, if posts are going, those kinds of high-quality jobs that deliver a service may go too, with the consequence that the whole service is reduced. It is evident from the jobs that I listed that police support staff perform a wide range of complex and specialist functions that are central to a modern-day police force and are key in ensuring that officers spend the maximum amount of time out on the beat and not stuck behind a desk.

There are reports that some chief constables are concerned about having to make irrational staffing decisions in order that the cabinet secretary can say simply that 1,000 extra police officers are on the beat. There are 1,000 extra police officers, but are they all on the beat? Has the cabinet secretary clarified that that is what they are doing? Are we making the most logical, rational decisions that can be made about our police service?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Is the member suggesting that we should break the tripartite agreement that chief constables are not interfered with by the justice secretary, of whatever political hue, and are held to account by the police board? Is the member suggesting that that should be changed? Is the function that she raises not a matter for the police board?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that the cabinet secretary does his job. The job is not simply to take the credit because there are 1,000 extra police on the beat and deny any responsibility for what is happening on the ground in relation to those services. If the police are having to make choices to get rid of police staff because they are unable to address the question that the cabinet secretary has raised of police numbers, then there is a problem. The issue is about rational investment in our police services and in our prosecution service so that we address the needs of victims of crime and the capacity of police to identify crime.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Will the member take an intervention?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

No.

There is no point in having huge numbers of police out on the beat if, when their reports go back, they are not pursued and progressed in a timely manner so that they end up in court. The current situation is irrational and illogical and a matter for the cabinet secretary himself to address.

We recognise, as everyone does, that there are tough choices to be made. We want the cabinet secretary to take responsibility for the choices that he makes and to engage with those who are concerned, even if that is an unintended consequence of his position. We need a substantial, honest debate. In particular, I urge the cabinet secretary to investigate what the police officers are doing. If they are backfilling posts, what are the consequences? If high-quality police staff jobs are going, what impact is that having? On the prosecution service, I urge him to ensure that justice is not being denied because of time barring or high levels of unmarked cases.

I am sure that, if nothing else, we can agree that an efficient, effective system of policing and prosecution is in the interests of the victims of crime and the communities that we serve.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern that the Scottish Policing Performance Framework Annual Report 2010-11 shows that the number of police support staff fell by 428 in the last year and that violent crime increased by 2% during the same period; believes that cuts in the number of support staff lead to police officers being taken off the beat to fill civilian posts; further notes that the number of unmarked cases with procurators fiscal doubled to 14,000 in the six months to October and that many of these cases were more than four weeks old; considers that such delays in the processing of offences undermine public confidence in the justice system, and believes that both reductions in police support staff and backlogs in the marking of cases put public safety at risk.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Keeping communities safe has been at the heart of the Government’s work since we took office in 2007 and we have delivered real improvements. However, it is acknowledged and accepted that there are still too many tragic cases and too many families are damaged by violence and crime, so I am clear that there is no room for complacency about the need for more improvement.

We are working hard to keep communities safe and build on the progress that we have made since 2007. However, it is clear from reading the Labour Party’s motion for the debate and listening to Johann Lamont that the Labour Party is unwilling to acknowledge how much progress has been made since the Government came to office. Indeed, listening to Ms Lamont, one would think that no progress had been made at all. Let me take the opportunity to remind the Parliament how things have improved since Labour left office.

We have increased the number of police officers in our communities by more than 1,000. Let us not forget that Labour did not go into the election in 2007 seeking to increase police numbers at all. Despite the cuts that have been imposed on us by the UK Government, we are seeing the benefit of our investment. Recorded crime is at its lowest level since 1976 and is down by nearly a quarter since 2007. We have the lowest recorded crime in 35 years. The clear-up rate for all recorded crimes is at its highest level in more than 30 years. Reoffending rates are at an 11-year low. We acknowledge that violent crime is still too severe in Scotland, although we know the great propensity for violent crime to be fuelled by alcohol, and let us remember who in the Parliament is failing to support the Government in taking action on that. However, levels of violent crime are almost 20 per cent lower than in 2007, and I hazard a guess that, had we got minimum pricing, they would probably be lower still.

We know that knife crime is a significant problem in Scotland, but since the Government took office, it has gone down by 38 per cent. The number of homicides is down by almost 35 per cent and gun crime is down by almost half. Ms Lamont mentioned victims, so let me mention that the risk of being a victim of crime is lower than in England and Wales and people are significantly more positive about the crime rate in their local area. Fear of crime is down as well. None of that is a coincidence. We believe that it is down to the 1,000 additional officers. If Ms Lamont wishes to argue for fewer, or for a return to the halcyon days of 2006-07, she should tell us what she thinks the number of police officers in Scotland should be.

The Labour Party has also raised the issue of the Crown Office marking cases within time limits. I have spoken to the Lord Advocate and I know that no cases will be time barred and that the Lord Advocate continues to give priority to staffing within the service to tackle serious crime.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

If the Lord Advocate gives priority to staffing, does the cabinet secretary share my concern that Lord Hamilton told the Justice Committee that there are 100 fewer staff as a result of the early exit scheme that has been applied?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I do not want to lecture Mr Kelly, but Lord Hamilton chairs the Scottish Court Service and the Lord Advocate is in charge of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. They are two entirely separate organisations. The day we merge them is the day we undermine the integrity of the system and jeopardise the notion of a balanced and fair trial. I would have thought that that would have been evident even to James Kelly.

We are absolutely committed to reducing violent crime in Scotland. The level in 2009-10 was the lowest since 1984, and the latest statistics show that the level is nearly a fifth lower than it was in 2006-07. However, as I have already said, there is no room for complacency. We are taking action to reduce violence across Scotland, and that remains a key priority for us.

There are also fewer people carrying knives and the number of crimes of handling an offensive weapon is at its lowest level in a decade—even though that decade included the halcyon days of Ms Lamont’s reign. Those who are caught carrying a knife are facing the longest prison sentences in a decade. We believe that the key to tackling knife crime is a combination of tough enforcement on the streets, backed by early intervention and education. The no knives, better lives campaign has been a real success during its pilot phase. It has contributed to significant drops in the number of people carrying knives in Inverclyde and Renfrewshire. That is why we have doubled the funding for that important education initiative to allow us to roll out the tactics to six new areas and fund a fresh push of activity in existing areas. I am glad that many local authorities welcome that, even if Labour does not. The approach is supported across the justice community and, as the evidence shows, our approach of tough enforcement and education is working, and it should be supported across this chamber.

We are also taking action to reform our police and fire services to ensure that front-line services are protected. Reform will remove unnecessary and costly duplication across the eight police forces, freeing up resources for local communities. We are doing all that while protecting front-line jobs.

While we are being confronted with the unprecedented cuts from Westminster, we should be uniting in Scotland to stand against the attack that is being led from down south on our front-line services. It is therefore disappointing that Labour has chosen not to use its debating slot to support our police officers in their demand to keep and protect their pensions. We, as a Parliament, should be standing shoulder to shoulder with those on the front line and supporting them in their fight against those who are undermining the relationship, based on consensus, that the Government has been building.

In the election in May, the people decided that Labour was not fit for government. Right now, as the First Minister has said, it is not fit for opposition.

I move amendment S4M-01285.3, to leave out from “with concern” to end and insert:

“that Scottish communities have become safer since the current Scottish administration first came to office; notes that crime in Scotland is now at its lowest level in 35 years, that the clear-up rate for all recorded crimes is at its highest level for over 30 years and that the risk of being a victim of crime in Scotland is lower than in England and Wales; notes that, since 2007, violent crime is down by almost a fifth, the number of homicides is down by almost 35%, gun crime is down by almost half and people are significantly more positive about the crime rate in their local area; notes the significant investment made in frontline policing since 2007, with police officer numbers reaching record highs during the last parliamentary session; welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to maintaining numbers at 1,000 more than the level that they inherited from the previous Labour and Liberal Democrat administration, and recognises that significant investments and improvements across the justice sector have been delivered in the face of budget cuts from the UK Government and that, while police officer numbers are predicted to fall by more than 16,000 in England and Wales, the Scottish Government is committed to prioritising frontline policing to ensure that Scottish communities remain safe places to live and work.”

John Lamont (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and thank Johann Lamont and the Labour Party for bringing this important topic to the chamber, particularly since this will be my last debate in my capacity as the Conservative justice spokesman.

The Scottish Government has been good at patting itself on the back in relation to the criminal justice system. However, it is vital that it recognises that, in keeping our communities safe, this is not the time to be complacent. Although I recognise that the latest crime statistics are, overall, encouraging, there are other trends that the Government must take into account. An increase in violent crimes is unlikely to make people feel safer in their communities. Indeed, the latest Scottish crime and justice survey shows that 87 per cent of people perceive the crime rate in their local area either as having stayed the same or as having gone up in the past two years.

As the motion highlights, front-line policing is set to face pressure as a result of a reduction in the number of support staff. There are also indications that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service will not meet its performance targets. Most worryingly, however, the rates of reoffending remain unacceptably high, and have stayed virtually the same for years. Unless we tackle that issue, we will never properly cut crime rates.

I will start by dealing with front-line policing. We should not forget that the Scottish Conservatives were responsible for the delivery of the 1,000 extra police officers on our streets. We were pleased to see that commitment extended into the future. However, there seems to be a serious risk of that becoming a public relations exercise rather than a real, visible change in the police presence on our streets. The fall in support staff numbers has led some people to believe that the hole will need to be plugged by front-line police officers. Indeed, the Justice Committee took evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, which has warned the Government that there are likely to be pressures on front-line policing as a result. It is hypocritical to boast about falling crime rates while allowing police officer numbers, which have been instrumental in that fall, to dwindle again.

