Scottish Parliament, 4 October 2001

383 contributions from 70 members. The official report.

Introduction

Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The first item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill. I will make the usual announcements about the procedures to be followed.

First, we will deal with the amendments to the bill; then, we will move on to the debate on the motion that the bill be passed. For the first part, members should have the bill—bill SP30A—as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list, which contains all the amendments that have been selected for debate, and the list of groupings. Amendments will be debated in groups where appropriate. An amendment that has been moved may be withdrawn with the agreement of the members present. It is possible for members not to move amendments, should they so wish.

The electronic voting system will be used for all divisions. I will allow an extended voting period of two minutes for the first division that occurs after each debate on a group of amendments.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We start with amendment 7, in the name of the member in charge of the bill, Christine Grahame. It is grouped with amendments 8 and 9.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

You are quite correct to say, Presiding Officer, that I am the member in charge of the bill. However, as it is a committee bill, the amendments appearing in my name are in fact committee amendments.

Amendments 7, 8 and 9 intend to make it clear who is entitled to apply for a power of arrest and to make subsequent, related court applications under the bill. It might be helpful if I set out a little background, explaining how the relevant sections of the bill operate.

Under section 1(2), a court must attach a power of arrest to an interdict if it is satisfied that, among other things, the power of arrest is necessary to protect the applicant or any other person from a risk of abuse. A similar provision is included under section 2(3) in relation to the granting of an extension of a power of arrest. Again, the court must grant an extension if it is satisfied that that is necessary to protect the applicant or any other person from a risk of abuse. Under section 2(7), a power of arrest must be recalled if the court is satisfied that it is no longer necessary to protect the applicant or any other person from a risk of abuse.

The reference in each of those provisions to "any other person" was inserted to follow the provision in the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 that gives a parent the right to obtain a matrimonial interdict on behalf of a child of the family, regardless of that child's age. That provision applies even if the child has full capacity to act on its own behalf.

Capacity to act is a vital component in making an application to the courts. In general, all adults have capacity unless they suffer from a mental disorder, and in such cases the courts will appoint a person, often but not always a solicitor, to be named in their place on the court action. The fact that that person is acting in such a capacity would always be shown. Children, by which I mean persons under the age of 16 years, have legal capacity to instruct a solicitor in connection with a civil matter where they have a general understanding of what it means to do so. When they are aged over 12, the law presumes that a young person has a general understanding of what it means to instruct a lawyer in any civil proceedings, and that young people over that age have the same capacity as adults. They can, however, consent to an adult acting as their representative, and that would be shown on the court papers. If they do not have capacity, they are usually represented by their parent or parents as their legal representatives, and such a fact is also shown on the court papers.

Following further reflection, we do not consider it necessary to make express provision in the bill to try to cover the provision in the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 relating to a child of any age. In accordance with normal civil laws, it seems more appropriate that a child with capacity should either apply for a power of arrest themselves or consent to their parent acting on their behalf. If they do not have capacity, they may apply through a representative.

That brings me back to the amendments that seek to delete the words "or any other person". We think that the policy that I have covered is already achieved without the need for those words. Removal of the words does not remove any protection that is currently provided by the bill. It will remain the position that a person can apply for a power of arrest to be attached to an interdict if they consider that that is necessary to protect them from abuse. Either they will apply in person or their representative will apply on their behalf. In each case, "the applicant" and

"the person who obtained ... a power of arrest"

will be regarded for the purposes of the bill as the person whom the power of arrest is intended to protect.

There is an additional reason for making these amendments. At stage 2, the minister identified a possible difficulty in relation to what happens when the person in whose favour the application was made gains capacity. Arguably, there is then nobody who "obtained" the power of arrest and to whom section 2 of the bill can apply. The references to "any other person" could, in that connection, be misleading. They could be interpreted as trying to deal with children and adults who do not have the necessary capacity. They could lead to a construction of the phrases "the applicant" or "the person who obtained" the court order, which are used elsewhere in the bill, as references to the person who made the application, rather than to the person in whose favour the application and subsequent order were made. The proposed changes avoid that interpretation and the potential difficulty that the minister helpfully highlighted.

Under the bill, it remains the position that a person can apply for a power of arrest to be attached to an interdict, and the court will attach the power of arrest if it is satisfied that the power of arrest is necessary to protect the applicant. By removing the words "or any other person", it will be clearer that the real applicant is the child or person with mental incapacity, despite the fact that, under the general law, the child or adult is being represented.

Similarly, where the bill confers power on the person who obtained the power of arrest and that power was obtained by the representative of a child or adult without capacity, it will be regarded as having been obtained by that child or adult. The child or adult will therefore be entitled to apply for an extension of a power of arrest if they subsequently have capacity.

I move amendment 7.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I can see the intention behind amendments 7, 8 and 9. Deletion of the words "or any other person" from section 1(2)(c) means that, before the court can attach a power of arrest, it must be satisfied that attaching that power is necessary to protect the applicant from the risk of abuse.

The bill as amended at stage 2 demonstrates that a power of arrest could be attached in circumstances in which a person other than the applicant was at risk of abuse. I would question how an adult suffering from incapacity who was at risk would be able to be given protection under that measure, and I am not entirely convinced that the bill's provisions offer a sufficient safeguard. As I understand the law as it stands, such an adult could not make an application under the 1981 act through lack of capacity, and the application would therefore be made by his or her guardian. However, because the guardian would not be at risk, it is difficult to ascertain the basis on which the power of arrest could be attached.

Christine Grahame has clarified the position to some extent, and I do not think that the amendments should cause us any great concern. There is, however, a little bit of dubiety about the relevant provisions, and I would be anxious for the minister to clarify that—I mean the member in charge; I keep forgetting that everything that we do here is new and unique. I am not quite convinced about the aspect of the guardian's involvement that I described.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am grateful to Christine Grahame for setting out the general purpose behind the bill and for explaining how we arrived at the first group of amendments. It is the Executive's view that the additional words to which Christine Grahame has drawn our attention were not needed, and that the bill provides adequate cover without them. Iain Gray raised the issue at stage 2, and we are grateful to the Justice 1 Committee for taking it on board at this stage.

The purpose of the amendments is to remove unnecessary wording from the bill which had originally been inserted to allow a person to make an application for a power of arrest to be attached to an interdict for the purpose of protecting another person. On consideration, it was thought that that was unnecessary. The bill already enables any power of arrest to be applied for by that person, or by their parent, guardian or other legal representatives acting on their behalf if they do not have the necessary capacity. In other words, the provision already exists for a parent, for example, to make application to give protection. The wording that it is proposed should be deleted could therefore cause confusion. The Executive therefore supports Christine Grahame's amendments 7, 8 and 9.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will respond briefly to the point made by Bill Aitken. In the circumstances that he outlined, the applicant would be the person with incapacity. That would not be appropriate.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The next amendment for debate is amendment 10, in the name of Christine Grahame, which is grouped with amendments 11 and 13.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I can be brief in relation to these amendments. Section 4(4) of the bill sets out on the face of the bill the rights available to an arrested person. Those rights are specified in full and are essentially the same as the normal rights of a person arrested on a criminal matter.

At stage 2 I gave a commitment to consider further the rights conferred on an abuser when the police arrest them. As I indicated at stage 2, there was concern that the alleged abuser should be informed of the reason for their arrest at the time of arrest. These amendments follow on from that consideration.

Amendment 10 addresses the specific concern that I have mentioned and requires the police immediately to tell the person why they are being arrested.

Amendments 11 and 13 are consequential to amendment 10 and I propose to say no more about them.

I move amendment 10.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

These amendments are infinitely reasonable. Amendment 10 seeks to ensure that the person who is arrested under the provisions of the bill is informed immediately of the reasons for their arrest. Natural justice demands that. The amendment is welcome and I am extremely pleased that the issue that it addresses is to be clarified. I need say no more on the matter. We will support amendment 10 and the consequential amendments 11 and 13.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There is a blossoming of consensus. I am grateful to Christine Grahame and the Justice 1 Committee for agreeing to reconsider the rights that ought to afforded to the alleged abuser under the terms of the bill. Amendments 10, 11 and 13 would make a proper adjustment to the bill; accordingly, the Executive is happy to support them.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member in charge wish to respond?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I have nothing to add.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 1, in the name of Bill Aitken, is grouped with amendment 3.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

This is the first in a series of amendments lodged in my name on behalf of the Conservative group. At the appropriate juncture, we will support the motion that the bill be passed, as we regard it as a worthwhile piece of legislation. The purpose of our amendments is to make this good piece of legislation better. They should be seen as a positive effort to improve a bill that will provide much-needed protection for many people in Scotland who over the years have found themselves the subject of abuse.

Amendment 1 seeks to clarify a situation that may not occur very frequently, but is likely to occur sometimes. If someone is arrested in a city, in a large town or even in a reasonably well-populated urban area, there is a high possibility that it will be possible to detain him or her in a police office. However, in rural or Highland communities the situation is somewhat different and incidents may occur many miles from the nearest police office. It may, therefore, be appropriate to allow the place of detention to be other than the police office.

I am reminded of the considerable impact made by Maureen Macmillan's speech when that matter was first debated in the Parliament, well over two years ago. On that occasion she spoke about incidents that had taken place in her neck of the woods, where it might not be easy to take someone to a police office after they had been arrested. Amendments 1 and 3 seek to address that issue.

I move amendment 1.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Amendments 1 and 3 seek to replicate in the bill a discretion that is given to the police under criminal law. The amendments would allow the police to take an arrested person to premises other than a police station. For a number of reasons, such discretion at the point of arrest is inappropriate.

At stage 2, there was much debate about importing criminal provisions into the bill. The Justice 1 Committee accepted that this bill, which is a civil measure, should stand alone, and expressed its approval for the fact that the bill is self-contained. The bill is not a criminal measure, and it is necessary to examine closely the purpose and effect of importing provisions that resemble criminal provisions into a bill where the purpose of detention is quite different from that of detention under the criminal law.

At section 4(2) the bill requires the arrested person to

"be taken to a police station as quickly as is reasonably practicable".

It does not require the person to be detained thereafter at the police station; it requires only that they be detained. That is in line with the equivalent provisions in the 1981 act.

Under the criminal law, an arrested person could be taken elsewhere for other purposes, such as attendance at an identity parade or the search of premises. Both those situations would be in connection with the on-going investigation of a crime. Neither can apply under the bill, as there is no further investigation to be undertaken. The arrested person may also need to be taken to another police area where the crime is being investigated. Again, that situation does not apply under the bill. The person requires to be brought before the sheriff for the district where they were arrested.

Although under the bill there are no release provisions by the police, we see no operational reason why an arrested person should not initially be taken to a police station, be advised there of their rights, have those rights recorded and have any requests acted on. Should the police for operational reasons wish to detain the arrested person elsewhere thereafter, the bill allows for that.

We also consider that it is desirable that a child be taken initially to a police station in order to ensure that the active step of intimation to the parent is properly carried out and supervised. We note the additional safeguards provided to children under section 43 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. That section requires the involvement of senior officers or the officer in charge of a police station when a child is not released immediately. It suggests that the provision in section 15(4) of the 1995 act refers only to a police station and that children under criminal law must be taken directly to a police station. We consider that the serious circumstances of the arrest of a child merit their being taken directly to a police station.

For the sake of completeness, I should point out that there is a problem with amendment 3. At present, the officer in charge of the police station must intimate the detention to the child's parents. The amendment would require the officer in charge of the other premises to intimate the detention to the child's parents. However, there may be no officer in charge of the other premises.

