Scottish Parliament, 27 June 2002

389 contributions from 78 members. The official report.

Introduction

Parliamentary Bureau Motion

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Good morning. The first item of business is consideration of a Parliamentary Bureau motion. I invite Euan Robson to move motion S1M-3258, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, which is a timetabling motion on stage 3 of the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, at Stage 3 of the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill, debate on each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified— Consideration of amendments - no later than 10.15 am Motion to pass the Bill - no later than 10.30 am.—[Euan Robson.]

Motion agreed to.

Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill: Stage 3

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We move to stage 3 consideration of the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill. Members should have a copy of the bill, the marshalled list containing the amendments selected for debate, and the groupings. I am not going to read out the rest of the rigmarole because members are familiar with the procedure.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Amendment 1, in the name of Mike Rumbles, on behalf of the Standards Committee, is in a group of its own.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Section 11 of the bill allows a complaint to be withdrawn by the complainer at any time before the commissioner concludes the investigation into the complaint at stage 2. If a complaint is withdrawn, the bill at present requires the commissioner to cease the investigation. The complainer does not have to give any reasons for withdrawing the complaint.

During the stage 2 debate on the bill, amendments were made to section 11 to make it clear that when a complaint is withdrawn, the MSP concerned and, if withdrawal occurs at stage 2 of the investigation, the Standards Committee would be advised of any reasons given for withdrawing the complaint. During discussion of the amendments, the ad hoc Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill Committee expressed a number of concerns about the policy on withdrawal.

There was concern as to what happens if the reasons for withdrawal are that the complainer considers the complaint to be ill-founded. There was also concern as to what happens if the reasons for withdrawal were damaging, for example if the complainer indicated that they had been pressurised to withdraw the complaint. Finally, the committee was concerned that an MSP should be able to have their name cleared by having an investigation concluded.

Subsequently, the Standards Committee has considered the views of the ad hoc committee. Amendment 1 seeks to give effect to that committee's main concerns. The Standards Committee agreed that there might be some circumstances in which it would be appropriate for a complaint to continue to be investigated, notwithstanding the fact that the complainer wishes the complaint to be withdrawn.

Amendment 1 therefore makes provision for complaints to continue to be investigated in certain circumstances at stage 2 of the investigation, by replacing the existing provision for withdrawal in section 11(2) with a new procedure dealing separately with stages 1 and 2 of the investigative process. As I mentioned, amendment 1 makes no change to the position in relation to complaints that are withdrawn at stage 1. At that point, the complaint is at a preliminary stage and the commissioner would not have sufficient information to take a view on whether the complaint should continue to be investigated.

The commissioner will continue to cease investigating such complaints following withdrawal by the complainer. The MSP and the Parliament will continue to be informed of any reasons for withdrawal given by the complainer.

Amendment 1 allows a complaint that is withdrawn at stage 2 of the investigative process to continue to be investigated if both the commissioner and the Standards Committee agree that the complaint should continue to be investigated. Allowance is also made for views of the MSP concerned to be taken into account when any such decision is made.

Amendment 1 therefore addresses the concerns that were raised regarding damaging reasons for withdrawal. It provides an opportunity, where it is considered appropriate, for an investigation to continue, perhaps leading to exoneration. It removes some control over the terminating of an investigation from the complainer, which could also lessen the possibility of pressure being applied to complainers to withdraw complaints. It helps to balance the desire of the MSP to confront damaging reasons given for withdrawing a complaint with the right of the complainer to withdraw. Finally, it provides the commissioner and the Standards Committee with the ability to conclude an investigation when there appears to be a matter that requires further investigation.

Separately, concern was expressed during the stage 2 debate about whether the bill required the commissioner to provide the MSP and the Parliament with a verbatim record of the complainer's reasons for withdrawal or whether the reasons could, if necessary, be summarised. Donald Gorrie asked that power be given to the commissioner to blandify the reasons given for withdrawal in appropriate circumstances. There could have been some doubt about that under the bill as drafted. Amendment 1 makes it clear that the commissioner has discretion to provide a summary of the reasons for withdrawal. That may prove useful when the withdrawal is contained in a lengthy communication. It will also allow any potentially defamatory material to be excised, and reduce the opportunity for additional publicity to be given to the views of the complainer.

Where the complainer's reasons for withdrawal make it clear that the complainer accepts that the original complaint was entirely unfounded, there is no need for any amendment. There is nothing in the bill to prevent the MSP concerned or the Standards Committee from making the reasons for withdrawal public, if that is their wish. It should be remembered, however, that withdrawal can take place only at stages 1 and 2, when the commissioner is involved. That investigation takes place in private and the MSP or the Standards Committee may not wish to make the reasons for the withdrawal of the complaint public if the complaint has never been in the public domain.