I have argued, on several occasions, that the single most important thing to tackle in our justice system is the almost unbelievable rate of reoffending, which is the focus of my amendment. The latest Audit Scotland report shows that 69 per cent of those who were imprisoned in 2009-10 had more than five previous convictions. Reoffending rates have fallen by less than 1 per cent in three years, despite having been a policy priority for several years. It seems clear that something must change. I am sure that the Scottish Government—indeed, most MSPs of all parties—will agree that we need to take a different approach.

I will touch briefly on the need to tackle reoffending through rehabilitation in our prisons. It is vital that Scotland has a modern, fit-for-purpose prison estate with a focus on rehabilitation. I welcome the commitment to the new Grampian prison as well as the continued investment in the prison estate, and I will follow keenly the progress on that work. The Scottish Conservatives have long argued that both long and short-term prison sentences are vital ingredients of a well-functioning criminal justice system.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Does John Lamont accept that all the evidence to the Justice Committee was to the effect that short-term prison sentences do not work and that recidis—recidivsism—I will say that again: that reoffending takes place in nearly three quarters of people who have been out for less than two years? Short-term sentences really do not work, and the Conservatives should get rid of their mantra once and for all.

John Lamont (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I fully accept that reoffending rates are far too high and that the current system in our prisons and in community-based alternatives to prison is not working. However, the answer is not the abolition of short-term sentences; the answer is in reforming the rehabilitation services that we offer both in prison and outside prison. It is vital that Scotland has a modern, fit-for-purpose prison estate with a focus on rehabilitation. The answer is not simply to abolish the short-term alternatives. We must always ensure that there are sufficient prison spaces to deal with those who are sent to prison by the courts and not try to interfere with courts’ discretion to send people to prison if that is their decision.

We should not forget that prison terms have several functions. First, they should be a deterrent to criminals, as losing some of one’s basic freedoms for a period of time is a powerful incentive. If it is not, it should be. Secondly, they prevent criminals from committing crimes again—at least, for the time that they are in prison. Thirdly, a modern prison estate should offer effective rehabilitation through a wide variety of purposeful activities and programmes. The Justice Committee has heard evidence suggesting that there is a lack of meaningful activities across the prison estate. That needs to be recognised by the Scottish Government, which should conduct a national review of all Scotland’s rehabilitation schemes to work out what is providing good value for money and what is producing the results that we all want to see.

We all know that a lot of the crimes that are committed are alcohol or drug related. For example, last year’s statistics showed that 77 per cent of young offenders were reportedly drunk at the time of committing an offence. Similar data can be found to confirm the link between drug use and crime. It seems clear that helping offenders to deal with their addictions would have a strong impact on the level of crime, especially in relation to reoffending rates, yet we do not seem to be making sufficient progress.

John Lamont (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I will have the opportunity to speak later in the debate.

I move amendment S4M-01285.2, to leave out from first “; believes” to end and insert:

“and that reoffending rates remain unacceptably high; believes that cuts in the number of support staff lead to police officers being taken off the beat to fill civilian posts; further notes that the number of unmarked cases with procurators fiscal doubled to 14,000 in the six months to October and that many of these cases were more than four weeks old; considers that such delays in the processing of offences undermine public confidence in the justice system, and believes that both reductions in police support staff and backlogs in the marking of cases put public safety at risk as well as disillusion victims of crime who should be at the heart of the criminal justice system.”

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I do not like to bandy statistics about, but I inform John Lamont that 74 per cent of the public said that local crime had stayed the same or that the situation had improved in 2010-11. That does not gel with the facts that Mr Lamont cited. I might have time to talk about rehabilitation in due course.

The cabinet secretary has reprised many of the good-news stories on recorded crime, on front-line police officers and so on. The one thing that he did not touch on, which everyone welcomes, is the £42 million that has been committed to cashback for communities, much of which has gone to youth activities. Communities apply for the money and benefits are brought in; that creates a virtuous circle in which crime is shown to pay, but to pay back into communities.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Does the member agree that a lot of the money from the proceeds of crime is harvested from particularly poor communities and that it should be directed back into those communities? Some communities are concerned that, while they have suffered and there has been a conviction of, for example, an illegal moneylender, the money is distributed across the country rather than being directed to the needs of those specific communities.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

If the member has a difficulty with the way in which the programme operates, she should take it up with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. As far as I am aware, the distribution is done in a just and fair way, with applications being made throughout Scotland and the money going to local projects, depending on the status and quality of the application.

An end to automatic early release was a good move. To pick up on one of the only things that Labour has come up with, which is mandatory sentences—

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Will the member take an intervention?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Let me get on for a moment, please.

Mandatory sentences for carrying a knife was a completely daft idea that would have been fraught with problems. It is not just me who has said that; many others have said exactly the same. In particular, Tom Harris, the Labour member of Parliament who is standing against Ms Lamont for Scottish Labour leader, said:

“We didn’t have a vision. Our vision could be summed up as send everyone who carries a knife to jail. That’s not a vision. It’s not even much of a policy.”

John Lamont said:

“It would be churlish not to point out the positives in these figures, although before the SNP pat themselves on the back we note that grave offences like non-sexual crimes of violence, rape and attempted rape and crimes of dishonesty such as housebreaking have all increased.”

However, Ken Clarke then said:

“Anybody who is guilty of serious knife crime will go to prison but I’m not in favour of absolute rules. I’m in favour of actually allowing judges to see how nasty the offender is, see what the offence was, see what the best way of protecting the public from him is.”

Hugh Henry, too, is not in favour of mandatory sentencing, so I hope that Labour members will drop that stupid and counterproductive idea, even though it is the only one that they seem to have come up with.

On the other issues that are in the pipeline, I am prepared to say that the anti-sectarian bill that is before the Justice Committee needs to be improved, but it is a step in the right direction. The reform of police and fire services will, in time, save money. Are eight human resources departments and procurement departments necessary for Scotland, which only has 5 million people? A victims’ rights bill and paying attention to the victims of crime is also very important to the balance in society.

There is a stench of hypocrisy now around minimum unit pricing. Before the election, minimum unit pricing was opposed for purely political reasons in the face of all the evidence to the Health and Sport Committee from all the health professionals, and from all the criminal justice and enforcement professionals, that it would have a major impact on the health and criminal justice budgets. We just need to think about violence and domestic violence, which Ms Lamont has been very good at debating and pursuing in the Parliament. That violence would be greatly reduced if we did something about getting rid of cheap alcohol—firewater—which just makes people go crazy and leaves them with no regard for their partners or themselves.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I would be grateful if you could close.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I say to Mr Lamont that the last thing we need is more prisons. They do not work. Building prisons will just make things worse for people. Of course we must protect society, but we have to do more rehabilitation and throughcare. I agree with the Tory amendment on that, but it is the only bit of the amendment that I agree with.

Margaret McDougall (Labour, West Scotland)

I will use my time to discuss the reduction in the number of police support staff and the backlog of court cases, both of which I consider to undermine the justice system in Scotland and show the Government playing politics with community safety.

As of 30 June this year, there were 7,109 police staff in Scotland, which is a fall of 732 since June last year according to a response to a parliamentary question asked by Johann Lamont. I seek assurance from the Government that if the planned single police force goes ahead, those numbers will not fall any further.

In a written question to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, I asked whether there will be further support staff job losses. He replied:

“Final decisions on civilian staff numbers will be a matter for the leadership of the new service to determine based on operational requirements.”—[Official Report, Written Answers, 1 November 2011; S4W-03409.]

Is that another case of the Scottish National Party cutting budgets then leaving the service providers to pick up the backlash from the public when services are cut? We need to know just what effect the cuts to staff so far will have on front-line services. How many officers are being taken off front-line duty to carry out work that was previously done by support staff?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Will the member take an intervention?

Margaret McDougall (Labour, West Scotland)

I am sorry, but I do not have time to take interventions.

Many police forces are suggesting that if they receive any more cuts to their budget they will no longer be able to do their job effectively and it will be unsustainable for them to meet the Government’s pledge to keep an additional 1,000 police officers on the front line. Without a doubt, the cuts will have an effect on communities across Scotland and will lead to reductions in the number of police on the beat, affect the ability of the police to handle emergency calls and increase response times—or, in the case of some less serious incidents, mean that police will not be able to respond at all.

The problem is further complicated by backroom staff cuts in our court system, where there is already a considerable backlog of court cases. As of October, there were 14,000 unmarked cases compared with 7,000 only six months ago, an increase of 100 per cent, and 4,300 of those cases have gone over the four-week target. I am greatly concerned that if the trend continues, many of the cases will not be heard and criminals will be let off without trial.

That situation is not helped by the recruitment freeze in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which has resulted in none of last year’s trainees being employed at the end of their training contract. To have such delays in the processing of offences undermines public confidence in Scotland’s justice system and, combined with the cuts in police support staff, could put public safety at risk. I call on the Government to give assurances today that police support staff numbers under a single police force will be maintained. Maintaining support staff numbers is vital to keeping police on the streets fighting crime, and any cuts to support staff will have a detrimental effect on community safety.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I pay tribute to the monumental progress made by the police, in particular, in making Scotland’s communities safer under this SNP Government. The facts clearly show that outstanding progress has been made, with overall crime at its lowest level for 35 years and recorded crime having decreased a full 23 per cent since the SNP took office, with 90,000 fewer crimes a year.

At the end of June 2011, there were 1,105 more police officers in Scotland than there were in March 2007, and that is 1,105 more than there would have been if the Labour Party had won the election. Police funding is also at a record level of £1.4 billion this year, £235 million higher than when the SNP took office—an increase of 20 per cent.