It remains our view that there are sound reasons for requiring the alleged abuser to be brought to a police station immediately after arrest and that the provisions of the bill should be consistent with the equivalent provisions of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981.

I invite Bill Aitken to withdraw amendment 1 and not to move amendment 3.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Christine Grahame has given a number of reasons for resisting amendments 1 and 3. In particular, she indicated that they were inappropriate in two respects for dealing with young people under the age of 16. The bill also seeks to be consistent with the provisions of the parallel Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. To import into the bill the additional words proposed by Bill Aitken would lead to significant divergence between those two pieces of legislation. For those reasons, I invite Bill Aitken to withdraw amendment 1 and not to move amendment 3.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Would Christine Grahame like to add anything?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I have nothing to add.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I have heard what the member in charge and the minister have said, but I remain unconvinced by their arguments. I believe that amendments 1 and 3 are necessary to tidy up the anomalies to which I referred, as they recognise the practical difficulties that may apply in rural areas.

I accept that there is some inconsistency between what I propose and existing legislation. However, I suggest that existing legislation, rather than my amendments, is inept in this regard. I wish, therefore, to press my amendments.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 14, Against 69, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

[Amendment 11 moved—[Christine Grahame]—and agreed to.]

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 12 is grouped with amendment 2.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

At stage 2, Bill Aitken raised the question of detention under criminal proceedings following upon an arrest under the provisions of the bill. As I indicated then, that was helpful and the matter has been given careful consideration since that debate. I am grateful to Bill Aitken for pointing out that area and for allowing us time to look into the position.

The bill sets out the procedure that is to be followed on and after arrest when no criminal proceedings are to be taken in respect of the incident that gave rise to the arrest. That will be the normal position, as the purpose of the bill is to provide powers to the police to arrest and remove alleged abusers in situations in which the criminal law does not apply. When the conduct is sufficient to be a breach of the criminal law, it is to be expected that the arrest will be under criminal law provisions.

Having considered the position further, I accept that there is a need for an amendment to make it clear that the detention that the bill permits will cease at the point where criminal proceedings are initiated. In other words, when is the alleged abuser subject to the normal provisions of criminal law? Amendment 12 amends section 4(2) to make it clear that the detention under the power of arrest in the bill stops when the alleged abuser is accused of a criminal offence on petition or is charged on a summary complaint. From that time onwards, any detention of the person will be under the provisions of the criminal law and they will be in a similar position to other persons charged on complaint or accused on petition.

The position that I have described seems fair. It is fair to the alleged abuser, who will be returned to the criminal law sphere with the rights that apply to others who have been accused or charged. It is clear for the police, who will have a definite point in time when the civil warrant ceases to be applicable, and it is fair on the victim, who will have had the additional benefit conveyed by the power of arrest until the criminal law takes over.

In practice, in most cases the service of a petition or complaint will occur after the alleged abuser has been taken to court to await their appearance before the sheriff. Service will occur in the cells at court and the then accused will be required to appear before the criminal court later that day. We expect that, in most cases, detention will continue until their appearance in court, but that is a criminal law matter and not a matter for the bill.

Amendment 2 is in the name of Bill Aitken. The wording is the same as that of an amendment that he moved and subsequently withdrew at stage 2. As he indicated at stage 2, the amendment is directed at providing the police with the power to continue detention after an arrest under the bill but in the circumstances in which the fiscal has initiated criminal proceedings. We do not consider that it is appropriate to put such a power in a civil law measure. Any detention prior to the alleged abuser's appearance before the criminal courts is a matter for the criminal law. The procedure in the bill is no longer relevant to such a situation.

We also consider that amendment 2 remains defective, as its reference to section 135(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 is incorrect. That section deals with taking an accused person to court on the first court day after arrest on a summary criminal charge. However, the accused will be appearing at court under section 144 of the 1995 act, following the service of the complaint by the fiscal. Furthermore, amendment 2 does not deal with appearance at court following the initiation of solemn proceedings.

I hope that Bill Aitken will not press amendment 2 and will feel able to support amendment 12.

I move amendment 12.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

As Christine Grahame highlighted, history is attached to amendment 2. When the bill came before the Justice 2 Committee at stage 2, I lodged a similar amendment. We had considerable discussions on the matter at stage 2 and I reserved the right to pursue it further at stage 3, should it not be satisfactorily resolved.

Since then, Christine Grahame and I have exchanged correspondence on the subject. While there was some excitement yesterday afternoon, when it appeared to me that the wording of amendment 12 was not as clear as it might have been, I am satisfied that amendment 12 seeks to remedy a flaw in the bill as introduced.

In all the circumstances, and on the basis of the reassurances that Christine Grahame has given, I am prepared to accept amendment 12 and not to move amendment 2.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Bill Aitken's concession is welcome. The Parliament is grateful to him for focusing on the situation of those who are originally detained under the bill's provisions but against whom criminal charges are subsequently made.

It is important that there should be clarification for the police on the interaction between the bill's provisions and the criminal law. Amendment 12 achieves that aim, as it clarifies the position for the police and provides an important measure of protection for the accused person.

In the circumstances, the Executive will support amendment 12.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

[Amendment 2 not moved.]

Amendment 13 moved—[Christine Grahame]—and agreed to.

[Amendment 3 moved—[Bill Aitken].]

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 14, Against 70, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 3 disagreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 4 is in a group on its own.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

To some extent, I will argue for amendment 4 from a converse position to my arguments of a few moments ago. We are dealing with practicalities once again. The effect of the amendment would be to place a positive onus on the police to take active steps to contact the parent or guardian of a child held in custody. The police would need to intimate that the child had been arrested and where he or she was being held.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, in all cases where a child has been arrested under section 4(1), the officer in charge of the police station will contact the person with parental responsibility for that child. That is essential. As the bill stands, the duty to intimate applies only in circumstances where it is "practicable" to do so. That does not offer sufficient protection for children who could be held in custody under the bill.

The term "practicable" is open to many varying interpretations. Although there should be no difficulty in the vast majority of cases and I fully accept the premise that hard cases do not make good law, we must have the safeguard that the amendment would provide. There is an analogous provision in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which creates a positive onus on the officer to contact the parent or guardian in all cases. If there is such a provision in that piece of legislation, we should have one in this bill too.

I move amendment 4.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Amendment 4 has the laudable aim of protecting children in police custody by requiring the police to intimate to the person with parental responsibilities that the child is being detained. I agree with the thinking behind the amendment, but the bill already states that the police "must" intimate.

In an attempt to save police time, the bill gives the police an element of discretion by providing that the police "must where practicable" intimate. The police must intimate unless it is not practicable to do so. It seems sensible that, without in any way diluting the protection given to a child, we prevent the police from undertaking fruitless attempts to intimate when it is known that the attempt is bound to fail.

Let me give an example. A child of 15 is arrested for being in breach of an interdict. At the police station, he tells the duty officer that his parent or parents are on holiday abroad. Under the amendment, despite the fact that the child has given the police that information, the police would still be required to send intimation to the parent or parents. That seems pointless and would be a waste of precious resources.

As I have said, we are keen to ensure that children are protected. We have made specific provision in the bill to give children extra protection. Very few children will be affected by the bill. It is extremely unusual and possibly almost unique for a child to be interdicted. Even so, protection has been provided.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Let me conclude. Bill Aitken still has a right to reply.

However, that protection has been tempered with a touch of realism about the duties of the police. The bill states that the police must intimate; only if it is not practicable to do so is the obligation removed.

I ask Bill Aitken to withdraw his amendment.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I support what Christine Grahame has said. No one questions the motives that underlie Bill Aitken's amendment, but Christine Grahame has given the practical reasons why the bill already meets the need to ensure that children are properly protected. The bill does so in a way that does not place on the police an undue burden that could be fruitless. For example, if it were known that the parents were abroad but it was not known where, an effort to contact them would still have to be made, even though it was known from the outset that the effort could not succeed.

I will make one further point. Christine Grahame emphasised that the bill states that the officer "must where practicable" intimate. The bill actually states:

"must where practicable, without delay".

That is another safeguard for the protection of children. I invite Bill Aitken to withdraw amendment 4.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Amendment 4 should be considered. The example that was given by Christine Grahame and the minister is not particularly apposite. Clearly, if a child is arrested whose parents are on holiday in Mallorca or at some unknown destination, notifying the parents will be a practical problem. However, if the parents are abroad, someone will be acting in their place. By definition, someone must be in charge of a child under the age of 16. It would be illegal for the parents to desert the child to go on holiday abroad without leaving someone in charge of him or her. Therefore, the example given does not apply. If a child were arrested whose parents were overseas or could not be traced, the person who was looking after the child in the parents' absence would be notified. Amendment 4 would be a wise piece of protection of the rights of the child. I am firmly of the view that the amendment should be accepted.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 15, Against 71, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 4 disagreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 14 is in a group on its own.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Amendment 14 follows on from considering the rights given to the accused, which we have just discussed in the debate on amendments 10, 11 and 13. While examining the rights available to an arrested person under section 4(3), we felt that there were some additional matters that should be recorded by the police.

As drafted, the bill requires the police to record the time and nature of any request made by the detained person under section 4(3) and the time and nature of any action taken by the police under that subsection. In addition, the police are required to record the time and nature of any action that they have taken under subsection (4) in relation to a person who appears to be under the age of 16.

Amendment 14 repeats the existing recording requirements, but requires the police to record five additional matters. First, the time of arrest, the police station to which the arrested person is taken and the time of arrival at the police station must be recorded. Those facts could be significant in ascertaining whether the arrested person was taken to a police station as soon as was reasonably practicable, which is a requirement imposed on the police by subsection (2), and whether the procurator fiscal was informed of the arrest as soon as was practicable, as required under subsection (6).

The recording of any other place to which the arrested person is taken is included and reflects equivalent requirements under the criminal law. For completeness, the police are required to record the time the arrested person was informed of their rights under subsection (3). That could be significant in ascertaining whether the police informed them of their rights as soon as they arrived at the police station.

The requirements to record the time and nature of a request to the police and the time and nature of any action taken are in the bill as drafted and are repeated in amendment 14.

Amendment 14 brings the information that the bill requires the police to record into line with what is required under criminal procedure.

I move amendment 14.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

As has been said, the bill is a hybrid, which contains an amalgam of civil and criminal law. Shortly, I shall seek to probe the meaning of the phrase

"as soon as is practicable."

Amendment 14 has merit and we shall support it.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am grateful to Christine Grahame for lodging amendment 14, which clearly gives improved protection for the rights of the alleged abuser. We are happy to support the amendment.

Amendment 14 agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 5 is on its own.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

In amendment 5 I seek to probe the meaning of the phrase

"as soon as is practicable."

Article 5 of the European convention on human rights, which deals with the right to liberty and security of person, states that those who have been deprived of their liberty through arrest should have the right to challenge in court the lawfulness of that deprivation. In the interests of justice, such a challenge should be heard as soon as possible. Therefore, it is essential that the circumstances of any arrest are reported immediately to the procurator fiscal and not simply

"as soon as is practicable."

The case can then be brought before the competent court as in any normal criminal proceedings where there is a statutory obligation on the authorities to do that. I lodged the amendment at stage 2 and withdrew it, because at that stage there was some discussion as to what might come thereafter. At that stage, I was in favour of the use of the term "immediately", but the majority of members of the Justice 2 Committee felt that that would be impractical.

However, on balance, I am of the view that the term "immediately" should be substituted in the interests of justice and the speedy resolution of matters that come to the attention of the authorities. That would ensure compliance with article 5 of the ECHR.