The Standards Committee and I are grateful to the ad hoc Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill Committee for the helpful and constructive comments that were made during stage 2. Amendment 1 will significantly improve the bill. It will allow investigations to be concluded where it is considered appropriate both to clear the MSP concerned and to conclude matters where there may be an issue of concern.

I move amendment 1.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I support amendment 1. The procedure of having a committee bill and then an ad hoc committee to consider the bill has not been used frequently, but it worked extremely well. All the members of the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill Committee took their duties extremely seriously, which is not always the case in public bodies when one is put on a committee, because one does not always take it as seriously as one should. The ad hoc committee system worked.

The Standards Committee showed flexibility. It did not get defensive and ownership-minded about the bill, and it agreed to some changes. I commend to the Parliament the fact that the ad hoc committee had two informal sessions with Mike Rumbles, on behalf of the Standards Committee, and the officials. We gave him quite a hard time and, as a result, amendments were agreed to at stage 2. A whole lot of hassle that otherwise would have occurred at stage 2 was resolved in that way, and the amendments that were lodged were satisfactory to the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill Committee. I recommend to other committees the use of informal discussions before stage 2, because that might resolve a lot of difficulties that arise later.

I welcome the bill and I welcome amendment 1.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I was interested to hear the views of members of the ad hoc Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill Committee at stage 2 in respect of withdrawn complaints. Members understandably were concerned that if the reasons given to the commissioner for withdrawing a complaint were tendentious or in effect maintained the complaint while formally withdrawing it, there was no mechanism in the bill for the matter to be resolved. Accordingly, a member might be left with the feeling that wholly unfounded allegations had been made about his or her character or propriety, which the withdrawal of the complaint had left hanging in midair. For those reasons, the Executive welcomes amendment 1, which inserts a mechanism into the statutory framework that allows investigations to be continued and completed in certain circumstances, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the complaint.

I further welcome the fact that members will be given the opportunity to advise the commissioner of their views on whether an investigation should continue. That information, together with the reasons given by the complainer for withdrawing their complaint, will fully inform the commissioner's decision on whether to recommend to Parliament that an investigation should continue.

The amended framework properly respects the rights of complainers and members. It also addresses the valid concerns that members expressed at stage 2. Therefore, the Executive commends and supports amendment 1.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Mr Rumbles, do you wish to add anything to wind up the debate on amendment 1?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

No.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Amendment 2 is grouped with amendments 3, 4 and 5. I call on Mike Rumbles to move amendment 2 and speak to the other amendments in the group.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Members are aware that one of the key features of the bill is that it gives the commissioner separate statutory powers to summon witnesses and obtain documents. The committee's policy was that those powers should be equivalent to the Parliament's powers under section 23 of the Scotland Act 1998. At present, that is achieved in the bill through section 13, which gives the commissioner equivalent powers to the Parliament's powers under section 23 of the Scotland Act 1998.

Under the Scotland Act 1998, the Parliament's powers can be enforced by the service of notices under section 24. It is an offence under section 25 of the act for a person to refuse to comply with the requirements of a notice. The bill ensures that the commissioner's powers can be enforced in an equivalent way to the Parliament's powers under section 23 of the act. That is achieved by adopting the drafting technique of simply applying sections 24 and 25 of the act with appropriate modifications—for example, to take account of the fact that notices will be sent by the commissioner rather than the clerk of the Parliament. That means that a person who refuses to give information or documents to the commissioner will be guilty of an offence under section 25 of the act, as applied by section 13(7) of the bill.

Following further consideration, rather than using that drafting technique, it was considered to be more user-friendly to set out in the bill in full the notice and offence provisions that apply to the commissioner's section 13 powers. That means that the bill can be read on its own and that the powers and offence provisions can be understood without the need to refer to the Scotland Act 1998.

Amendments 3, 4 and 5 make that change by deleting subsections 6 and 7 from section 13 and adding two new sections to the bill. Overall, amendments 3, 4 and 5 make no alteration to the effect of the bill. The notice and offence requirements for non-compliance continue to mirror the equivalent provisions that relate to the Parliament's powers in the Scotland Act 1998. I am happy to provide further details about the exact notice and offence requirements in the amendments if members wish.

Amendment 2 is a minor drafting amendment to section 13(1) to make the wording consistent with the remainder of that section and the equivalent provision in the Scotland Act 1998, which the subsection is intended to mirror. Again, I can provide more details if members wish.