The resources that the Government has found to fight crime in Scotland, despite unprecedented economic pressure brought on both by the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat United Kingdom Government’s decision to cut Scotland’s block grant by 12.3 per cent and by the fact that the previous Labour Government at Westminster led us into our current economic difficulties, demonstrate the extent of the Government’s commitment to making Scotland safer. In the face of those cuts and difficult economic times, the Government has also overseen vast improvements in the efficiency and swiftness with which justice is delivered. We have also seen a 15 per cent increase in the number of Crown lawyers since 2007.

The simple fact is that this Government has been both tough and innovative in forcing down crime. The average length of overall prison sentences in Scotland has increased by 21 per cent since 2006-07 and is now at its highest level in a decade. The Scottish Government has introduced measures that directly benefit communities that are most affected by crime, such as the cashback for communities scheme that was mentioned by my colleague Christine Grahame. The Scottish Government has also recently announced that it will expand its successful no knives, better lives campaign into six new areas of the country, including North Ayrshire, which includes my constituency of Cunninghame North.

Although we should welcome the steps that the Government has taken to reduce crime and the great success that has stemmed from them, there is certainly more work to do, and the Government is anything but complacent about making our communities safer.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Does the member agree that he should urge his minister simply to investigate the claims that police officers are coming off the beat and backfilling staff posts and that we are losing quality police staff because of cuts? Surely he must agree that it would be a concern if that were the case. Does he agree that there should simply be an investigation and an audit to clarify whether that is happening?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The cabinet secretary has more than answered that question. We need a wee bit of reality from the Labour Party, not the usual sterility in saying, “Let’s spend more money on absolutely everything.” The Labour Party should try to accept the position that the Scottish Government is currently in. I do not know what anybody else thinks, but I do not think that most people out there are concerned about the number of support staff that there are; rather, they are concerned about the amount of crime in our society and how we will reduce it. It is about outcomes, which I want to talk more about.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Will the member take an intervention?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I have a minute left. James Kelly knows that I would have been more than happy to let him in otherwise.

My colleague Christine Grahame talked about the scourge of alcoholism in Scotland. According to the Scottish crime and justice survey, 63 per cent of perpetrators of violent crime in the current year were under the influence of alcohol. That has to be considered.

Surely it is incumbent on members of all parties to work constructively with the Scottish Government in taking a more comprehensive approach to ensuring further the safety of our communities. In this debate, as in every other debate that I can recall, Labour has engaged in an argument not about outcomes in respect of fewer crimes; rather, it has tried to pretend that support staff efficiencies are not essential to ensuring the continuation of front-line policing, with the 1,000-plus extra officers Scotland now enjoys. It ignores the financial difficulties that have been caused by its deregulation of the City of London, which is the world’s largest financial centre, and its inept handling of the UK economy. That led to the financial cuts and the thousands of job losses that Scotland now has to endure. Labour should just once accept its culpability, acknowledge the economic reality, and come up with a positive idea. Pigs will fly first, of course.

All members should engage in a positive, robust and serious discussion. I say to Margaret McDougall that the SNP increased the number of community officers in North Ayrshire from 30 to 140, and crime fell by 12 per cent. That is what the people are interested in, not Labour’s sterile arguments.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

It is welcome that the Labour Party has used its debating time this morning to focus on keeping communities safe. This is an important debate that allows us to highlight shortcomings that we think will impact on that.

During its budget scrutiny, the Justice Committee received written evidence from the Procurators Fiscal Society that highlighted the significant increase in the number of unmarked cases and attributed that to a reduction in staff numbers in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. A further reduction in its budget is hardly likely to improve the situation.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Is the member aware that the Lord Advocate has made it quite clear that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service had 513 lawyers in June this year, which compares with 446 in the halcyon days of Labour-Liberal rule in June 2007? That is a significant increase.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I did indeed see that correspondence. It is for the cabinet secretary to reconcile the two different points of view. I know that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is facing a reduction in its budget this year, which is hardly likely to improve the situation.

Fresh research that was conducted by the Scottish Liberal Democrats via freedom of information requests updates the figures and reveals that, over the past year, there has been a reduction of 566 civilian staff jobs in police forces throughout Scotland. Police forces such as Central Scotland Police and Grampian Police have seen the biggest reductions—the figures are 18 and 14 per cent respectively.

In addition to the many administrative posts that have been lost, a wide range of other jobs have been lost from police forces throughout Scotland, including crime intelligence analysts, police custody officers, community wardens, road safety officers, a firearms licensing manager, and wildlife and environmental crime officers. It is clear that police forces are losing a wealth of knowledge and expertise that, until now, was harnessed to help to cut and prevent crime in Scotland. That is a retrograde step.

Civilian staff fulfil an important role in helping to keep Scotland’s streets safe. They provide essential expertise and skills in the fight against crime, and they help to keep front-line police staff out on the streets protecting communities. A reduction in civilian numbers could lead to Scotland’s visible police force being rapidly eroded. I urge the Scottish Government to recognise that it is essential to maintain a balance between civilian staff and front-line officers, not just for their expertise, but for the fight against crime in communities. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice needs to explain how the Scottish Government will get the balance right, because the public will continue to be protected only through that being achieved.

During last year’s budget scrutiny, ACPOS warned that focusing purely on maintaining police officer numbers would result in police being taken off the beat to perform civilian staff functions. In evidence to the Justice Committee, Chief Constable David Strang said:

“If we reduce the number of front-line staff who do essential jobs, there is a real risk that we will have to remove police officers from other duties. For example, if we make custody officers redundant, we will have to release police officers to look after prisoners in police stations.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 23 November 2010; c 3815.]

The Scottish Liberal Democrats are absolutely committed to keeping communities safe. We recognise that front-line civilian staff are an integral part of any modern police force. I agree with ACPOS that forces should have flexibility in the way that they deploy resources to maintain front-line policing.

However, let us be clear that the staffing reductions that I have mentioned will be only the tip of the iceberg if the cabinet secretary pursues his proposal for a single police force. The kind of savings that the Government claims would come from the creation of a single police force could be realised only through staff cuts that would lead to the loss of around 4,000 officers throughout Scotland.

Losses on that scale would put the current community focus of our police services under immense pressure. Chief Constable Colin McKerracher of Grampian Police has warned that it would risk a return to the crime-fighting, call-response mode of policing, in which officers run around answering calls for crimes that have occurred because they are no longer able to prevent them. Much good work would be lost, and the performance of which the Government has been so proud this morning would be jeopardised.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that the most effective way of keeping communities safe is to ensure that our police services are properly resourced, locally accountable and flexible enough to respond to local needs and that policing remains part of the local government family. The development of close links between criminal justice services, social work services and education, drug and alcohol services has brought about great progress on tackling the root causes of crime.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

I would have liked to give the Labour Party the benefit of the doubt about whether it is motivated by genuine concern for community safety, but its real intentions are given away by the motion and the speeches from Labour members.

The motion takes two entirely unrelated figures—on support staff numbers and on violent crime—and tries to imply that one is a direct consequence of the other. Talk about adding two and two and coming up with 43. The whole motion is based on similar unlikely leaps of logic, which are all intended to scaremonger.

One would think that, after the comprehensive rejection by Scottish voters of the right-wing, lowest-common-denominator criminal justice policies pursued by Labour in the previous session of the Parliament, Johann Lamont would take the opportunity to steer her politics and party away from fear and back towards a more constructive approach to the subject, but apparently not. That is a real shame, because I am sure that there are Labour members who would far prefer not to have to spout stuff that would make Ann Widdecombe cheer.

The fact is that we are seeing real progress on reducing crime. In the process, we are gaining insight into, and evidence on, what works and what does not work in the drive to build safer communities throughout Scotland. Policing in Scotland—boosted by the 1,000 extra police officers that the SNP has delivered—is getting more informed and more effective all the time. We are giving the police and the courts the powers that they need to respond where spikes in rates of one or another kind of crime occur, against the prevailing trend of falling crime in Scotland.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Will Christina McKelvie give way?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

I will not give way because, if the Labour Party was really serious about the debate, it would have dedicated its entire time to it this morning.

I speak as the member for a constituency that, earlier this year, was given the unenviable label of the murder capital of Scotland, after there were an unprecedented 14 murders within the local division during 2010-11—up from three in the previous year. My constituents were shocked, and rightly so. However, in my discussions with local senior officers, I was reassured not only by how seriously they took the highly unusual figures, but by how swiftly and smartly they responded, using analytical police work to identify the flashpoints and locations for violence.

In every one of those 14 murder cases, arrests were made. I hope that justice will be delivered for all the victims and their families. That does not bring the victims back, but it shows that, where particular problem areas for crime are identified, effective policing is having an impact. I pay tribute to the police in Hamilton and the surrounding area for the work they have done on that.

In parts of Scotland, the prevalence of violent crime is complex and deep-seated, and we need far-sighted policy programmes to deliver profound social change for the long term. That is where initiatives such as no knives, better lives, which I am pleased to say will soon operate in South Lanarkshire, and cashback for communities come in. They provide in-depth engagement with young people and particularly with young people who are at risk of becoming involved in criminal behaviour.

I commend the street project in Hamilton, which is an incredibly impressive example of a project that confronts young people directly with the consequences of criminality, challenges them to address their behaviour and its effect on other people and offers them choices. The street project has been supported by cashback for communities and South Lanarkshire Council. It is exactly the kind of essential work that will divert future generations of Scots from a culture of violence and crime and into more productive lives. I welcome the street 2, which was launched this week, and I wish those involved every success.