I move amendment 5.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

As Bill Aitken said, amendment 5 was debated at stage 2 and subsequently withdrawn. Bill Aitken's amendment would require the police to inform the procurator fiscal of an arrest "immediately" following the moment of arrest, which might not be practical. As with amendment 14, there are good reasons for allowing the police some flexibility. At present, section 4(6) states that when the alleged abuser is arrested, the police should inform the procurator fiscal of the facts and circumstances of the arrest

"as soon as is practicable."

In practice, intimation to the procurator fiscal will be given as soon as the fiscal's office is open. There is nothing to be gained by requiring an immediate intimation when the office is known to be closed; we are not dealing with situations in which the immediate attention of the fiscal would have any effect on the alleged abuser.

The concern that was expressed during the Justice 2 Committee debate on the ECHR is misplaced. The bill is fully compliant. Section 4(6) requires the police to take action as soon as they can. The purpose of that is to ensure that the alleged abuser is brought before the court on the first possible date after the arrest. Therefore, the alleged abuser is able to challenge the deprivation of their liberty at the earliest possible opportunity.

Section 5 makes it clear that appearance on the next court day is required. An additional protection can be found in the actions of the procurator fiscal, who must present a petition to the court on that day. The procurator fiscal can therefore be expected to be anxious to be informed promptly of the facts and circumstances so that the petition can be prepared. Because the liberty of the individual is at stake, the courts will be very strict in their assessment of how much leeway is permitted to the police on this matter.

I have no doubt that the courts will interpret the phrase in section 4(6) as requiring the police to intimate to the fiscal almost immediately after the arrest and just as soon as it is feasible to get in touch with the fiscal. The sensible discretion that is given to the police does not in any way affect the protection that is available to the alleged abuser, nor does it delay their appearance at court. I therefore invite Bill Aitken to withdraw amendment 5.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

It is right that, whenever the liberty of the individual is at stake, proper consideration be given to the way in which powers are exercised. I agree with Christine Grahame that there is nothing essential about informing the procurator fiscal immediately. The situation would be different for a murder case, when the fiscal would have to attend the scene of the crime immediately.

Bill Aitken properly indicated the importance of the individual having the opportunity to challenge the withdrawal of his or her liberty. The key protection is in section 5, in which there are strict requirements regarding court appearances. As Christine Grahame said, it will be incumbent on the procurator fiscal to present a petition to the court at the time of the court appearance. Therefore, an early—nearly immediate—intimation will have to be made to the procurator fiscal. However, to stipulate that such an intimation should be made "immediately", as amendment 5 requires, would not be practical. I therefore again invite Bill Aitken to reconsider his position.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I have listened carefully to what has been said, but I am not entirely convinced. We are talking about people being detained in custody. It is clearly essential that such situations should be resolved as soon as possible. I see no difficulty in including the word "immediately" in section 4(6)—doing so would comply fully with what we are trying to do. I am also concerned that there may be problems with ECHR compliance that have not been anticipated. I will press my amendment.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 17, Against 70, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 5 disagreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 6 is in a group on its own.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The issue that amendment 6 addresses is straightforward. The amendment would enable the arrested person to instruct legal representation to present information to the court. I am uncertain as to why the provision has not been included in the bill; it may be that it is considered that it is already implied in the bill. Accordingly, I shall wait to hear what Christine Grahame has to say.

I move amendment 6.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Amendment 6 seeks to ensure that an arrested person who is brought before the court can have their solicitor or counsel speak on their behalf. That is entirely appropriate and is already allowed for in the bill.

Section 5(4) requires the sheriff who is hearing the facts surrounding the arrest and alleged breach of interdict to afford the detained person the opportunity to make representations. It does not say that those representations can come only from the arrested person. As drafted, subject perhaps to the normal civil court rules on representation, anybody could make representations on behalf of the arrested person. The bill places no restriction on that.

That is a natural follow-on from the provision in section 4(3)(e), which allows an arrested person, on request, the opportunity for a private interview with a solicitor before any appearance in court. In addition, I understand that legal aid regulations are being examined to ensure that a duty civil lawyer is available for the arrested person should they wish such a service.

There is also a potential consequence that could flow from the amendment being accepted. The rules on representation at court are less strict in civil proceedings and, on occasion, family members or advice workers appear in order to speak for parties. Although the bill does not encourage that, it would not prevent it from happening where such representation is appropriate. By specifying solicitors and counsel, the amendment could cause the courts to interpret such assistance as being the only alternative open to the arrested person. I hope that it is clear that the amendment is unnecessary and potentially harmful and that solicitors and counsel can appear if required. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There is no dispute that we are working to the same end. As Christine Grahame has explained, the bill already allows for legal representation and the acceptance of the amendment could lead to an undesirable restriction. I hope that Bill Aitken will withdraw the amendment.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Having heard those reassurances, I seek permission to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6, by agreement, withdrawn.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That concludes the debate on amendments to the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill. We have made extraordinarily good speed and we are in for an early finish this morning.

Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2250, in the name of Christine Grahame, on the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It gives me great pleasure, both personally and as convener of the Justice 1 Committee, to speak to the motion that the bill be passed. As has been said on earlier occasions, this is the first bill to be introduced by a committee in the Scottish Parliament. That alone makes the bill important, even without the increased protection that it will give to many in society who are at risk from violence and abuse. In a constitutional sense, the bill demonstrates the ability of the Parliament's committees to initiate legislation. That is one of the most important ways in which our system is distinctive from that at Westminster.

Having been a member of the Justice 1 Committee when it first had the idea of investigating the subject, I am well aware of the amount of time and consideration that was given to the original suggestion. I was there, as were others, when a flash of light illuminated the committee during evidence from representatives of the Sheriffs Association. Who would have thought that the Sheriffs Association would be our Damascus? The witnesses suggested that a way forward would be to have a common law interdict to which a power of arrest could be attached. That proposal developed into the bill that we are considering today.

The committee undertook a thorough investigation before reporting to the Parliament and I am glad to say that the proceedings within Parliament have been conducted quickly, but without sacrificing any of the scrutiny that the Parliament requires to undertake.

The current law does not protect all victims of abuse equally. The main civil protection available is the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981, but that act does not offer protection to all abused persons. A matrimonial interdict ends on divorce and is not available to a divorced spouse. The 1981 act affords limited protection to cohabitees, who may apply for an interdict or exclusion order for an initial six-month period only, and thereafter for a six-month extension. Another limitation of the legislation is that a solely entitled cohabitant cannot obtain a matrimonial interdict against her or his partner unless the latter first seeks occupancy rights.

The Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill addresses those points. The effect of the bill will be to entitle any individual who has obtained, or is applying for, an interdict against another individual, for the purpose of providing protection from abuse, to apply to the court to have a power of arrest attached to the interdict, regardless of whether the interdict is a matrimonial interdict. It will no longer be necessary to demonstrate any particular personal relationship to the alleged abuser. Instead, the court will simply have to be satisfied that granting the power of arrest would be necessary to protect the applicant from the risk of abuse. If the court is so satisfied, it will grant the order.

The effect of attaching a power of arrest to an interdict is that, in the event of the interdicted person being suspected of breaching the interdict, a constable would be entitled to arrest that person and take him or her away from the scene. The constable would also have to be satisfied that if he or she did not arrest the interdicted person, there would be a risk of that person continuing to cause abuse in breach of the interdict.

Once the person has been arrested, if the fiscal decides that there are to be no criminal proceedings, the person must be brought before a court on the first available day following the arrest. The fiscal must present a petition to the court that sets out the facts and circumstances of the case. The sheriff then has discretion to order a further two days of detention. The further period of detention will be ordered only if it appears to the sheriff that the information discloses a prima facie breach of the interdict and the sheriff is satisfied that there would be substantial risk of abuse to the victim if the person was not detained.

The bill is not all one-sided and safeguards have been built in to protect the rights of alleged abusers. I read an editorial in Green's Family Law Bulletin, July 2001, which suggested that the loss of the discretion that is given to the police to release an arrested person back at the police station could lead to injustice. With respect to the editor of that journal, I cannot agree. Two safeguards are built into the bill to avoid such injustice. First, the test before an alleged abuser is arrested has been set at a higher level than was the case under the 1981 act. Not only must the constable have reasonable cause for suspecting that the person is in breach of the interdict, but he or she must consider that if the person were not arrested, there would be a risk of abuse or further abuse by that person in breach of the interdict. That alone should answer the suggestion that a one-off momentary loss of self-control would lead to a man or woman spending the weekend in the cells.

In addition, one must consider the background to the granting of a power of arrest that is attached by the courts to an interdict. To obtain an interdict, it is likely that the wife in the situation described by the editor of Green's Family Law Bulletin will have suffered abuse previously at the hands of the man, and the terms of that abuse will have been set out in an application to the court. Under the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill, the man will also require to be given an opportunity to contest the application to the court. Thus, rather than dealing with a momentary loss of self-control that will not be repeated, we are dealing with at least two incidents of abuse and, in many cases, more.

The bill also provides the arrested person with rights that are equivalent to their rights under the criminal law. Those include the right to have a solicitor informed of their detention, the right to a hearing with a solicitor to obtain advice prior to any court appearance, and the right to be heard before a sheriff before any further period of detention is ordered.

During stage 2, there was discussion of the requirement on the police to intimate an arrest to the procurator fiscal

"as soon as is practicable."

Pauline McNeill and others were satisfied that those words were appropriate, given that an attempt at immediate intimation would, at certain times, find the procurator fiscal's office closed until the next morning.

The bill provides safeguards against excessive detention by requiring the alleged abuser to appear at court on the first court day following arrest. That could be the same day, and the provision will ensure the earliest possible appearance, at which the procurator fiscal will be required to present a petition to the court. The requirement on the procurator fiscal may also assist in ensuring intimation as soon as practicable, because the fiscal will wish to ensure the earliest possible intimation in order to prepare the petition.

At the end of the day, however, it is necessary to consider the purpose of the arrest and detention. The arrest and detention will be imposed because there has been a prima facie breach of a lawful order made by a court. Also, the detention is part of a train of events that is directed at ensuring that the abuser will fulfil his legal obligation not to abuse the victim.

It is worth emphasising that there is no element of punishment. The purpose of the detention is not to punish the person concerned for the breach. In considering whether to order a further short period of detention, the sheriff will weigh up the risk of future substantial abuse in the immediate aftermath of a breach of the interdict, and the need for a cooling-off period. The Justice 2 Committee considered that to be an entirely proportionate response to increase the protection of the person who is at risk of abuse. In many circumstances, the power of arrest will enable the police to take prompt action to remove an abuser from the scene, which in some cases could prevent matters from escalating into criminal conduct.

This has been a trail-blazing bill in many ways, not least in its passage through Parliament. This is the first time that the procedure for a committee bill has been used and it has been seen to work well—from initial consideration by the Finance Committee, when my predecessor as convener, Alasdair Morgan, was called to give evidence on the financial memorandum, right through to the stage 2 process, when the Justice 2 Committee considered 44 amendments. I thank the Law Society of Scotland in particular for introducing a number of amendments that enabled the Justice 2 Committee to scrutinise all aspects of the bill. The process has shown the Scottish Parliament at its best. The Executive has been extremely supportive during the passage of the bill, and a number of the amendments that I lodged at stage 2 had their origins in suggestions by the Executive.