I move amendment 2.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No member has asked to speak, so we will go straight to the minister.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Amendments 3, 4 and 5 bring clarity to the bill as to the commissioner's powers in respect of gathering evidence from witnesses. Amendment 2 is essentially a technical amendment that seeks to bring consistency to the bill. The Executive is happy to support the amendments.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Mr Rumbles, do you wish to respond?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

No.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

[Amendment 3 moved—[Mr Mike Rumbles]—and agreed to.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Amendment 6 is in a group on its own.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Amendment 6 deals with the question of privilege for people who communicate with the commissioner during an investigation. At present, section 15 gives the commissioner absolute privilege for all reports, statements and communications on a complaint, whether with the complainer, the witness or the MSP who is complained about. In effect, that places a bar on a person's right to pursue an action of defamation in respect of statements made by the commissioner.

The privilege that is given is consistent with the privilege that has been given to other investigating bodies and the intention was that the commissioner should be able to carry out investigations without being fettered by the threat of legal action. At present, the bill makes no provision for any other person involved in the investigation process to have privilege in relation to statements that are made to the commissioner.

During briefing for stage 2, concerns were raised that the absence of any such privilege in the bill would put MSPs in a better position than other people who are being investigated. A contrast was made with the situation of people who complain about solicitors, where those who provide information to the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal are protected by qualified privilege by virtue of statutory provisions. Under qualified privilege, individuals can make complaints against solicitors and can assist in the investigation of complaints against solicitors without fear of an action for defamation, provided their statements are not motivated by malice or intent to injure.

It was also suggested that by not having at least qualified privilege for complainers, the bill might encourage anonymous complaints. If complainers were afforded protection in relation to the law of defamation, they might be more willing to reveal their identities. The absence of any statutory privilege in the bill could discourage complaints and might discourage other individuals from communicating freely with the commissioner. It could also lead to complainers being forced to withdraw complaints through the threat of legal action.

The Standards Committee considered the views of the ad hoc committee and considered the approach taken in other legislation. We found that there was no consistent approach taken elsewhere in relation to the privilege afforded to persons communicating with investigating bodies.

After lengthy discussion, the Standards Committee agreed that some protection should be offered to complainers and others making statements to the commissioner to allow all stages of the investigation process to be carried out without the threat of legal action for defamation. We agreed that it would be sufficient to grant qualified privilege because that would protect those with genuine complaints while providing the possibility of recourse against those whose defamatory statements during the investigation process were motivated by malice or an intent to injure.

Amendment 6 provides qualified privilege to the maker of any statement to the commissioner during the investigation, namely the complainer, any other witnesses and the MSP concerned. If the amendment is successful, a printing amendment will be made automatically to section 15(1) to show the start of paragraph (a). I mention that in the certain knowledge that Kenneth Macintosh, who has taken a keen interest in all drafting matters, will be itching to point out that the amendment appears to contain a paragraph (b) without there being a paragraph (a). In fact, Donald Gorrie collared me just before I started speaking to ask me about the same subject.

We are indebted to the ad hoc committee for raising the matter that the amendment deals with. The amendment enhances the bill by increasing the protection afforded to genuine complainers and others communicating with the commissioner.

I move amendment 6.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The Executive welcomes amendment 6, which should ensure that all those involved in the complaints process are not in any way restricted in airing their views. I note the comments of Mike Rumbles about qualified privilege. Without such a provision, there might be a danger that the complainant would hold back from making a complaint for fear of legal action. It is important that such a situation does not arise. The protection provided will facilitate the unearthing of all the relevant facts surrounding a case and will therefore assist the commissioner to gather evidence. The Executive is pleased to support amendment 6.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Motion S1M-3112, in the name of Mike Rumbles, seeks agreement that the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill be passed. I call Mike Rumbles to speak to and move the motion.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

One of the key strengths of the Scottish Parliament is our committee system and one of the key strengths of the committees is the ability to follow up thorough and searching inquiries with proposals for primary legislation. In September 2000, the Standards Committee recommended that the Scottish Parliament introduce a standards commissioner and a four-stage investigative process to handle complaints against MSPs.

That decision followed a nine-month inquiry that took evidence from a wide range of witnesses. After some two and a half years of work, I pay tribute to my committee colleagues, past and present, for their hard work, commitment and diligence in making the proposal a reality. I also thank the non-Executive bills unit and the legal office for their essential support throughout the legislative process, and ministers for giving the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill a fair wind.

A month ago, I gave evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life in connection with its inquiry into standards of conduct in the House of Commons. The bulk of that evidence session focused on the provisions of the bill and, specifically, on the proposal to give our commissioner statutory powers in the conduct of his or her investigations. The meeting, which took place in Edinburgh, is the only evidence session that the Wicks committee will hold outside London. The committee's interest in arrangements in Scotland, particularly those contained in the bill, may suggest that the Scottish Parliament's approach to standards of conduct reverberates in corridors elsewhere.