More policing and more effective policing, evidence-based sentencing reform, in-depth engagement with young people and a refusal to resort to the easy, headline-grabbing option—the criminal justice programme will deliver the profound and permanent social change that we need to create a Scotland that is safe for all, now and in the future. That is the programme that the SNP Government, of which I am proud, is determined to pursue.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This important debate has served to highlight the significant work to keep our communities safe that the SNP Government has done since taking office in 2007. We have heard about the commitment to have 1,000 extra police officers. That commitment has been not only delivered and adhered to but exceeded, as we have in fact 1,105 more police officers than we had in the dark days when Labour was in power in the Parliament. Those additional officers represent an important policy initiative for people across Scotland, who had cried out for a more visible police presence in their communities and on their streets.

The importance of the SNP Government’s delivery of that manifesto promise must be seen against the backdrop of the massive cuts to Scotland’s budget that the Westminster Lib—I mean Con-Dem; I want to get the names round the right way—Government is imposing.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Will the member take an intervention?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will take an intervention, although I have not really started.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Annabelle Ewing speaks about the importance of front-line policing. Does she share the concern of ACPOS, which has pointed out that the budget settlement could hit support staff hard and have an impact on front-line policing, by taking police officers off the front line?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I hear what Mr Kelly says but, as has been said, if Labour wants to spend more money on the justice portfolio, where will the money come from? Labour members have been singularly silent on that question.

Notwithstanding the cuts that the London Government has imposed, the SNP Government has committed to protecting key front-line services, such as the police service. That is exactly what the people of Scotland want us to do. They want us to husband our reduced budget carefully, just as every household in Scotland must. They want us to get the best value for money and to deliver on their key priorities.

We have heard that the evidence suggests that the SNP Government’s policy is working. We have heard of the 35-year low in recorded crime, the 30-year high in the clear-up rate for violent crimes and the fact that 2,661 fewer violent crimes have been committed than in 2006-07, when Johann Lamont—who is not present at the moment—was the Deputy Minister for Justice. We need take no lectures from Labour on delivering justice policy.

Police funding is at a record level under the SNP Government. It was £1.4 billion in 2010-11, which was a 20 per cent increase on police service funding under Labour and—let us not forget—the Lib Dems. It might interest Alison McInnes to know that her Government will cut the police funding grant south of the border by 20 per cent by 2014-15. We need take no lessons from the other parties. The SNP Government is delivering justice policy in accordance with the people’s priorities.

I will finish by talking about staffing levels in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is the case that the head count of staff in post has increased since the dark days of Labour being in power in this Parliament.

Helpfully, I have with me a parliamentary question that was asked on that very subject on 9 September 2011. The answer should be very familiar to James Kelly, because he was the one who posed the question. The answer, given by the Solicitor General for Scotland, Leslie Thomson, is as follows:

“The headcount of staff in post in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service as at 31 July 2011 was 1,760 employees.—[Official Report, Written Answers, 23 September 2011; S4W-02605.]

There we have it—the facts from the law officer herself. If the Labour Party wishes to have any hope of winning back the trust of some voters in Scotland, it would be instructive for it to deal with the facts as they are. That would be a very helpful, concrete and positive development.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

The SNP ran its election campaign this year with a commitment to maintain police numbers in Scotland, but it has become abundantly clear that that is yet another manifesto pledge that it cannot uphold. [Interruption.]

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I will take an intervention if one is offered.

In my region alone, almost 100 jobs at Tayside Police have been cut in the past 12 months under this SNP Government.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Given that they are not proposing any increase in the budget, how many fewer police officers are Jenny Marra and the Labour Party suggesting there should be?

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

The justice secretary will know that the problem is that police officers are performing essential backroom services. I am just about to explain that. Many of the people who have lost their jobs provided essential backroom services. A situation has arisen in which those functions are now being performed by police officers who are ordinarily on the beat. Not only does that remove police from our streets, but it means that backroom functions cost more to perform—often thousands of pounds more, based on annual salary. Police officers who are paid £30,000 a year and more doing jobs for which the salary is normally £17,000 a year does not seem to be efficient or effective. Those back-office jobs are often complex and require significant skills, for which significant training of specialist staff is needed. The essential skills of those dedicated back-office staff are being wasted unnecessarily due to the SNP cuts. I believe that that is unacceptable and entirely avoidable.

There is serious concern about the SNP’s plans on police pay, too. Proposed changes to terms and conditions and police remuneration show that the Government is slashing pay at a time when living standards are dropping and the cost of living is continuing to rise. In one example, a 21-year-old member of staff at Tayside Police is having her shift allowance cut by a staggering 81 per cent, which translates into a 20 per cent cut in her overall pay. The minister might choose to ignore that point and chat while I am talking, but I do not think that the police officer would appreciate his ignoring her story. The total reduction in shift allowance that is paid to police staff across Scotland will be almost 30 per cent and the average reduction in pay for Scotland’s police force will be 6 per cent.

Coupled with increased pension contributions, a proposed two-year increment freeze, a reduction in overtime rates to time and a third, and a reduction in public holidays to four in each force, the cuts are set to impact profoundly on the ability of Scotland’s police to carry out their essential day-to-day duties, not to mention that the cuts will jeopardise the livelihoods of police staff and their families up and down the country.

However—I hope that the justice secretary will listen to this point—the Scottish Government has been offered costed alternatives to that course of action. Police staff and Unison have offered to reduce by one hour per week the time that is worked by every staff member, which would deliver the savings that the Government deems necessary—the exact savings that the Government wants to make. That way, the burden of cuts would be shared by all staff—not just shift workers, many of whom are women and are being unnecessarily targeted by the Government’s cuts. However, the proposal by Unison and police staff has been completely ignored by the SNP Government. It is clear that the Government cannot uphold its manifesto pledges—this is just one of them—nor is it prepared to listen, as is perfectly obvious today, to viable alternatives to its agenda for policing.

John Lamont (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

This has been a useful debate because it has highlighted many concerns that wider Scottish society has about the operation of our criminal justice system. I want to use my closing remarks to focus on the victims of crime.

I have always believed that victims should be at the heart of our criminal justice system. A visible police presence is pivotal in giving victims and communities a deserved sense of security, but the other side of the coin is their sense that justice has been done. If there are serious delays in the prosecution of criminals, victims rightly feel disillusioned and disheartened. It is the job of the Scottish Government to ensure that justice is served appropriately and swiftly for the sake of victims and of wider society.

Despite what the Scottish Government has said, concerns have been raised about the backlog of cases building up at the Crown Office, not least by the Procurators Fiscal Society—a point that was highlighted well by Alison McInnes.

I return to community sentences and rehabilitation, which were raised earlier in the debate. The Scottish Government and, it seems, Christine Grahame are great champions of community sentences. We on this side agree that there is a place for community sentences in our justice system, but we strongly oppose the idea that community sentences should be preferred to prison sentences just for the sake of a reduction in prison numbers. Under the current community payback orders, which in effect replace short sentences, those who are being spared jail include a four-time drunk and disqualified driver, a knife carrier, someone who is guilty of domestic violence and a small-time drug pusher, all of whom have previous convictions. What message does that send to the victims of crime and to wider society?

Scottish Conservatives have never shied away from being tough on crime. We need to make sure that criminals do not get off lightly, for the sake of the victims who need the satisfaction of justice being served appropriately. We also need to ensure that we attempt to rehabilitate those who are convicted of offences, whether that is done in prison or during a community sentence. Reoffending rates suggest that the Scottish Government is failing miserably in that regard.

We believe that community sentences have to be tough, but there are indications that they are not. A recent freedom of information request revealed that almost a third of offenders who have been given community payback orders do no work whatsoever. There are also clear problems with enforceability of community sentences, as several recent examples illustrate well.

It is very important that punitive measures be properly enforced. We all remember the case of the first community payback order, which was breached because the offender simply did not show up. That will always be a challenge with community sentences; it does not apply if the person is serving their time behind bars. Overall, short-term sentences offer better punitive measures in some cases and, combined with proper prison rehabilitation, should and can be more effective.

To conclude, I have always stood proudly on the side of victims and not on the side of the criminal. Our criminal justice system should reflect this; victims should be at the heart of all the Scottish Government’s policies on criminal justice. First and foremost, we need to address reoffending and tackle crime in order to lower the number of victims and to make sure that victims can rightly gain a sense that justice has been done.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

It was disingenuous of Johann Lamont to come here and deny that Labour has an unrelenting diet of negativity and then to proceed to give a diet of negativity, which was supported in almost every Labour speech thereafter.

We face the challenge of huge budget cuts from Westminster. Notwithstanding that, we have delivered a 20 per cent increase in the police budget since we came to power in 2007. Police officer numbers have been maintained, we have preserved their salaries and we have made it clear that we will not implement the recommendations of the Winsor report, yet the coalition Government down south proposes to attack police pensions and the pensions of police support staff. What a tragedy that rather than come here to support the Government in the job that we are doing to protect hard-working front-line officials, Labour members come here and undermine us. The enemy is down in London, but they choose to snipe away. They do not support us and they give us a diet of negativity.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Does the cabinet secretary accept that we are raising concerns on behalf of police staff in Scotland? We are speaking up for police staff and for staff in the Crown Office. Why does the cabinet secretary want to create a different argument, rather than address the problems that have been raised with him?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I am simply saying that it is Westminster that is cutting the budget. It was started by a Labour Government and has been accelerated by the coalition Government. It is Westminster that is attacking staff pensions. We would not know that or think about it if we listened to Labour members.