I thank all members of the Justice 1 Committee and those of its predecessor, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. In particular, I thank my two predecessors as convener, Roseanna Cunningham and Alasdair Morgan. I have mentioned the Finance Committee, which scrutinised the bill at stage 1. In addition, the Subordinate Legislation Committee gave the rule-making provisions a clean bill of health. Mention requires to be made of the clerks to the Justice 1 Committee and its predecessor. Andrew Mylne, in particular, provided a lot of assistance and encouragement during the inquiry stage. I personally thank David Cullum and Alison Coull of that shadowy group known as NEBU—the non-Executive bills unit—who worked hard and put in long hours in assisting the Justice 1 Committee and me with the bill.

I have already quoted from the Family Law Bulletin, but I quote from it again in relation to the drafting of the bill. After commenting on the work of the Justice 1 Committee, the editors stated:

"Another noteworthy feature of the Bill is that it shows the utility of the innovative Scottish Parliamentary Drafting Unit which prepares members' and other non-Executive bills. In Westminster private members' bills are often badly drafted ... and have to be kicked into shape by the official Government drafters during their passage. The Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill, drafted by a member of the Scottish Parliamentary Drafting Unit, is by contrast admirably clear and precise from the outset."

That should make for good law. I, and all members of the Justice 1 Committee, echo those sentiments and express our thanks to the unit and its draftsmen.

It gives me great pleasure to move the motion to pass the first committee bill in this Parliament. I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill is a good bill, which I have much pleasure in supporting on behalf of the Executive.

As Christine Grahame said, a lot of work was done by the non-Executive bills unit. The bill started off as a good draft. Amendments were made at stages 2 and 3 and have served to strengthen the bill. That that has happened, in many respects, is due to the hard work and good sense of the many people who have been involved with the bill. All members of the justice committees, past and present, have contributed to the bill, but it would not go amiss to pay particular tribute to Maureen Macmillan, whose energy and persistence drove its development from the feeling that something must be done, through the development of policy, to the drafting of the bill. [Applause.]

Roseanna Cunningham and Alasdair Morgan are distinguished former conveners of the justice committees, but the task of taking the first committee bill through its final stages has fallen to Christine Grahame, and it is fair to say that she has completed it triumphantly. All have steered the way forward with wisdom and commitment. Pauline McNeill as convener of the scrutinising committee and Iain Gray as the Deputy Minister for Justice both played important parts. The Parliament is indebted to them all.

I pay tribute also to the many experts who gave evidence to the Justice 1 Committee, and to the staff of the committee and the non-Executive bills unit. They have provided excellent analysis, good drafting and good advice. I am particularly grateful for the exemplary manner in which they have co-operated throughout with Scottish Executive officials. That good example is especially important because those who have been involved have been blazing the trail for committee bills. I am sure that we can all learn from the helpful and constructive way in which there has been co-operation not only between the parties, but between the committee and the Executive.

It is interesting to stand here and deal, yet again, with a bill that falls under the remit of the justice committees. I am conscious of the amount of legislative work that the Executive has given to the justice committees, and it says something that the Justice 1 Committee is the first committee to produce its own bill. Perhaps it is an example of the old adage, "If you want a job done, give it to a busy person." Given the work load of the justice committees, it is to their credit that the bill has come to fruition.

We all know why there is a need for the bill. For a long time, domestic abuse has been a blot on our national life. I recall, in my early days of practice at the Scottish bar, dealing with many matrimonial cases. I used to feel frustrated when I read papers that said that domestic abuse was a civil matter and not something that the police thought that they ought to do much about. The law then was developed by a Conservative Government, with the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. Since that time, there has been recognition of just what a blot on our national life domestic abuse is.

Of course, the bill does not confine itself to domestic abuse, but deals with abuse generally. It goes beyond the protection that is given by the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 and provides a means of protection to all those who are at risk of abuse. We are indebted to the members of the Justice 1 Committee who had the good sense not to restrict their proposals to fixing the immediate problem of violence in the home.

It is fair to say that changes in the law inevitably help, but only if they are widely known and are part of a wider range of practical assistance to the vulnerable. We have a national strategy to address domestic abuse and an action plan is being implemented. More than £18.3 million has been committed over the coming three years to implementing the strategy and improving services at ground level. That sum includes £10 million for refuge development. It is important that the Executive works hard to ensure that the intention of Parliament is given effect and that those who are at risk of abuse in Scotland have access to new protection.

The bill is a good one. If it is passed by Parliament, it will fall to the Executive to ensure that it is implemented. The bill would be useless if people were not aware of the protection that it offers and its deterrent effect on potential abusers. I assure the Parliament that the Executive will try to ensure that the various agencies, such as the police and the courts, are fully aware of the new procedures and powers. We will co-operate with others in ensuring that the public are well aware of the new legislation and that people can get informed advice from lawyers and voluntary organisations. Through the financial resolution that has been passed, we are committed to meeting the costs that will flow from the legislation.

Protecting the vulnerable is one of the most important duties of any civilised nation. We expect that the bill will provide an important additional shield for vulnerable people. The Executive commends and supports the bill.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

On behalf of the Scottish National Party, it gives me pleasure to support the Parliament's first committee-initiated bill. I thank those who were involved in producing the bill, those who gave evidence to the committee, the committee clerks and, as Christine Grahame has mentioned, the non-Executive bills unit.

Credit should also be given to members who were on the Justice and Home Affairs Committee from the outset, who were keen to introduce their own legislation and had the foresight to do so. I looked at the Official Report of the first meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and it was interesting to see what members said at that time. In particular, it was clear that members from all parties were keen to ensure that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee was not just there to scrutinise Executive legislation. The committee wanted to tackle issues that were brought to it as a matter of concern and to initiate its own legislation. At that first meeting, Christine Grahame stated:

"I think that it is very important that we are not simply a scrutinising committee, but that we initiate legislation. It is exciting that this committee can legislate on a number of areas that will affect ordinary people. We all have our pet lists, but I am sure that we can reach consensus on some areas, such as family law or domestic violence, in respect of which measures could be introduced".

She went on:

"That would show that the Parliament is delivering in a very simple but obvious manner."

Today, the Parliament is showing that it is delivering in what appears to be a simple but obvious manner.

As that first Justice and Home Affairs Committee meeting continued, Pauline McNeill, Tricia Marwick and, in particular, Maureen Macmillan—who has been a driving force behind the bill—illustrated that domestic violence was an area of particular concern. Pauline McNeill highlighted the issue when she said:

"I would like to see a women's dimension to our work because it is important, in terms of women's perceptions of the Scottish Parliament, that we deal with an issue that affects women. I know that several members are interested in the issue of violence against women".—[Official Report, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 29 June 1999; c 7.]

The Parliament is illustrating that it takes seriously issues that are of importance to women.

One in four women in Scotland suffers from some form of domestic violence, and 25 per cent of all violence that is reported to the police is the result of domestic violence. Parliament has demonstrated today that it is willing to take the issue seriously. Until today, not everyone was treated equally in the eyes of the law. By providing greater protection to people who suffer domestic violence, whether they are married, cohabiting or divorced, we have addressed an inequality in our legislation.

The bill illustrates that the Parliament is willing to listen. It also illustrates the value of the committee system. The bill has delivered on an important issue for many people in Scottish society.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I have heard what other members have said and agree that the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill is undoubtedly a good piece of legislation. The way in which the matter has been dealt with, from the debates at its inception, through the committee stages and to this morning's finalisation of the bill, has reflected well on Parliament.

The bill, when passed, will have a meaningful impact on the confidence, safety and security of many vulnerable women in Scotland. That is no bad thing at all. Human relationships can be complex and difficult, but there can be no excuse for resorting to violence and abuse of the sort that has been described in the chamber, particularly by Maureen Macmillan and Dr Winnie Ewing, when the matter was first debated. Accordingly, the bill is a good step forward.

The Sheriffs Association also had some impact. However, sheriffs and judges must regard this bill as a bit of a wake-up call. In criminal instances in the past, domestic abuse has been tolerated much more than it should have been. Had everybody being doing their jobs, it might not have been necessary for us to legislate. Legislate we have, however, and we have done so in a positive and constructive manner that reflects well on all who have been involved. This has been a happy occasion for the Parliament and progress has undoubtedly been made.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am happy to contribute to the debate and I am particularly proud to open on behalf of the Labour party.

It is important to recognise the role of the Justice 2 Committee in developing this legislation and I echo the thanks to all those who were involved behind the scenes and in the committee. I give particular credit to Maureen Macmillan, my Labour sister, for the work that she did on the bill.

There is no doubt that the development of policy in relation to understanding domestic abuse and violence against women has been an important strand in the Labour party and explains why Labour has placed such emphasis on women's representation. Labour and Labour women are clear that women's representation is not an end in itself, but a means by which women's needs and experiences can be addressed in the priorities of government and legislation. The Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill stands as testimony to that work.

The work that the Justice 2 Committee took on was important, because it addressed weaknesses in the current legislation and emerged from a deeper understanding of the nature and extent of abuse and a realisation that marriage does not inhibit the abuser and that abuse might not stop when couples separate. Indeed, evidence of women being murdered by ex-partners stands as horrific testimony to the fact that women are often at their most vulnerable when they decide to separate from a violent partner.

It is important to get the legislation right and to be willing to continue to monitor its effectiveness. However, as Bill Aitken said, it is also important that those charged with implementing the legislation and protecting those who face violence and abuse ensure that the procedures are carried out and that the work of the police and agencies involved is closely monitored. We still hear concerning accounts of women who report violence and abuse facing treatment that suggests that their situation is not taken seriously.

The bill has another important role, which is to mark out society's view of what is acceptable and what is unacceptable and the value that we place on the rights of individuals to protection from violence and abuse. We want to manage the abuse, but we also want to challenge the abusers.

The bill is part of a broader body of legislation that seeks to respond to the scourge that is domestic abuse and violence against women and which understands the importance of the police and the justice system in addressing the needs of women. Another element is the Sexual Offences (Procedures and Evidence) Bill, which will come before us soon. It is important to understand that the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill and other bills show that we have reflected on the experience of those who have faced abuse and have responded accordingly.

We have paid tribute to the many people who helped to develop the bill, but in particular I pay tribute to women's organisations that continue to support women survivors of violence and which play a key role in making the case for change. I refer to groups such as Enough is Enough—I understand that they are represented in the public gallery—Scottish Women's Aid and the Scottish Rape Crisis Network. They do their work, despite limited resources, with a desire to ensure that their first priority remains supporting women who face violence and abuse.

I make one last plea. In the—often complex—debates on legislation that addresses these issues and, more broadly, that seeks to deal with crime and understand the experience of those who suffer crime, the voices of the professionals must be heard, but we must remember that the loudest voices with the best resources should not be the only ones that are heard. Those who have campaigned long and hard for this bill and for other bills campaign for a greater understanding of the causes of abuse. They deserve and need to be heard if we are to legislate against abuse as it presents itself in people's lives and if we are to challenge the attitudes and values that allow abuse to exist.

I voice my party's support for the bill and welcome its being passed today.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I warmly congratulate Maureen Macmillan on the bill. She claimed with typical modesty that it was a flash of inspiration from the Sheriffs Association, but she must take the credit for playing a pioneering role in the Parliament and being a moving force in helping to steer the bill towards enactment.

The bill is the first committee bill of the Parliament. This is a small moment of legislative history, as it underlines the reality that the committees can and will initiate legislation whenever necessary. The bill was sponsored by Christine Grahame of the Justice 1 Committee and scrutinised by the Justice 2 Committee. Considerable input was received from elsewhere.

The bill will improve the law considerably by extending protection for potential victims of abuse by allowing a power of arrest to be attached to an interdict. Many vulnerable people, including divorcees, parents and grandparents, will have protection that did not exist before. If a risk of abuse exists, the police will be able to arrest the interdicted person. That gives better and fuller protection to people who could be at risk.

It is right that Maureen Macmillan's role should be remembered, but it is also appropriate to remember that all parties in the Parliament support the bill. The act will be a credit to the Parliament. It confirms the significance of the Parliament's capability to produce a bill through its committee structure. As a result of this important and successful bill, many who exist in fear will have peace of mind.

I am glad to reaffirm the Conservatives' support for the bill.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The next speaker will be Nora Radcliffe, followed by a speaker whom my computer screen identifies as No 91. Is that you, Mr Paterson?

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Yes.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak briefly. The bill is a case study in how the Parliament, its members and committees can work effectively with and for the people of Scotland. A gap in the protection that the law afforded was identified and swift action was taken to address it. The way the bill changed during its progress demonstrated flexibility and common sense. All those involved are to be commended.

I honour all the people outside the Parliament who have campaigned for years to draw attention to the problem with which the bill deals. Some of those people know at first hand and only too well why the bill is needed. I have never forgotten that I was told that the bill should be proceeded with as fast as possible, because delay for some people would be measured in beatings.

Two visitors in the public gallery caught a train at 6 am to be here to see the bill complete its final stages. Kelly and Marie are members of a group called Enough is Enough. The law failed those women and they had the guts to get together to do something about it. Members should make no mistake—it took courage to do what those women did. They campaigned persistently and effectively to obtain the change in the law. More members of the group will be present this afternoon, when I hope that they will see a bill to which they have contributed voted into law.

This is a good day for those people and a good day for the Parliament.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I hope that my speech will be short and to the point. It goes without saying that I welcome the bill very much. Many individuals and groups have campaigned on the issue for a long time and we must thank them for their persistence.

The bill deals with the situation of women and children who are down and almost out and who need help. The system used to let them down. Once the bill is enacted, when a woman or a child—those abused are almost exclusively women and children—is being abused or is under the threat of abuse from a man, the police will do what they and many people in society have always wanted to do, which is to stop the abuse. The granting of an interdict against a man to which the power of arrest is attached will allow the police to do that, no matter what the marital status of the woman is.

There is no doubt that today is a good day for the Scottish Parliament—in fact, it is a great day for the Parliament—but it is an even better day for those women and children who are under threat from abusive men.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

As a new member of the Justice 1 Committee, I can dispassionately give the committee credit for its work on producing the bill. Procedurally, it is important that a committee bill has passed through the legislative process and helpful that the first committee bill has been the subject of consensus. I look forward with some interest to committee bills about which the Executive is less enthusiastic. They may cause some interesting debates in future in the Parliament.

I will make one constructively critical remark about our proceedings. It was well known that because the bill was the subject of such consensus, debate on it would not fill the whole morning. The Parliament should be sufficiently flexible to have allowed the Parliamentary Bureau to install in the timetable a members' business debate or a new motion on a topical issue such as racial harassment. I hope that that point will be taken up.

The main thrust of the bill is unacceptable activity in the home—violence by men. Johann Lamont made a powerful speech on the issue, as she has done several times. It is an important point and other members dwelt on it. However, as a non-lawyer, I read the bill as helping people outwith matrimonial situations. The bill says that abuse is conduct that is "likely to give rise" to "fear, alarm or distress" and includes speech. It will help people with neighbours from hell who continually make their lives misery and will strengthen people's position in dealing with such neighbours.

The bill will also help those who suffer from persistent racial or religious abuse, such as the shopkeeper from the Pakistani community who must roll up the shutters of his shop every morning to see fresh abuse or whose car is vandalised by a group of children. Such people can obtain assistance from the bill. Its impact will be not just on domestic situations, although that is the most important element; it is wider than that.

It is good that the Parliament is showing that it really cares. I take the point that having more women in Parliament shows that we really care and that my party is not good at getting women into the Parliament. The bill is good. I am sure that all parties are happy to support it.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

It gives me great satisfaction to wind up the debate for the Justice 1 Committee and to see the first committee bill reaching the statute book. The bill is a tribute to the Parliament. As it came through the committee system, political interests were put aside. The bill has total cross-party support.

I thank members of the justice committees and those who were members of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, who made time in a busy schedule to deal with the bill. The scrutiny to which the Justice 2 Committee has subjected the bill is welcome and worth while. I am confident that the bill has improved as a result.

On behalf of all members of the Justice 1 Committee, I thank clerks past and present for their contribution. They provided invaluable support. Without their help, I do not believe that we would be debating the bill at stage 3. I also thank David Cullum and Alison Coull of the non-Executive bills unit for their immense help and support.

The Executive has always supported the principle of the bill, recognising that the bill progressed its agenda for dealing with domestic violence issues. I thank Jim Wallace and Iain Gray, from the justice department, and also Jackie Baillie and her predecessor Wendy Alexander who, as Minister for Communities, was of great support to me when I was progressing the bill.

The difficulties over who would draft the bill were resolved by the setting up of the non-Executive bills unit. That was a great step forward. Its work has resulted in a bill that is professionally drafted and written in language that is accessible to the lay person.

The bill is also a tribute to those women who have worked to support abused women and their children throughout Scotland. Those women have known for a long time that more needed to be done to protect those whom they sought to protect through societal and legislative changes. I believe, as does Johann Lamont, that the high percentage of women in the Scottish Parliament has played its part in having the issues addressed.

A number of organisations have supported the bill by giving strong evidence to the committee on the need for legislation: the Law Society of Scotland, the Family Law Association, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, the Sheriffs Association, the police, the Scottish Partnership on Domestic Violence and the Crown Office.

When the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 was enacted, many of us who were working to protect abused women welcomed it as a step forward. However, since the early 1980s, it has become clear that there is a need to protect those in relationships other than marriage. When I was elected to Parliament, I was determined to try to bring about a change in the legislation. The bill will protect from violence and abuse those who cannot at present access the protection of an interdict, with its powers of arrest. Those include people who are divorced, were never married or perhaps never cohabited. It will also protect those who are a grandparent, sister, brother or same-sex partner, rather than a spouse.

On Tuesday, I spoke to a worker at Ross-shire Women's Aid. She told me that she has been involved in an outreach project in Caithness and Sutherland that has supported 47 women. Out of those women, only two wanted to go into a distant refuge. The rest wanted to stay at home, in their communities, but they wanted to be safe. The bill will enable greater protection for women who choose to stay in their own communities. It will be of particular advantage to those who live in rural communities some distance from a refuge.

I believe, on this historic day for the Parliament, that an important piece of legislation is about to be passed. I believe that it will make a difference to the people whom we represent—that is what we were sent here to do. I therefore ask members to support the first committee bill. I commend it to Parliament. [Applause.]

Business Motion

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-2283, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to set out a business programme.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

As a former member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, I am pleased to be here to see completion of the stage 3 debate on the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill. It is a good day.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees

(a) as a revision to the Business Motion agreed on 27 September 2001 Thursday 4 October 2001 after the Executive Debate on Sports Promotion in Scotland's Schools, insert followed by Financial Resolution in respect of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill

(b) the following programme of business Wednesday 24 October 2001

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Ministerial Statement followed by Executive Motion in respect of UK Legislation followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-2113 David Mundell: Disabled Access to Railway Station Platforms Thursday 25 October 2001

9.30 am Scottish National Party Business followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Executive Debate on National Cultural Strategy - One Year On followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-2279 Tavish Scott: Edinburgh Declaration for Ocean Recovery Wednesday 31 October 2001

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Executive Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 1 November 2001

9.30 am Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee Debate on the Review of Higher Education Teaching and Funding followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Executive Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business and, (c) that Stage 1 of the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Bill be completed by 30 November 2001.

Motion agreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We have made extraordinarily good speed this morning. It is with great pleasure that I suspend this meeting of the Parliament.

Question Time — Scottish Executive

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it plans to take to reduce the number of missed NHS appointments. (S1O-3866)

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Action to reduce the number of patients who fail to attend their national health service appointments is primarily a matter for local NHS management. Reductions can best be achieved through improved communication and by redesigning services around the needs of patients: both are key priorities in "Our National Health: A plan for action, a plan for change", the Scottish health plan.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister will be aware that missed appointments at out-patient clinics and general practitioners' surgeries are a drain on the valuable resources of the NHS and cost society tens of millions of pounds. Will the minister give an undertaking to commission a public information campaign, involving television and newspaper adverts, to urge the public to play their part in helping the NHS to use its resources more productively?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I share Richard Lochhead's concerns regarding the number of missed appointments or DNAs—did not attends—both at out-patient clinics in hospitals and at GP surgeries. I welcome the fact that he has raised awareness of that issue in the chamber today.

There are many ways in which awareness can be raised, and much can be done at a local level. Members may be familiar with the steps that GP practices have taken to publicise in waiting rooms the number of people who do not attend for appointments. It is incumbent on us all continually to take steps to ensure that the NHS improves its systems and that patients are aware of the consequences and wider implications for other patients when they do not attend their appointments.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

Does the minister agree that part of the cure for missed NHS appointments would be effective deployment of new technology to ensure that the NHS is more responsive to patients—for example, by enabling them to make out-patient appointments from GP surgeries? Will she give an assurance that the importance of using information and communications technology effectively has been recognised in the NHS and that its use is being progressed with speed?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I am grateful to Elaine Thomson for raising the important issue of information and communications technology in the NHS in relation to the appointments system. More generally, many aspects of practice in the NHS do not yet harness fully the available technology. I am pleased that that situation is changing. Major projects of which some members will be aware include the electronic clinical communication initiative and the Scottish care initiative, which are multimillion pound developments in the NHS in Scotland that have widespread backing from a range of health professionals. Many of the changes that are taking place, including those that relate to appointments systems, will kick in over the next year or two and I am confident that they will transform the patient experience.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it is making in recruiting extra teachers. (S1O-3872)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

This year, the teacher education institutions report that all Scottish Higher Education Funding Council targets for intake, including intake to national and local priority subjects, have been met. This week, I launched the second phase of the first national teacher recruitment advertising campaign, which is aimed at increasing the number of Scotland's most talented people who enter the profession. That builds on the earlier campaign to raise the profile and standing of the teaching profession in Scotland.