Along with dealing with their diet of negativity, the Labour members should get their facts right. We heard comments, which were supported by Alison McInnes, suggesting that the Crown Office budget is down, when in fact that budget will be £108.7 million in 2014-15, which is up from £108.2 million this year. We are investing, notwithstanding the Westminster cuts, but we do not hear about those cuts from Labour members and nor do we get credit for the increase in that budget. As Annabelle Ewing pointed out, the number of lawyers is up and the number of reported cases is down, but what did we get from James Kelly?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Will the member give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Just a minute. Let me point something out.

James Kelly mentioned Lord Hamilton. Mr Kelly has an obligation to debate constructively when he comes to the chamber. He knows that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is an entirely different entity from the Scottish Court Service. If we merged the two, we would undermine the whole basis of our legal system. It was not only a diet of negativity: it was, to be frank, a diet of ignorance.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I totally agree that we must get the facts on the record. Does Mr MacAskill acknowledge that answers to recent parliamentary questions asked by Johann Lamont reveal that we will have 33 fewer procurators fiscal in the next year, which undermines the effectiveness of the service?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

As Annabelle Ewing referred to and as I said, in June this year the COPFS had 513 lawyers whereas in June 2007 it had 446. The current number is significantly more than the Labour legacy.

Labour members went on to undermine the tripartite agreement in Scotland. We are moving from having several police services to a single service. Justice secretaries of whatever political hue do not interfere or give directions to police chief constables.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Will the member give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I will not, at the moment.

Miss Marra apparently wants me to direct chief constables. I remind her—as I reminded Mr Kelly—of the separation of powers. In Scotland, we have a tripartite arrangement under which chief constables are held to account by the police boards. The points that Miss Marra raised should be raised with the police board in Tayside, although I do not know whether she has done that. If she is suggesting that I should hold the chief constable to account, that would be a revelatory matter that would undermine the integrity and independence of chief constables. If Labour wishes to argue that with a single police service the justice secretary should give directions on police numbers and other matters, I am open to considering amendments on that.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the situation is another example of the SNP making promises to the people of Scotland and then washing its hands and saying that those matters are not within its power? The SNP did that on education, when it promised that there would be no compulsory redundancies in further education, but then said that redundancies are decisions for colleges. It has done the same in local authorities. Now the cabinet secretary is doing it with the police. He—

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I look forward to seeing a Labour amendment that says that the justice secretary is to direct policing in Scotland. That will cause great concern to people outwith the Parliament, but when Labour does that, I will say, “Take it further.” In the interim, Miss Marra perhaps has an obligation when she comes to the chamber to understand the structure of policing in this country.

If Labour members want to reduce the number of police officers because they do not want to increase the budget, it is for them to tell us that. We are proud of our record of delivery and of the officers in our communities who have given us a 35-year low in recorded crime. Labour members should tell us how many fewer police officers they want on the streets.

Johann Lamont spoke about cashback for communities. We put additional resources into areas of multiple deprivation, but the Government does not accept the idea that money from the scheme should go only to those areas. Just this week, I received an invitation to visit a cashback for communities project in Haddington that is supported by sportscotland and the local authority. Haddington is a very nice town and community, although it has its challenges and problems. It is not an area of multiple deprivation. It is not represented by me; it is represented by Iain Gray. If I can manage to—I have a constituency church engagement—I will be delighted to go along and say how delighted we were to contribute £100,000 to support the good work that is being done by Haddington Athletic Football Club, Haddington Rugby Football Club and the community. I will tell them that Labour did not want them to get that money. Whatever warm words Iain Gray might have uttered to them, he did not mean them, because Labour does not want any nice areas to get any money. What a shameful position for Labour to take. I will make it quite clear in Haddington that Labour did not want that £100,000 cashback for communities money to go to Haddington Athletic.

This country is getting safer. We are making progress, but we do not underestimate the challenges. Labour’s continual diet of negativity—which involves it sniping away at this Government, which is trying to steer us through turbulent times—while ignoring the problems that have been caused by the coalition Government down in London, will see it being rejected yet again by the people of Scotland.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I welcome the opportunity to close the debate and to bring some sense to the issues that have been raised in it, following the cabinet secretary’s political diatribe.

Labour welcomes improvements in the crime figures. Anything that gives relief to the victims of crime is to be welcomed. I say that as someone who comes from an area where—as Ms McKelvie well knows—the murder rate has gone up by 366 per cent in the past year.

The purpose of the debate is not to trade statistics on the levels of crime, but to raise important issues on police support staff, the impact on front-line policing and the backlog of cases in our courts. Jenny Marra and Margaret McDougall made some important points about police support staff. They concentrated on the issues in the motion, unlike Christine Grahame, who drifted off along political lines, which might have been provided by the SNP.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I am delighted to say that the lines were all provided by the Labour Party’s manifesto.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Ms Grahame’s intervention serves to make my point.

To return to the issues in the motion, the Labour Party has serious concerns about the reductions in police support staff, whose numbers have decreased by 428 in the past year. We heard from Jenny Marra about the threat of further cuts in Dundee, and we heard about the potential loss of 250 posts in Fife. Such losses will have significant effects on the front-line policing effort. In its budget submission, ACPOS strongly argued that the on-going impact of the budget cuts would mean hard decisions being taken on support staff, and would mean police officers being taken off the front line.

For Mr MacAskill, it has become a numbers game—it is about having 17,234 officers. It is all very well having the officers, but the question is this: where are they and what are they doing? I am sure that Mr Thompson shares my concerns.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

In the health debate earlier this morning, Labour called for increases in the health budget. How much would the member transfer from the health budget to the police budget to sort out the problems that he maintains are occurring?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I want to answer that specific question about the budget, which a number of SNP members have asked. I will come to that later in my speech.

It is also important to recognise the various roles that support staff perform. I agree with Christina McKelvie’s comments, in which she supported the role that analysts have played in the police’s solving of the murder crimes in South Lanarkshire, but we should not forget that those analytical roles are police support staff roles. As we move towards a single police force, it is urgent that we review all the roles of support staff so that we get them right.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

This is the same matter that arose with Ms Marra. As we move towards a single service, does Labour propose to vary the tripartite arrangement? If so, does Labour suggest that the justice secretary should direct, or does it propose that the board should hold the chief constable to account?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Year after year, the cabinet secretary is absolutely delighted to intervene to tell local authorities that they must deliver 1,000 extra police officers or they will not get the money; but he is not prepared to intervene in the important area of support staff. Mr MacAskill is being hypocritical.

As Alison McInnes said, the backlog of cases has doubled from 7,000 to 14,000. A backlog of so many cases is clearly a concern. The victims of crime are greatly concerned that cases are not being moved through the justice system quickly enough. Mr MacAskill made great play of comments from the Lord Advocate that point to a £600,000 cash increase in the budget over a three-year period. I point out to Mr MacAskill that that represents a real-terms cut. Even in these halcyon days of an SNP majority Government, he is not exempt from inflation. Furthermore, as the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has pointed out, the details of the figures show future cuts in the staff budget. That will happen against the backdrop of there being 33 fewer procurators fiscal, an early exit scheme in operation, and an end to ad hoc staff—which means that the Government’s resources for dealing with the backlog of cases has reduced.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I will make some points first.

I suggest that the Lord Advocate has to be very careful. These are contentious matters. As others have, I have questioned what he said in his letter. He needs to be careful that he does not allow himself to be drawn in to act as a political shield for the SNP Government.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

May I intervene?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I am sorry, but I am running out of time.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

There are still two minutes left.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

If I have time later, I will take the intervention—but I have an important point about budget choices to make, first.

A number of SNP members, including the cabinet secretary, asked where we could find extra money for the justice budget. I invite the cabinet secretary to consider the Audit Scotland report of a few weeks ago, which shows that the justice system cost £857 million to administer. There are a few key areas of the report to concentrate on: repeating stages in the court system cost £10 million; late decisions not to proceed with trials cost £30 million; and information technology has been used poorly. That latter point has been highlighted on previous occasions, and not only by the Audit Scotland report. We are in a three-year spending review period, so I urge the cabinet secretary to consider the Audit Scotland report and to implement some of its recommendations, which would allow him to find money that could be crucial in finding positions for people to support community safety and in staffing our courts fully.

Does Mr Doris still wish to intervene?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank Mr Kelly. Earlier, during the debate on healthcare, Labour front benchers were suggesting taking money away from justice and giving it to health because there is a new responsibility for healthcare in the prison service. Does Mr Kelly agree with other Labour front benchers that money should be taken away from justice and given to health? If so, how much should it be?

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Mr Kelly, you have less than one minute in which to wind up.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I point out to Mr Doris that I have made a number of recommendations that would save money in the justice budget. Perhaps the SNP Government would consider them.

This has been an important debate. It has highlighted issues of community safety and of security of jobs—not only for police support staff, but for people in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is unfortunate that the cabinet secretary, followed by SNP back benchers, used some intemperate language during the debate. Key issues have arisen, and it is time for the SNP to face up to them and to have an honest discussion with the Opposition, in an effort to explore the issues and to move the justice system forward. It is time to reflect and think again.

Cities (Community Rejuvenation)

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to increase support for the rejuvenation of local communities in cities. (S4O-00328)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We will publish the new national regeneration strategy in the next few months, which will set out a framework to help to improve the physical, economic and social wellbeing of communities throughout the country. It will clarify the roles of key players, including setting out the important role of local authorities in supporting the regeneration of our most disadvantaged communities in cities.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

Given her background, the cabinet secretary will be aware of the situation faced by the community of Drumchapel in my consistency. After a long period of decline, there is a severe lack of amenity in an area that is already experiencing high multiple deprivation. Previous plans for regeneration have come to little, although local housing associations do the best that they can.

I invite the cabinet secretary to come to Glasgow Anniesland to see how Drumchapel might benefit from future community rejuvenation.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I would be more than delighted to visit Drumchapel with the member. Before becoming a member of the Scottish Parliament, I worked in Drumchapel. I know the area well, I have a great fondness for it and I know the challenges that it faces. There has been a lack of leadership on the part of the Labour-controlled Glasgow City Council in driving forward regeneration in areas such as Drumchapel. I would be happy to see what this Government could do to work with partners and the local member to move things forward.

Road Safety (Young Drivers)

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to improve road safety among young drivers. (S4O-00329)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We are addressing young driver safety through our commitments in Scotland’s road safety framework to 2020 and by taking forward the recommendations in “National Debate on Young Drivers’ Safety”, published by Transport Scotland in March 2011.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Road traffic accidents involving young drivers continue to blight the north-east and take a terrible toll. What progress has been made on developing an action plan to take forward the recommendations in “National Debate on Young Drivers’ Safety”? I ask the minister to comment on work relating to recommendation 6, which suggests that he should

“Investigate the effectiveness of accreditations for post-test training courses”.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Alison McInnes makes a good point about the number of accidents involving young drivers. However, some misconceptions surround road casualties. In 2010, road casualties in general in Scotland were at their lowest level in 60 years, and if we look at the number of drivers killed and seriously injured in the period to 2009, we see a 48 per cent reduction in the 16 to 24-year-old age group compared with a 47 per cent reduction for all other ages, so there has been substantial progress.

From the recent debate on young drivers, the member will know the action that the Government is taking, including on the accreditation scheme that she mentions. If she would like, I can write to her with more details. We are also taking forward other recommendations, as well as some of the outcomes of the national debate with young drivers, which was carried out by Atkins.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister support my campaign to introduce a graduated driving licence scheme to help to stop the carnage among young drivers, particularly on our rural roads? The minister may be aware that I am launching a DVD campaign tomorrow in Inverness. Every school in the Highlands and Islands will receive a copy of my road safety DVD. Will the minister send words of support to tomorrow’s official launch?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We are supportive of the aims of the campaign for a graduated driving licence. As the member knows, we have written to the Driving Standards Agency. I acknowledge the work that the member has done in that regard.

I am aware of the event in Inverness that he mentioned. If he sends me the details of that we will look into whether we can send some words of support.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

The drink-drive alcohol limit is 80mg per 100ml of blood in this country, which is almost unique in Europe, where it is mostly 50mg. The Parliament supports and has voted for a reduction in the limit to 50mg, which would save many young lives. Does the minister know why Westminster continues to block that life-saving reduction?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I think that the member has asked me to get into the mind of a minister at Westminster, which I prefer not to do. I do not know exactly the reasons for that block. I think that the member would acknowledge that it is not a straightforward change to make. However, he rightly said that the Parliament supports the reduction that he mentioned. We will continue to press the Westminster Government to achieve that.

National Health Service (Advocacy Services)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what guidance is issued to national health service boards about the funding of advocacy services. (S4O-00330)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

NHS boards are responsible for ensuring that advocacy is available to all who need it within their respective areas and that resources are matched to those needs. “Independent Advocacy: A Guide for Commissioners”, produced by the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance, is available to assist boards in scoping needs and procuring advocacy services; also relevant is “Guidance on the Procurement of Care and Support Services by public bodies in Scotland”, which was published jointly by the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in September 2010.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Given that information from the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance shows that Grampian is now the lowest spender on advocacy services in Scotland, will the cabinet secretary put pressure on NHS Grampian to meet its responsibilities in delivering effective advocacy services?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Kevin Stewart raises an important point. I repeat what I said in my previous answer: all NHS boards, including NHS Grampian, have a responsibility to meet the needs in their areas. I understand that expenditure on advocacy by NHS Grampian has increased since 2009-10—it was £131,000 then, but in this financial year it is £213,000. Those figures suggest that Grampian is going in the right direction. However, we will work with NHS boards, including Grampian, on the review of their advocacy plans. I will finish where I started: all NHS boards have a responsibility to meet local needs in this respect.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that an organisation that provides advocacy services should be independent of the organisation that it interacts with on behalf of an individual? Will she set out what the Scottish Government is doing to promote independent advocacy?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I agree with the principle underlying Jamie Hepburn’s question. The Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 places a duty on health boards and local authorities to secure the provision of appropriate independent advocacy services for people with mental health problems and to take appropriate steps to ensure that such people have the opportunity to make use of those services. Obviously, those issues are important in the context of the Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011 as well. We take those issues very seriously and we will continue to work with NHS boards to ensure the adequacy and—to respond to Jamie Hepburn’s point—the independence of advocacy services.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

The cabinet secretary may be aware of concerns expressed by advocacy organisations about the fact that the recently launched draft “Mental Health Strategy for Scotland: 2011-15” contained not one word about advocacy, in spite of the duty in the 2003 act to which the cabinet secretary referred a moment ago. Will she ensure that the final version of the strategy addresses the crucial issue of advocacy for mental health service users?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes, I am very happy to do that. I referred in my previous answer to the 2003 act—I cannot remember whether Malcolm Chisholm was a health minister when Parliament passed that act—which places very important statutory duties on health boards. Any omission in the draft strategy—I stress that it is a draft—is not intended to downplay those duties at all. I will take Malcolm Chisholm’s point on board and we will ensure that due consideration is given to that as the strategy progresses.

Disabled Students Allowance

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

4. To ask the Scottish Government for what reason a disabled student in receipt of incapacity benefit and disability living allowance has to undertake a further assessment for the disabled students allowance from the Students Awards Agency for Scotland. (S4O-00331)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The disabled students allowance is available to cover the cost of additional educational support related to a particular course of study, and assessments are carried out on that basis. The support is specific to the individual and tailored to their particular educational needs, whereas assessments for incapacity benefit or disability living allowance are more concerned with medical issues related to personal care or mobility.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Is the minister aware of the extra pressures that the extra assessment can put on disabled students, especially those with developmental disorders such as autism? Would she consider working with representative charities and support groups to find an alternative set of criteria?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I am aware of the particular challenges in engaging with young people with developmental disorders, whether Asperger’s or autism, and in ensuring that they get the right support at the right time. With regard to the assessments, I stress that there is nothing to fear: they are very much about the accredited assessor sitting down with the young person and agreeing what support they need while on their course to enable them to achieve their qualification. However, I am more than happy to contact universities and colleges to ensure that the assessments and processes are being presented in the right way. If there is anything that we can do in and around the process to make it more user friendly for young people, we will happily pursue that.

A9 (Berriedale Braes Improvements)

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what progress is being made by Transport Scotland in designing improvements to the A9 at Berriedale braes. (S4O-00332)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

A geotechnical study of the A9 at Berriedale braes has recently been completed. The purpose of the study was to investigate whether realignment or a widening scheme could be constructed at that location. The study concluded that the ground conditions are reasonably favourable for both options and recommended that further ground investigation and a topographical survey be undertaken. The cost of the realignment option is estimated at £2.3 million.

Road safety will continue to be monitored at Berriedale braes, with any further design work that is required for a longer-term project being taken forward when resources are available and priorities allow.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Will the minister treat this road upgrade with the utmost urgency and thereby back the transformation of the economy of Caithness and north Sutherland? Will he seek partners such as the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and potential energy developers so as to deliver this £3 million—maximum—road scheme, which has been needed for many years? It appears to be Highland Council’s top priority should any slippage occur in the Scottish Government transport budget.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As I know the member is aware, there are substantial and competing pressures in prioritising road improvements throughout our trunk road network. However, he makes a constructive suggestion and we are happy to look at how we could, if possible, leverage in funding from other sources to move the project on. We will certainly do that.

Factors (Accountability)

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making in improving the accountability of factors to the residents of housing estates in relation to landscape maintenance. (S4O-00333)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Scottish Government is making good progress towards implementation of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011. The act will require all factors, including those that provide land maintenance services, to be registered and to abide by a code of conduct. In addition, consumers will be able to approach a new tribunal, the home owner housing panel, if they are dissatisfied with the services that they receive. The draft code of conduct is out to public consultation and all key provisions in the act will be in place by October 2012.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that detailed answer. I bring to his attention the near-farcical situation in my constituency, where some residents have two factors doing the same work and charging residents through separate bills. What action can local people take to stop that practice?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Having referred to the code of conduct and approached the panel when it is established, they should make a complaint if the matter is not resolved by then. However, I believe that further legislation might be required in the area. We are actively looking at introducing legislation at a later stage to give people more power to switch companies or factors, because I believe that that competitive environment might be the best and most effective way of resolving many of these issues.

Social Rented Housing (Environmental Sustainability)

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what measures it will take to promote environmental sustainability in the construction of new social rented housing. (S4O-00334)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Sustainability labelling was introduced to building standards on 1 May. The principles are applicable to all new housing and build on the degree of sustainability that is already embedded in the building regulations. In providing grant subsidy to a programme of new-build social housing, we require high standards of energy efficiency—standards that will be achieved by compliance with current building regulations.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

Given that the Scottish Government is investing record amounts in building new social rented housing, the opportunity should be taken to ensure that the investment also helps to reduce carbon emissions and tackle fuel poverty in the long term. Will the minister provide an assurance that fuel efficiency is being prioritised in the Scottish Government’s house-building programme?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Absolutely. The member raises a valid issue. One of my first visits when I became Minister for Housing and Communities in the previous session was to the Lochside estate off the A76 in Dumfries. I met a tenant who had moved from an old two-bedroom flat to a new four-bedroom bungalow. Her gas bill went down from £40 a week to £36 a month as a result of the insulation and building standards of her new home. That is a typical example of the huge improvement in heating and insulation standards in new-build social housing throughout Scotland.