The Scottish Executive education department is also working in collaboration with education authorities to achieve a more accurate picture of teacher demand. The improvements that result from the work to match supply to demand will be introduced as part of this year's teacher work force planning exercise.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Does the minister accept the fact that in constituencies such as mine, where it is impossible for many mature students to travel to Glasgow or Edinburgh because they cannot uproot their families and move from their communities, distance learning would be a useful tool in recruiting some of the valuable and experienced members of our work force to the teaching profession? What consideration has been given to the introduction of distance learning for initial teacher training?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I specifically raised distance learning at a recent meeting with the teacher education institutions. I made it clear to them that I would welcome initiatives on that front. Both they and the Open University, which does not currently provide such facilities in Scotland, should examine the issue as a matter of urgency, particularly in relation to Gaelic-medium education but also in relation to other subjects. It should not be outwith the bounds of possibility that our teacher education institutions should provide such facilities.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sure that the minister is aware that the number of qualified applicants to train as primary teachers far exceeds the number of places. Is the minister considering increasing the number of places as fast as possible to allow entry into the profession of qualified people who want to teach? At the moment, the entry requirements to the colleges are set extremely high because there is an over-supply of well-qualified young people.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We are dramatically increasing the number of primary teachers who will be in the system in the next few years. That increase will require an increase in the number of students who train to become primary teachers. It is important that we match supply to demand because the worst thing that could happen to those young people would be for them to discover that there are no jobs for them once they have gone through the course and qualified as teachers.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Is the minister aware that a large number of newly qualified teachers this year are failing to find jobs? What will be done to ensure that those graduates—young and mature—stay within the Scottish education system?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Part of the problem has been that the subjects in which people have been training have not necessarily been those in which there is a demand for teachers. That is why we are currently involved in pilot projects with a number of local authorities to ensure that supply and demand can be better matched. We also want local authorities and the teacher education institutions to work in partnership to deliver better training for the trainee teachers and permanent places for those who have qualified.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Although I welcome some of the minister's comments about a review of entry requirements for teacher training, does the minister accept that he must consult the General Teaching Council for Scotland on this important matter and that it would be a retrograde step to dispense with degree-level qualifications?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Members will welcome my making it absolutely clear that the review that was announced on Monday is not designed to make the qualification requirements harder or easier but to make them better. I do not want people who have a degree in a subject relating to information technology, who have worked at the top of their profession for 20 years and who want to make a career change into education to be hampered because the name of their degree does not match the entry requirements that are expected. I want to ensure that the entry requirements in this century match the needs of this century and are not tied to the way in which universities were organised in the previous century.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to restore the overall level of improvement and repair grants to what it was in 1996-97. (S1O-3864)

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

That is an important question and I appreciate Kenny Gibson's increasing concern with the quality and supply of Scotland's housing stock, which will obviously be needed to match the growing population, if Mr Gibson's efforts are successful. I apologise for making such an obvious joke.

Since April 1996, the amount that is set aside for improvement and repair grants has been for each local authority to determine. The ending of the separate ring-fenced allocation was requested by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. If COSLA asked us to revisit the issue, we would be prepared to do so.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for her amusing, if rather predictable, reply. Does the minister accept that by slashing grants to the private sector from £71 million to £41 million since new Labour came to power, her party has shown contempt for people in private housing, particularly people in pre-war housing, which is desperately in need of refurbishment?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

That is quite wrong. I am sure that Kenny Gibson is aware of the fact that, with regard to the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, we stated categorically that although responsibility for necessary work rests in the first instance with the owner, we are committed to providing assistance for people on low incomes. That is why provisions for the reform of the grant system were included in the act. Those provisions include assistance for people on low incomes at rates of up to 100 per cent.

Kenny Gibson is aware of the housing improvement task force. We have made it clear to many sectors that we are committed to work in the private sector. That approach has won the support of many housing agencies—they are all involved in the work of the task force—and has been welcomed warmly by the private sector. It is disappointing that the Scottish National Party cannot join in recognising the commitment of the Executive.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister reflect on the highly successful repairs and improvement schemes that the Tory Government initiated back in the 1980s? Will she consider realigning her repairs and investment programmes with the schemes of the 1980s?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I, like many Scots, have reflected on the work of the Tory Government, which is precisely why the Tories sit where they do.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

In her earlier response, the minister mentioned the housing improvement task force. I would welcome details of when the Executive is likely to report to Parliament on the work of that task force and when the new improved scheme of repairs and improvement grants, as contained in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, will be implemented.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

As members know, the work of the housing improvement task force is on the Executive website. The task force is currently working in sub-groups from which we hope to hear as soon as possible.

We are negotiating with local authorities to devise a timetable for when work will be undertaken. That is out to consultation. We want to hear the views of the key players before we decide to implement the scheme, which we expect to do in the near future.

David (None, Lothians)

Questions 4, 5 and 6 have been withdrawn.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether inspections carried out by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education on the education functions of local authorities will improve standards of education delivered in schools. (S1O-3908)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The new inspections of local education authorities contribute to the improvement of education standards in schools. They provide a rigorous and independent evaluation of the quality of support and challenge that is provided by education services in their work with schools. As a result, local authorities are able to see clearly what they do well, but they are also provided with a number of main points for improvement.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Is the minister aware of the excellent HMIE inspection of Inverclyde Council that was published on 25 September and which found that, of the 11 performance measures, Inverclyde Council was very good in seven and good on the remaining four? Does he agree with me that—given that Inverclyde Council continues to face the challenges of poverty and deprivation—the director of education, Bernard McLeary, and his staff deserve our special congratulations on the achievement?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Yes, and I understand that Mr McLeary is here today. I take the opportunity to congratulate him and his department on their hard work. I visited schools in the Inverclyde Council area and saw their efforts, sometimes in buildings that are in urgent need of modernisation and renewal. The work of staff and pupils in the Inverclyde Council area is first class. The department deserves much credit for its efforts to support that.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am glad that the minister acknowledges the link between inspection and education standards. Is the minister aware of inspections in three schools in Wigtonshire earlier this year—Drochduil Primary School, Lochans Primary School and Castle Kennedy Primary School—that produced absolutely glowing reports? As a reward, the local council proposes to close them. Will the minister speculate on how that will improve the standards of education?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As Alasdair Morgan is well aware, it would be wrong of me to speculate on the outcome of the consultation in Dumfries and Galloway on future provision of schools. However, I would be very surprised if that local authority—or any other—made decisions on future school provision in its area that were designed to harm, rather than to improve, educational standards. I am sure that improving standards is Dumfries and Galloway Council's intention.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the minister tell us about the timetable for HMIE's visit to the Borders and what he hopes to gain from that visit.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As I have outlined in answers to written parliamentary questions, it would not be appropriate for HMIE to inspect the Scottish Borders Council education department while the Accounts Commission for Scotland investigation is under way. When that investigation is completed and is being acted upon, the time will be right for HMIE to examine education management in that authority. I assure Ian Jenkins that the inspectorate will inspect Scottish Borders Council.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I welcome the inspectorate's constructive report on problems in secondary schools in East Lothian. Will the minister acknowledge the major efforts that teachers, pupils, parents and East Lothian Council have made to address those problems? Will he be prepared to visit schools in East Lothian to discuss the HMIE recommendations?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Yes. Let me also say that East Lothian Council's response shows the best that can come from the new local authority inspections. The council has taken the report on board and has dealt with it constructively and positively. It is now acting on the outcome in the same way that East Dunbartonshire Council did earlier this year, following a similar report that demanded improvements. I think that I have an invitation outstanding for the end of this month to visit Haddington Primary School, which recently won a national award for its school ethos. I am considering whether I can rearrange my diary to accommodate that.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will make a decision on writing off the housing debt of Shetland Islands Council. (S1O-3879)

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The Executive remains committed to providing funding to tackle Shetland Islands Council's housing debt if it transfers its housing into community ownership. Discussions with the council will take place soon.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I thank the minister for finding time yesterday to meet a delegation from Shetland Islands Council. Does she accept that there is considerable uncertainty among tenants and that there is a clear need to sort out the housing debt details as quickly as possible? Bearing it in mind that the council will meet next on 24 October, will she ensure that those details will be sorted out as well as can be managed by that time?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am aware of Shetland's tenants organisations, because I had constructive discussions with them when I visited the islands in the summer. That constructive dialogue has continued between the relevant partners. I am confident that those matters will be brought to an early resolution that is to the satisfaction of all those who are involved.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will investigate the circumstances surrounding the appeals procedure used by Scottish Borders Council under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to refer the case of Victoria Nichol from Peebles, who suffers from cerebral palsy, to HM Inspectorate of Education. (S1O-3880)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, a local authority education appeal committee has the legal right to make a reference to Scottish ministers, if it considers that a determination on the terms of the record of needs is required before it can reach a decision on a school nomination. As the case to which Christine Grahame referred is now the subject of a reference to Scottish ministers and supporting papers are awaited, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it specifically.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I hope that the minister has received the full letter and file of papers that I gave. I dispute the competence and legality of the referral and I ask the minister to consider the matter urgently. Many children in the Borders are suffering because of the cuts. I hope that he will be able to give me an undertaking that, in line with the Parliament's policy on mainstreaming, Victoria Nichol and others like her will be included in their local schools, which they attend with their friends and which, in Victoria Nichol's case, she attended with her sister.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As I said, it would be wrong for me to comment on the details of that particular case. However, I received the documentation from Christine Grahame, which I will study as part of the normal process. The normal process also includes a proper look at the competency of the referral. That will be followed through and, if it is so deemed, the final appeal will also be looked at.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will detail its plans for the marketing of Scotland in other countries as a tourist destination following the recent terrorist attacks in the United States of America. (S1O-3910)

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

The most immediate task is to find out the scale and nature of the problem that we face. We also need to take action to make the most of our important markets within the United Kingdom and Europe. We have asked visitscotland to consider urgently whether it can switch some of its anticipated spend in the United States to those markets.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I welcome the proposals for the redirection of marketing effort. The UK market is a major market, from which more than half of the industry's income comes. What specific proposals has the Executive made to visitscotland to develop the UK market further? What additional resources are being diverted from within the £20 billion budget to sustain and improve Scotland's largest industry during its hour of need?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

David Davidson rightly highlights the importance of the English market. It is right that visitscotland reprioritise its marketing to exploit the potential of the English and European markets. It is not for ministers to direct visitscotland on operational matters, but I met Peter Lederer and Philip Riddle this morning and we discussed informally the arrangements that they are putting in place. It goes without saying that flexibility in marketing will have to be the name of the game.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the minister agree that this time of crisis is a time for us to be marketing more aggressively than we had planned previously? Is the planned cut to the Scottish Enterprise budget sensible? Surely we should be boosting resources to business and tourism at this time, rather than reining them in.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Andrew Wilson will no doubt reflect on the fact that we have almost doubled the budget of visitscotland in the past 18 months. That money will be well spent by visitscotland, which now has some £35.5 million to get on with marketing and other initiatives. It will work closely with its counterpart, the British Tourist Authority, in carrying out the kind of work that I expect Andrew Wilson would welcome and endorse.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Does the minister agree that the Parliament has an opportunity to continue to raise not only its own profile, but the profile of Scotland as a whole? In that connection, will the minister join me in welcoming the legislators from Nebraska, Minnesota and Kansas who are in the VIP gallery? [ Applause. ]

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I am happy to associate myself with the welcome extended by Patricia Ferguson.

On the point that she raised, the Parliament can do some serious work on behalf of the country. Patricia Ferguson led a delegation from the Parliament to Washington during tartan week. That was a successful visit and I would be happy to discuss with Patricia Ferguson, in her capacity as Deputy Presiding Officer, what more can be done.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the minister agree that a strong local area network is crucial to effective marketing and the effective delivery of services to visitors? Will he tell us the current position on what the chairman of visitscotland has described as informal discussions on the network and its structure, funding and boundaries?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Obviously, it is an important time for the tourism industry and we work closely with visitscotland. We all appreciate the importance of a network. We expect visitscotland to do most of the international marketing and, as I said in response to Andrew Wilson, visitscotland is working closely with the British Tourist Authority on that.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it plans to take to limit the costs associated with quality assurance so that Scottish farmers are not placed at any competitive disadvantage with their English counterparts. (S1O-3893)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am not aware of any circumstances that would place Scottish farmers at a competitive disadvantage with their counterparts south of the border in relation to such schemes. Indeed, as we are pioneers of farm assurance schemes in Europe, it is arguable that our farming industry is better placed to exploit the commercial opportunities that the schemes provide.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Is the minister aware that, in England, the remit of the farm-assured British beef and lamb scheme has been widened from being livestock-only, so that it is now able to verify arable farms to assured combinable crops scheme standards? The introduction of competition will result ultimately in a reduction in assurance costs. As a result, there will be a disadvantage here that will ultimately impact on the Scottish industry.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Mr Johnstone makes two assumptions. The first is that the schemes are equal. I put it to him that the quality assurance schemes in Scotland are incredibly more rigorous than those that exist in England. They are also inspected more frequently—at least annually, as opposed to every 18 months in England. His second assumption is that standards are constantly upgraded, which is not the case in England and Wales.