Same-sex Marriage

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will introduce legislation on same-sex marriage in 2012 following completion of its current consultation. (S4O-00335)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The consultation has not yet been completed and no decisions have been taken. However, as indicated in the foreword to the consultation, if the Scottish Government should decide to introduce a bill to Parliament, we will consult on the detail of any draft bill before it is formally introduced.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I entirely accept that the final decision will, of course, be made after the consultation. However, if the Government’s initial view continues to be that legislation should be brought forward, will the cabinet secretary confirm that there is no technical or legal barrier to introducing legislation next year, instead of delaying it until 2013? If Parliament and Government both want this done, surely it is best that it be done quickly.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am sure that Patrick Harvie will understand that I am not going to be drawn too far into the post-consultation debate at this stage. It is right that we are having a consultation and that the Government listens to all the views that are put forward in that consultation.

In the consultation, we set out our initial view, as Patrick Harvie says. We also set out an indicative timeline, should our decision be to proceed. It is the case that some complicated issues would need to be resolved if we did so. Some of those issues have been raised by people on both sides of this debate. That is why, if the decision is to proceed, we need a period of consultation on the draft legislation.

Once the consultation period has concluded, the Government will come back in due course to the chamber to outline our final decision and say what the next steps forward will be.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank the cabinet secretary for what she has already said, but could she reassure people who are thinking of responding to the consultation that doing so is worth while and that the Government certainly has not made up its mind on how to proceed?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I have said many times before and I will say it again: this is a consultation. In the interests of honesty and transparency, the Government set out our initial view at the outset of the consultation. However, we also said that no final decision had been taken, and none will be taken until the consultation concludes and the responses to the consultation have been properly considered and analysed.

This is a genuine consultation. I have met a number of groups and individuals on both sides of the debate. We are listening to all the views that are put forward. In the few remaining days of the consultation, I encourage everyone with a view on the issue, no matter what that view is, to submit it to the consultation, in order that it be fully considered.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I am aware that, during the consultation, the cabinet secretary has met a wide range of representatives of Scotland’s religious faiths. Have they presented a diversity of opinion on the issue? I have a feeling that the media perception is that there is a particular view on their part, rather than a range of views.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I have not personally met representatives of every religious group that has submitted views to the consultation. However, among those who have submitted their views, there is a diversity of opinion. A few weeks ago, five of the groups that might be described as the smaller religious groups submitted a view that was in favour of legislation.

So far in the consultation, I have met representatives of the Catholic Church, the Muslim Council of Scotland and—yesterday—the Church of Scotland. Those three religious faith groups have said to me that they do not agree that we should have legislation on this. We are listening to all the views on all sides of this debate and, as a Government, we will come to a final decision in due course and in the appropriate way.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

That ends general question time. I apologise to two members for the fact that we did not reach questions 9 and 10.

Engagements

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00255)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am delighted to announce to the chamber that, earlier today, a memorandum of understanding was agreed between Forth Ports plc, Scottish Enterprise and the City of Edinburgh Council. That agreement will unlock the vast potential of Leith port and will ensure that it will be transformed with the ability to serve a range of industries, thereby creating new jobs and economic growth both for Edinburgh and for Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

This week, the latest report by European experts Arabella Thorp and Gavin Thompson makes clear the cost to taxpayers of the requirement for a separate Scotland to join the euro. Our contribution to the bail-out fund would currently be around £8 billion. Is that a bill that the First Minister is happy to see Scotland pay?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I doubt that Iain Gray has properly read the report from the House of Commons library researchers, because it goes through a range of options. The idea that Scotland would be dragooned into the euro is totally wrong and completely without foundation. Scotland’s position will be the same as that of the rest of the United Kingdom as we become an independent country; we will have exactly the same rights and obligations. The idea that Scotland will be treated differently—as some sort of region—is shared only by those who do not understand the important and valid point that Scotland is not only a nation, but a European nation.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I have read the report. The First Minister needs to understand that he is not the only politician who can read. However, I wonder how much he has read, because he simply asserts that we would not have to join the euro.

Let us see how the evidence is stacking up. Those who disagree with him include Thorp and Thompson; Professor Jo Murkens of the London School of Economics and Political Science; Professor Robert Hazell of University College London; the First Minister’s own economic adviser, Professor Hughes-Hallett; the European Commission’s President Barroso, who says that there will be no more euro opt-outs; and the Maastricht treaty—I wonder whether the First Minister has ever read that.

On the First Minister’s side, who do we have? The ever-trustworthy First Minister’s spokesperson, who was this week reduced to misquoting the late Robin Cook. If the First Minister has crystal-clear legal advice on the question, will he publish it?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I refer Iain Gray to paragraph 2.3 of the Scottish ministerial code concerning legal advice, its assistance and its publication. Perhaps I can help him by citing some authorities. Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the only Scottish judge to have been President of the European Court of Justice, was asked to address the point about Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of independence. He said:

“Independence would leave Scotland and something called ‘the rest’ in the same legal boat. If Scotland had to reapply, so would the rest. I am puzzled at the suggestion that there would be a difference in the status of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of Community law if the Act of Union was dissolved.”

I think that we can reasonably say that the late Lord Mackenzie-Stuart was an authority on such matters, but I have no knowledge that he was ever friendly towards the SNP’s position. However, he looked at precisely that question and his argument was very clear from that quotation. Incidentally, “I am puzzled” is legal speak for “I don’t understand the argument that’s being put forward.” The point that he put forward very clearly is that Scotland and the rest of the UK would be in exactly the same legal position.

I will turn to what that legal position might be. I will quote Eamonn Gallagher, who is a former director-general of the European Commission and ambassador to the United Nations in New York. He said:

“Scotland and the rest of the UK would be equally entitled to continue the existing full membership of the EU.”

I am quite happy to quote to Iain Gray a range of other authorities. I hope that he accepts that they are important legal authorities whose views have been published. I hope that he has read them and that he will now abandon his attempt to suggest that Scotland, with its enormous natural resources, its dominant position in the European Union’s oil and gas resources and its great renewables resources, would somehow not be wanted by the rest of the European Union.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I read Mackenzie-Stuart and Gallagher this morning. The point is that they do not precisely address the question that I am putting to the First Minister. They both say, one on the evidence of the other, that Scotland would continue to be a member of European Union. What does the First Minister say to all the experts who accept that point but say that, as a member of the European Union, Scotland would have to join the euro? It might be that the interpretation is that the rest of the UK would be in the same position.

Members: Oh!

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Let the member finish his question, please.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I love it when they think they have discovered something.

What would Scotland’s position be? All those experts say that we would have to be in the euro and that it would cost £8 billion.

As for the legal advice, everyone knows that if Alex Salmond had legal advice that agreed with him on the point, he would have found a way to get it out. Fiona Hyslop says that letting Scotland know whether his policy will cost Scotland £8 billion would be contrary to the public interest. I do not think so. Does not she really mean that it would be contrary to the SNP’s interests, so they are going to keep it secret?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

We are making progress; Iain Gray has read—this morning—the legal advice of some of the most credible people to have addressed the question. Let me give him a quotation from another credible person. The first and longest-serving secretary general of the European Commission, Emile Noël, said that Scottish

“independence would create two new member states out of one. They would have equal status with each other and the other states. The remainder of the United Kingdom would not be in a more powerful position than Scotland.”

So we come to Iain Gray’s dramatic admission before the members in the chamber that it might well be that the rest of the UK would have to join the euro. Now we understand the entrenched opposition of the unionist parties to Scottish independence. It is not about Scotland: they are worried that England and the rest would be forced into membership of the euro. As successor states, both parts would inherit rights and obligations, including the opt-out that was negotiated by the UK.

I offer Iain Gray a further point of reassurance. Sweden—a new member—is not in the euro. Why is that? It is because the people of Sweden said that they did not want to join it, and the European Commission accepted that. Let us sweep away all the scaremongering and accept that Scotland is a European nation, and that right across Europe, people will be anxious to see Scotland have the same rights and obligations as other European Union members.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

In the face of expert opinion that says that an independent Scotland would have to be in the euro, the First Minister continues to assert on no evidence that that is not the case.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Where is your evidence?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Where is my evidence? I read out a list of expert evidence and opinion when I asked the question. That is where my evidence is.

The First Minister has a mandate to ask Scots whether they want separation, but he has no mandate to mislead them. He must give us all the facts before we decide. The experts say that a separate Scotland would have to join the euro and that it would cost at least £8 billion. On such an important question, does Alex Salmond really think that he can just stick his fingers in his ears and his head in the sand?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I think that that was a shimmy away from the dramatic admission that was made in the previous question. I have cited authorities—a former director general of the European Commission, the longest-serving secretary general of the European Commission and the only Scottish judge who chaired the European Court of Justice—but Iain Gray does not want to talk about them. So let us talk about the reality.

As successor states, Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom would inherit the opt-out that was negotiated by the UK Government. Even if that were not the case, we would be in the same position as Sweden—and Sweden has not joined the euro because the people of Sweden did not want to join the euro. Olli Rehn, the European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, says that membership of the euro is for the Swedish people to decide.

I have been in politics a fair time. I remember when the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—a Labour Prime Minister—said that he wanted to have the courage of his convictions and join the euro. Most of us now say that we would not do that until it was in the economic interests of the country to do so. That would be decided by the people of Scotland in a referendum. We would have the same rights and the same obligations as the rest of the United Kingdom and every other European Union member. That is the reality.

Prime Minister (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00251)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future, although I know that Ruth Davidson met him in the very recent past. I congratulate her on her birthday and on her success in becoming leader of her party, although I will say that her hobby of kick boxing seems to have become endemic, in a political sense, among her colleagues over the past couple of days.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

I thank the First Minister for his birthday wishes. There are not many people who get the boost of the front page of The Scotsman on their birthday.