Mr Johnstone will be aware that it is only a year since Scottish Food Quality Certification investigated the possibility of combined investigations. Those are being done in sectors. However, the outcome of the organisation's report showed that it was not beneficial to combine various sectors and that it was difficult to do so.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will conduct an audit on the effect on the resources of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service of incorporating the European convention on human rights into Scots law. (S1O-3870)

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am obliged to the Lord Advocate for that answer, but is he aware of reports—all of which cannot be apocryphal—of lengthy delays and, indeed, adjournments in both the solemn and summary courts because of debates on devolution matters? Those delays must have resource implications. In the circumstances, will the Lord Advocate arrange for those to be quantified?

David (None, Lothians)

We come to question 13. I am glad to see Mary Scanlon back in the chamber. [ Applause. ]

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you for your good wishes, Sir David. I appreciate the good wishes that have been sent by members from all sides of chamber.

To ask the Scottish Executive how many people are currently on NHS patient waiting lists. (S1O-3878)

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I, too, welcome Mary Scanlon back.

On 30 June 2001, 83,487 people were waiting for hospital in-patient or day-case treatment.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

That figure is about 13,000 higher than it was when the Parliament began. I understand that some of the NHS underspend came from resources that were allocated to alleviate bedblocking. With patients unable to leave hospital and other patients unable to get into hospital for surgery, how will the minister ensure that councils give patients the care that they need and allow hospitals to do the job that they want to do?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Let me make it clear that every penny that was carried forward from last year's health budget to this year's health budget is being put to work for the benefit of the health of the Scottish people and the NHS. Indeed, as part of the package that Angus MacKay announced recently, further resources from across the budget have been identified to address the issues that Mary Scanlon raises, including delayed discharge.

I am pleased that, in many parts of the country, subsequent to additional investment being made both in local authorities and in the NHS for that purpose, new services are being developed that are impacting on delayed discharge. There is no question that more needs to be done and that is why I have repeated my desire to ensure that the NHS and local government get around the same table to consider what more needs to be done to tackle the issue.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Given the continuing and intransigent problem of delayed discharges—which contributes to the waiting problem—what steps is the minister taking with her colleague the Minister for Finance and Local Government to ensure that local authorities that are not spending up to their grant-aided expenditure allocation for community care are encouraged to do so and that those that are already spending up to or beyond their GAE allocation are rewarded? Will the Executive publish as soon as possible—and, thereafter, annually—the budget and expenditure for community care for GAE and resource transfer from the health boards?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I can assure Richard Simpson that my colleague Angus MacKay and I regularly discuss issues of common concern, including how the NHS and local authorities work together to improve and develop community care. Several significant changes are taking place. I point to the outcome agreements that are currently being developed between local authorities and the NHS, which focus not only on how money is being spent, but on ensuring that that money delivers results and improvements.

I accept that it is important that we continue to gather data on how resources are allocated; indeed, we do that across the Executive. However, our clear emphasis has been on ensuring that the significant resources that are available to the NHS and local government are put to good use. I am confident that the outcome agreements that I referred to and older people services in particular are significant steps forward in that regard.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

The minister referred to the collection of relevant data. This afternoon I attended with other members an excellent presentation by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. The society explained the requirement for all-Scotland data to be collected so that the interface between local authority care services and physiotherapy care services can be made more effective and efficient. Will the minister comment on that?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

First, I recognise the key role that physiotherapists play in a wide range of services, in particular in older people services and community care services. Other staff groups, such as occupational therapists, also have a key role to play. Sadly, in our discussions we often forget that. The big package of work that is going on, which follows on from the work of the joint future group a year ago, recognises the need to ensure that those staff groups and individual staff members are able to use their skills to best effect, irrespective of who employs them. We will continue to work with professional groups to ensure that we move forward with them so that that is achieved.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it is making in improving energy efficiency in buildings. (S1O-3873)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

New regulations were laid in Parliament on 24 September. They will considerably improve the thermal insulation standards for new buildings and require more efficient heating and lighting systems.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I welcome that announcement. How do those standards compare with those in the rest of Europe? We often hear about standards in Europe and how we compare with them and I hope that the announcement will improve our standing with regard to our European colleagues.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I can confirm that implementing the new technical standards will improve Scotland's position on building insulation in absolute terms and relative to the rest of Europe. On the latest figures that are available, and if we make the necessary technical adjustments for external temperatures, our position in the European insulation league will move from mid-table to the top three. In fact, with the adjustments, only Denmark and Sweden will have tougher standards for energy efficiency in buildings.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Does the minister agree that local housing regeneration programmes, such as the one in Petersburn in my constituency, provide an excellent opportunity substantially to improve the energy efficiency ratings of many of Scotland's homes? Will he join me in congratulating Link Housing Association and the builder D Campbell and Co on delivering warm and energy efficient homes in my constituency and ensure that other housing associations follow their lead?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Yes. That is a good example of what can be done with regeneration to advance energy efficiency standards throughout our housing stock. That has needed to be done for some time and it is now being achieved.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Will the minister consider bringing together funds from various budgets for a rolling programme to increase insulation and energy conservation in existing buildings? Because that sort of work is semi-skilled, will take many years and will provide real jobs that we can offer to people, will he consider using training funds, especially as that would be better value for money than using some training schemes, which are of dubious value?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I agree with the principle that we need to co-ordinate the work that is being done. Indeed, a number of initiatives are under way to address standards in existing buildings, including the central heating programme, the warm deal and the duty that the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 places on local authorities to take a lead and bring together policies in a number of areas. From my experience in my constituency, I can confirm that the energy efficiency agency there provides a high standard of training and has given many of the young people who trained with it skills that they have successfully taken into the wider work place.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to recruit and train in Glasgow the additional skilled workers needed for the construction of the M74 extension, the Glasgow harbour development, the schools building programme and the housing repairs programme following any housing stock transfer. (S1O-3911)

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

There was a 15 per cent increase in the number of construction modern apprenticeships last year in Scotland. We have commissioned a report, which is due later this month, on how to realise training programmes to meet construction skills gaps.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Does the minister agree that the initiatives from Glasgow City Council and the Executive are signs of Scotland's continuing economic progress? Will he also consider the need to move urgently to ensure that, when the time comes, this country is equipped to take advantage of the new job opportunities that will be created? Will he assure me that he will involve the relevant colleges, industries and trade unions in working up a plan?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I happily endorse what Pauline McNeill suggested in her first question. Next week is national construction week. It will focus on attracting young people into the industry and will comprise a series of events targeted at 14 to 19-year-olds. We have abolished the upper age limit on modern apprenticeships, which will allow people of all ages to be matched to the jobs that are available.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

We cannot impress enough on the minister the extreme shortage of skilled workers in Scotland. Only the other day, a development firm told me that all their plasterers are over the age of 65 and that there is no one to replace them. All had been imported from the south of England. If the minister thinks about Glasgow's unemployment problem—

David (None, Lothians)

Order.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

—will he please in particular pay attention to the Glasgow College of Building and Printing, which has said that we are extremely short of gas plumbers?

David (None, Lothians)

Miss Elder, you have made your point. We must have a question.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

In view of the Executive's warm deal, will the minister ensure that we have enough gas plumbers?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I suggest that, if Dorothy-Grace Elder is looking for a plumber, she should refer to the "Yellow Pages".

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what funds it will make available to Dumfries and Galloway Council to implement the outcome of its schools option appraisal process. (S1O-3907)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I recently announced that bids for the next round of public-private partnerships to improve Scotland's school buildings should be submitted by 14 December 2001. Allocations of funding will be decided and announced by April 2002.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Does the minister accept that it is difficult for parents and communities to respond to the Dumfries and Galloway Council schools option appraisal document, not just because the format is incomprehensible, but because they do not understand what the Scottish Executive's financial contribution to the outcome will be? Will the minister clearly set that out so that parents and communities can respond to the current appraisal?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

If Dumfries and Galloway Council agrees to submit a proposal and that proposal is acceptable and correct in its technical detail, our role will be to provide revenue support for it. We are hoping to do that at about the level of the previous round, which was about 80 per cent of the annual costs.

As I am sure that the subject will come up regularly in the chamber over the next few months, I must stress that those matters are initially for the local authorities, which are responsible for the buildings and the schools and for what happens in them. We cannot keep saying that we recognise the importance of local education authorities and of not controlling schools from the centre and then try to usurp their roles by taking over every time there is any problem locally.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I appreciate that the minister cannot write a blank cheque for Dumfries and Galloway but will he assure me and others from the area that, when considering any application from Dumfries and Galloway Council for gap funding, he will take into account the fact that school rationalisation is significantly more difficult in rural areas than in urban areas? Will he assure us that he will consider the issues that are particular to rural communities?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Absolutely. Having grown up on an island where it would have been impossible to rationalise the one school that existed, never mind close it, I fully understand the difficulties of discussing rationalisation in a rural context. However, I must stress again that those matters are initially for the local authority. We are happy to look at providing financial support for changes and for new buildings that are required, but the local authority and the local people have to get involved in the discussion at this stage. Our role will come later.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

To ask the Scottish Executive how shared equity within sheltered and retirement housing will be dealt with in its proposed title conditions (Scotland) bill. (S1O-3909)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The position of shared equity within sheltered and retirement housing is being considered in the light of responses to the Executive's consultation paper on the proposed title conditions (Scotland) bill. Suitable amendments will be made to the draft bill before introduction, if those are thought to be necessary in the light of that consultation.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

I thank the minister for that reply and for his letter to me about shared equity. However, the Sheltered and Retirement Housing Owners Confederation—SHOC, for short—is still concerned that if the owners, which in the case that I am talking about are the resident and the developer, are not in agreement, their vote will not count. Will the minister assure me that that issue is being addressed? Can more direct dialogue be established with the confederation to discuss the many constructive points that it would like to make?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am aware of the representations that SHOC has been making. We accept that there is an issue with shared ownership. Only a relatively low number of the 5,000 to 6,000 sheltered houses in Scotland are in shared ownership. Nevertheless, for those involved, the issue is important. The point was not fully considered in the Scottish Law Commission's work on the draft bill. We are seeking further advice on such points as there are different legal interpretations of who would have a vote in any scheme decisions.

First Minister's Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-01275)

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

The next Cabinet meeting is planned for 8 October, when the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Two weeks ago, I visited a mosque in Dundee and heard the priest there condemn the atrocities in the United States. Yesterday, I sat in the Parliament and heard the high priest of the World Islamic Mission in Glasgow condemn the atrocities as attacks

"on integrity, on civilisation and on humankind."—[Official Report, 3 October 2001; c 3021.]

In the light of those remarks, does the First Minister agree that Margaret Thatcher's remarks, reported today, and her attack on the Islamic community in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom are offensive and beneath contempt? [Applause.]