I was reading a Scottish National Party press release today that quoted Liz Lochhead, the Scots makar, as saying:

“if there was a referendum tomorrow, I’d vote yes”.

Let me ask the First Minister this: if a straightforward yes or no referendum were to be held tomorrow, is he confident that he would win?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Yes, and I would vote “yes”.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

I guess that the question is, in that case, why does the First Minister not invite people to answer in a yes or no referendum tomorrow? We know the answer to that from the exchange that we have just heard; we know that the First Minister is feart. He is feart to publish the legal advice on an independent Scotland joining Europe. We know that he is feart to even ask Europe for its advice. He is feart to name the question for a referendum and we know that he is feart to name the day. No wonder.

The First Minister is such a fan of polls that I shall mention a couple to him. At the weekend, we saw a BBC poll in which barely a quarter of people backed independence. A poll that is running currently on www.scotsman.com has attracted more than 35,000 votes and shows that by nearly three to one Scotland wants a simple and straightforward yes or no question. Liz Lochhead wants a poll tomorrow and Scotland wants a single, simple yes or no question. Why does the First Minister not just get on with it?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I was interested in the poll at the weekend, and in Ruth Davidson’s appearance on “The Politics Show”, when it was quite clearly explained to her that the question that she was citing in favour of the Scotland Bill was actually about devolution max, so the support that she was claiming for the Scotland Bill was not that. I have the quotation from Isabel Fraser when she pointed out the relevant sections. I was therefore very surprised to hear Ruth Davidson repeat on “Good Morning Scotland” on Tuesday what she said.

I will tell Ruth Davidson what we will do: we will stick to what we said in the election campaign and we will have the referendum on Scottish independence—there will be a straight yes or no question—in the second half of this parliamentary session. We will do that because that is what we said in the election campaign. I think that she will accept that that gained us a pretty overwhelming result in the verdict of the people of Scotland. Just as the people of Scotland showed faith in the Scottish National Party, the SNP Government shows faith in the people of Scotland.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

The First Minister will be aware of the double blow in my constituency this week. On Monday, the window manufacturer A C Yule and Son Ltd called in the administrators and made redundant 50 staff in Aberdeen and about 150 more throughout Scotland and the north of England. On Tuesday, the Argus Care group, which is based in my constituency and operates 12 nursing and residential homes throughout Scotland, appointed administrators. Can the First Minister assure me that a partnership action for continuing employment team is already in place to assist the redundant workers, and that the health and wellbeing directorate is fully involved with Aberdeen City Council and others to ensure minimum disruption to the care of the frail elderly people who are affected?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Yes, I can. Maureen Watt raises two really important constituency issues that are obviously of wider importance to Scotland as a whole.

I confirm that those who face redundancy due to the administration of A C Yule have been provided with information about PACE services. The Skills Development Scotland centre in Aberdeen is already providing tailored help and support for those who are affected.

Progress is being made on the second matter. The Scottish Government is working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other partners, such as the Association of Directors of Social Work and Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland, to ensure continuity of care for all residents in the 12 Argus Care homes in Scotland. I am pleased to say that the expectation is that all the staff who currently deliver those vital services will remain in place.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister will be aware of the sudden departure of Philip Preston from his post as managing director of CalMac Ferries Ltd. Staff have been informed that he is leaving as part of a company refocus. What is the nature of that refocus? Will the First Minister confirm that CalMac will remain as an entity and that his Government will continue to tender all the routes together? Will he guarantee that the refocus will not have a negative impact on service users, and that any changes will be subject to full consultation?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

That is always the case, and I can indicate that it will be the case.

Personal matters are always difficult to touch on. John Swinney will send the member a letter that gives as much information as we can give. I can say that CalMac will continue to provide the key valuable and vital lifeline services for the island communities of Scotland.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

As we approach remembrance Sunday, will the First Minister join me in condemning the recent acts of disrespect at the Gordon Highlanders statue in Aberdeen and the commando memorial in Spean Bridge? Given the close links between those and other historic Scottish regiments and their local communities, does the First Minister agree that everyone should be aware of troops’ sacrifices past and present, and that they should give them the respect and honour that they deserve?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I know that all members will unreservedly condemn wanton acts of theft or vandalism to war memorials. There are thousands of memorials in communities throughout Scotland that mark the sacrifice of our servicemen and servicewomen. Those memorials are an integral part of the fabric of our communities and they should be respected at all times. It is vital that young people in particular fully understand and appreciate the sacrifices that have been made by our armed forces. The Scottish veterans fund has provided a range of support to the Lady Haig Poppy Factory, Poppyscotland, the Royal British Legion Scotland and the Gordon Highlanders museum so that those sacrifices and their meaning can be fully explained and articulated, and can be appreciated by everyone in our communities.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I want to raise an issue as MSP for Glasgow Pollok.

Excellent housing associations and housing co-operatives serve my community. I am dismayed at the decision of the First Minister’s Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth to cut £112 million out of Glasgow’s housing development budget in the next three years. That is a catastrophic decision that will have a huge impact on the ability to create housing and a massive impact on the local economy because of the lack of jobs in construction. I urge the First Minister to tackle the issue urgently. It is essential that we have a housing policy that meets the needs of, and affords economic opportunities to, the people of Glasgow. The decision flies in the face of the needs of Glasgow, and I urge the First Minister to change it as soon as possible.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The position is not as Johann Lamont presents it, but I am perfectly happy to ensure that she has the facts at her disposal.

Two things are pretty clear. First, the Government’s record in social housing is exemplary compared with what went before, and in view of the finances that are available to us.

Secondly, we are mobilising tens—indeed, hundreds—of millions of pounds of investment in Scottish housing throughout the country by a variety of new mechanisms that are urgently and desperately required. I gently point out to Johann Lamont that the gentleman who is sitting on her left—Iain Gray—once said that the Labour Party passed the best housing legislation in the world and then forgot to build the houses. We have not forgotten to build the houses.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00254)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

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

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Last month, I asked the First Minister whether he would use part of the £67 million additional funding that his Government has been allocated to stop the £40 million cut to Scotland’s colleges. He was not able to answer then. Is he any closer to making a decision?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The specifications of the consequentials will follow shortly.

In the past couple of weeks, I have had the great pleasure of opening the new Dundee College campus and the new Forth Valley College campus. I am sure that Willie Rennie will be interested to note that the capital expenditure that is moving through the college sector at the moment is approximately five times what it was when the party that he supports was in alliance with the Labour Party. He should take that expenditure, which continues in Glasgow, Inverness and Kilmarnock, into the equation when he speaks about the college sector.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The issue is urgent. The First Minister has £67 million that he did not expect. Scotland’s colleges are doing great work helping people to get up and get on in the world, but Angus College predicts that it will lose 400 full-time places, Borders College could lose seven full-time courses and principals say that they cannot guarantee quality or student numbers.

The First Minister could take a positive step today and unite the Parliament for the good of Scotland and announce that he will use the extra money to protect colleges. It makes no sense to continue to delay that decision. Why is he not able to give certainty right now? Does he not understand that it is urgent?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As the college principals have noted, we are in constructive debate about how best to help the colleges. I hope that Willie Rennie will take a look at capital expenditure throughout Scotland, because the college sector has been a dramatic and, incidentally, rightful beneficiary.

The consequentials will be announced. I know that the matter is difficult for Willie Rennie because the alliance with the Tory party is uncomfortable for many Liberal Democrats, although perhaps not for him. He says that we have £67 million that we did not expect. Yes we do—and our budget is down by £3 billion as a result of the activities of the Conservative-Liberal coalition at Westminster.

First Ministerial Visits (Qatar and United Arab Emirates)

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

4. To ask the First Minister what the outcome was of his trip to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. (S4F-00257)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The visit was highly successful that strengthened Scotland’s economic and energy links with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. In my meetings with both Governments, it was clear that not only is Scotland regarded as a world leader in the energy sector in oil and gas, but it has great opportunities for viable long-term investment in the renewables sector. In particular, I was also delighted to meet TAQA—or the Abu Dhabi National Energy Company—which is committed to a further £600 million of investment in its North Sea assets.

I know that the whole Parliament recognises the importance of those economic contacts to advertising Scotland’s great energy wealth across a range of sectors and to mobilising the investment worldwide to develop those resources on behalf of the people of Scotland.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I have a considerable interest in developments in the North Sea and welcome that investment. Will the First Minister tell me anything more about discussions that he had about development of renewable energy across the globe?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Masdar Institute of Science and Technology in Abu Dhabi has announced its intention to enter into a framework for action with Scotland. The framework is intended to result in a concrete set of actions to take forward investment in renewables and to share expertise. It will be the first-ever agreement between the institute and a country—its previous agreements have been with some of the great energy companies of the world—and, if we are successful in securing the agreement, it will demonstrate that Scotland is leading the way in all aspects of the energy sector, including the renewables revolution.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

What human rights groups did the First Minister meet in Qatar?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I saw some stuff about Qatar, which I admit was not from the Labour Party and for which I know the Liberal Democrats have apologised. I point out that Qatar has not had a political prisoner for 10 years. It is the enabler of the Arab spring and the home of Al Jazeera. I am sure that Jenny Marra would not wish to create any impression that Qatar is other than very admirable on a range of policies that it has pursued of late. I know that Scotland and the Parliament would in no way want to insult the people of Qatar.

Junior Doctors (Working Hours)

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the General Medical Council survey suggesting that junior doctors feel pressured to work more than a 48-hour week. (S4F-00258)

That would breach the European working time directive.