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I think that the whole chamber shares the sentiments that John Swinney expressed. [MEMBERS: "No."] I would have had some misgivings if no one disagreed with the points that were made. I endorse John Swinney's comments. If there is a time for sensitivity in dealing with this important issue, it is now. It would be easy for me to condemn Margaret Thatcher further, but suffice it to say that she should start to take retirement seriously.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I appreciate the First Minister's remarks. He will be aware, as we all are, of the attack on a Muslim place of worship in Edinburgh and of the desecration of Muslim gravestones in the west of Scotland. We are witnessing attacks based on religion that revive rather sad aspects of our national history of religious conflict. Will the First Minister consider strengthening the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to create an offence on religious grounds to equate with racially aggravated harassment?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I will be positive again in replying to John Swinney's questions. I paid a private visit to the mosque in Edinburgh yesterday afternoon when I returned from Brighton. The attack was appalling. The consequences could have been much more serious but, mercifully, they were not. It was appalling that the attack was on an area that was used for prayer and by children in the mosque. The floor on which children prayed had melted. The stench of burnt plastic filled the air. Sacred pictures and prayer mats were all damaged. As John Swinney rightly says, an incident also occurred in Lanarkshire.

Those attacks are disgraceful. The whole Parliament agrees about that. There can be no haven for hatred. That is why I am pleased to say that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Westminster Government in taking action to change legislation to accommodate religious crimes. In our opinion, those crimes should be treated as severely as race crimes. They are hate crimes and are committed by bigots, extremists and those who have no place in a modern Scotland.

I have consulted the Deputy First Minister and can tell the chamber that we are working to ensure that religion-motivated crime is covered by legislation. We will do that at the earliest opportunity, in a way that is consistent with that of our colleagues at Westminster. We embrace the spirit of John Swinney's comments, which I hope the whole Parliament shares.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I warmly welcome the First Minister's remarks and recognise them as a development of the Executive's position yesterday. In the light of those remarks, does the First Minister accept that, whatever legislation on the subject emanates from the parliamentary process, it must be rigorously enforced in all parts of Scotland, to guarantee that a clear message is received that the country is intolerant of racial and religious intolerance?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I am happy to confirm that. Yesterday, when I met Muhammed Aslam, chairman of the Edinburgh and East of Scotland Pakistan Association, I told him that Scotland was united against racism and bigotry.

It is one thing to legislate; it is another to ensure that enforcement is as good as it can be. I hope that the full force of the law will pursue the zealots, racists and bigots whenever a breach of the proposed legislation takes place. Before that happens, I expect the police who are investigating the Lanarkshire and Edinburgh incidents to ensure that the full force of the law is pursued.

We all welcome the constructive comments that John Swinney has made. In the 21st century, the Scottish Parliament is sending a powerful message that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated. If that message goes out to every part of Scotland, it will help in the enforcement of the new legislation, when it is enacted.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he plans to raise with him. (S1F-01277)

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I last met the Secretary of State for Scotland on 3 October and we have no immediate plans to meet.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

I beg the pardon of the First Minister for confusing the sex of the Secretary of State for Scotland in my question.

In the light of the economic downturn, which has been aggravated by the terrorist attacks in the United States, I hope that the First Minister gets round to discussing with Mrs Liddell the current state of the Scottish economy. Does he agree that, at this time, we should be doing everything to boost consumer confidence and to encourage business investment in Scotland? Will he and his Executive consider reducing the burden on all Scottish businesses by cutting business rates, which, thanks to his friend Mr McConnell, are higher in Scotland than in England?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

The question was going well until the last point. Business rates are a matter that the Executive always has under review. As David McLetchie rightly says, business rates are an issue. However, at the present time, bigger issues face the Scottish economy.

In the past few weeks, I have continually said that what we are talking about is solidarity with the international community and the safety and security of our citizens. We must also seek stability for the economy. I share David McLetchie's concerns that we need to turn now to the sectors of the Scottish economy that may be affected by the global downturn and by the events of 11 September. Given those circumstances, we are trying to understand and anticipate what is happening to the Scottish economy and to those major sectors.

Tomorrow, at a business breakfast, we will publish the report that I talked about last week. I would like to put it on record that the leaders of the Conservative party and the Scottish National Party are welcome to attend that meeting. They are invited, along with the convener and deputy convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.

There is no room for complacency. We face tough and testing times. The report to be published tomorrow—"The Impact of Terrorist Attacks on the Scottish Economy"—has been produced by the chief economic adviser to the Executive. It provides a full analysis of what has been happening to business sectors, including the aviation industry. I hope that this is a matter that unites the Parliament and the country, so that we can tackle the issues that lie ahead.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

I thank the First Minister for his answer. I hope that he will seriously consider the rates burden in Scotland. I look forward to learning the details at tomorrow's presentation, to which he has kindly invited Mr Swinney and me.

I want to move on to an issue that is related to job creation. The First Minister may have seen this week's report of the Parliament's European Committee, which calls for the immediate implementation of a European Union directive on worker consultation. The committee's position is contrary to that which has been adopted by the Prime Minister and the United Kingdom Government. Although we accept the need for good management practices, does the First Minister agree that now is not the time to introduce yet more regulations and red tape for our businesses? To do so would save not one job in Scotland, but it would undermine the competitiveness of our businesses.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

This week, the Prime Minister said that he wanted a combination of factors to be in place in the United Kingdom and hence in Scotland. He said that he wanted the enterprise of the United States to be linked to the social solidarity that we see in Europe. Surely to goodness in the 21 st century, good employment conditions, good consultation, good wages and good prospects are entirely consistent with a prosperous, growing nation.

I would like David McLetchie to think deeply about the constant carping on the subject of employee regulations. We live in a time when employment is high and unemployment is low. We have growth in the Scottish economy and interest rates are at historic low levels. Surely to goodness it is important that everyone share in the wealth and prosperity of the nation. I take the point seriously. Of course we do not want to burden industry, but burdens are often opportunities, which is why Europe is moving forward.

The Prime Minister also said this week that there is no point in our being at the heart of Europe if we do not want to subscribe to the aspirations of the EU. I support those aspirations; obviously, the Conservative party still has a major problem.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister whether the policy on the introduction of voluntary or compulsory identity cards will be the same in Scotland as in England and Wales and what discussions the Scottish Executive has had with Her Majesty's Government on this matter. (S1F-01276)

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

National security is reserved to the United Kingdom Government, which has indicated that it has no immediate plans to introduce an identity card scheme as part of its response to the atrocities in the United States. The Executive is being kept informed by the UK Government of its thinking in that area and will be fully consulted if it decides to proceed.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Does the First Minister accept that, if the British Government makes any attempt to bring the issue back on to the British agenda, he should, as First Minister, be fully consulted? Alternatively, does he support the apparent view of the Deputy First Minister that the issue could be dealt with as a devolved matter?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I have outlined the current position in terms of national security. It is important to recognise that, although there has been a flurry of activity in the media and elsewhere about ID cards, the issue is not part of the current focus in relation to the atrocities in the United States. We can reassure Lord James this afternoon that, if there is any movement on the issue, there will be full consultation, involvement and participation in any possible outcome. The key at the moment is for us to settle down and deal with the main issues arising from the terrorist attacks; the ID debate may come at a later stage.

Winnie Ewing (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish Parliament might not approve of a proposal or policy on the matter, so why on earth is Lord James so anxious that we should slavishly follow what the House of Commons says on it? People seem to keep forgetting that we have our own system of law here.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

It is important to recognise that the Deputy First Minister was talking in the context of national security and social security, which are clearly reserved matters. It is true that the operation of such a scheme on a UK basis would involve intimate discussions in the Parliament and the Executive. That is what we hold out for everyone involved in this.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the First Minister what impact the recently announced £5 million funding for social inclusion partnerships will have on the campaign against drug misuse. (S1F-01286)

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

The additional £5 million is aimed at widening and deepening the actions on drug misuse that are already being taken in social inclusion partnership areas. The funds will allow social inclusion partnerships to target the areas where there are gaps in our broader efforts to tackle drug misuse and they will assist communities in SIP areas across Scotland to complement the activity that is already being taken forward by other agencies.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Does the First Minister agree that the supply of hard drugs, which killed 340 people in 1999, into Scottish communities is a murderous trade based on a criminal disregard for human life? I welcome Margaret Curran's announcement of the extension of funding for social inclusion partnerships, including the SIP in Tranent. However, will the First Minister assure the chamber that drug action teams and other agencies will take their message and particularly their enforcement activity into every community in Scotland, especially the deprived communities that are suffering most from this scourge?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I am pleased to take advantage of the opportunity provided by John Home Robertson to say that I, too, am grateful for the extension to the work that is being done in his constituency. However, let us recognise that, of the 340 drug deaths in 1999, 163 involved heroin. That is a tremendous figure. We await with interest the results for 2000. Let us also acknowledge the words of the Prime Minister, who said that 90 per cent of the heroin circulating in this country is courtesy of the Taliban in Afghanistan. That has been confirmed by experts.

When we are fighting the menace of drugs, we will do everything possible to tackle it at home, but let us also tackle the source. That is one good reason why all the discussion about the coalition is worth while. We are tackling terrorism. However, when I see people being killed on the streets of Scotland by heroin, I know that we must not only take action, if we can, to apprehend those who sell it and to deal with its victims, but ensure that we act at an international level to tackle its source.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Any new resources for tackling drug misuse in Scotland are welcome, although we all agree that much more needs to be done. Is the First Minister aware that, in the north-east of Scotland, there has been a particularly dramatic increase in drug misuse in recent years, which is reflected in a record level of drug deaths and drug-related crime? Will he ask his officials to investigate the situation in the north-east of Scotland to ascertain whether the increase in the resources that are applied to the issue matches the increase in the problem?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I agree with Richard Lochhead's analysis. There are specific problems in the north-east of Scotland, which reflect wider problems in other parts of Scotland. We want to match up resources with the difficulties that we find. A considerable investment is going into the drugs issue, including for education, for rehabilitation and for enforcement, and that level of commitment will continue. It will be of interest to members from the north-east of Scotland and from other areas that we are moving at Westminster on the confiscation of assets bill, which is hitting hard those who launder money and provide the finance that allows drug dealing to happen. It is in the overall interests of Scotland that we proceed with that legislation and implement it as soon as possible.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

To ask the First Minister what steps are being taken to promote Scotland as a centre of golf tourism in light of the decision that Scotland will not host the Ryder cup golf championship until 2014. (S1F-01289)

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

visitscotland remains committed to promoting Scotland as the home of golf. It is spending £1.5 million in the current financial year and at least £500,000 per annum thereafter to do so.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I am sure that we are all pleased that we will have the tournament in 2014. Does the First Minister recognise the fact that golf is a particularly strong and resilient niche market and that, in the current downturn after the events of 11 September, there is still, as David Davidson said, a massive home market in the United Kingdom, the British isles and Europe, which should be targeted in the meantime?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

There was disappointment that we could not land 2010, but we have 2014. Between now and then, we will certainly make progress in promoting golf tourism. One of the hallmarks of the best bid was that we would develop junior golf to ensure that, by nine years of age, boys and girls would be able to participate in golf. That commitment stands; it is being implemented and we shall develop it. At this time, it is important for the confidence of the country that we have five of the eight open championship courses in the United Kingdom, that we have 500 courses, some of which are gems, in countryside and rural areas, and that we have the home of golf. We have the best worldwide assets to sell the game and it is important for visitscotland and all of us to ensure that tourists come, play golf, bring income and bring jobs.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

What reassurances can the First Minister give that the major private sector backers remain fully committed to all aspects of the bid, including golf tourism?