I do not know whether the Committee on Standards in Public Life will ultimately recommend that the House of Commons should place its standards commissioner on a similar statutory footing, nor is it my place to suggest that it should do so, but I believe that the Wicks committee's close attention to developments in Scotland represents a recognition that the Scottish Parliament is developing rigorous arrangements that will promote the utmost probity of its members.

I briefly remind colleagues of the bill's key provisions. I have touched on the commissioner's statutory powers to compel evidence. That not only enhances the independence and credibility of the post but ensures that investigations can be carried out thoroughly and transparently. I hope that the commissioner will never have to rely on those powers, but they will be there and will augment public confidence in the handling of complaints against MSPs.

The appointment and removal procedures that are set out in the bill not only provide security of tenure for the commissioner but buttress his or her independence. Although not a matter for the bill, the recruitment process for the post will be open, transparent and consistent with the principles that are laid down by the commissioner for public appointments. The bill also sets out a clear procedure for the submission of complaints and provides that the standards commissioner's investigations will be carried out in private and will be independent of the committee.

Members will be aware from the stage 1 debate that the bill deals only with the first two stages of the four-stage investigative process. Stage 3 is the Standards Committee's consideration of the commissioner's findings. While I expect the committee's initial consideration of such reports to take place in private, all subsequent elements of stage 3 will take place in public. Stage 4 is the Parliament's consideration of any recommendation by the Standards Committee on sanctions, and any such debates in the chamber will be on a motion from the Standards Committee.

Before I conclude, I express my thanks for the work undertaken by the ad hoc committee at stage 2, under the convenership of Bruce Crawford. I particularly commend the constructive manner in which members of that committee approached their task. As I indicated earlier, two of the stage 3 amendments, as well as an earlier stage 2 amendment, were lodged by the Standards Committee as a direct result of the ad hoc committee's meticulous and thoughtful examination of the bill.

The Parliament already has an exacting regime for the registration and declaration of members' interests. The Standards Committee is building on that framework and, later in the year, we hope to introduce new legislation on members' interests to replace the transitional arrangements. Tough, substantive rules are only part of the picture; the public will have confidence in the probity of their elected representatives only if there is a robust means of enforcing those rules. If we appoint a commissioner with statutory powers to conduct thorough investigations into complaints against MSPs, we will do much to secure that public confidence.

Allegations of corruption or sleaze are corrosive. Ultimately, the conduct of individual members impacts on the integrity of the Parliament as a whole. The bill, and the four-stage complaints process that the Standards Committee has developed, will ensure that the Parliament is able to react speedily and appropriately to such allegations. I urge members to pass the bill at stage 3.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill be passed.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

First, on behalf of the Executive, I congratulate the members of the Standards Committee and its staff on their important work on the bill. I believe that the result will be to reinforce Parliament's reputation and public standing. I also pay tribute to the work of the ad hoc committee. I will consult Donald Gorrie and Bruce Crawford to find out precisely what they did to give Mike Rumbles a hard time during the proceedings.

The Executive has been pleased to support the bill throughout its passage. Accordingly, I do not wish to take up much time in the debate. The bill's provisions set out a clear framework for the independent consideration of complaints against members of the Parliament. I believe that that framework will be a worthy successor to the non-statutory arrangements that we currently use, as provided for in the code of conduct.

A statutory footing for our parliamentary complaints system reinforces the Parliament's wish to ensure that its members act with propriety when carrying out their parliamentary duties. The bill also sends out a strong and important message to the Scottish public that Parliament will take action to investigate any claims made against one of its members. The bill will establish a standards commissioner, who will investigate complaints independently and, if necessary, report his or her findings to the Standards Committee. It will rightly be for the committee, and the Parliament as a whole, to decide what action to take on individual cases.

The Standards Committee introduced to the Parliament a bill that provided for a credible parliamentary complaints system, but the bill that is before us for agreement today has developed during its parliamentary passage. I was grateful for the opportunity to attend the ad hoc committee's stage 2 consideration of the bill. The amendments that were made at stage 2 made significant improvements that will ensure the overall effectiveness of the system.

Earlier, I touched on members' concerns about the fact that the bill as introduced did not fully address the issue of complaints being withdrawn, so that, in effect, the original accusations were left in some way hanging in the air. I think that the amendments that have been agreed deal with that.

The primary purpose of the bill is, of course, to provide a statutory forum for the public to complain about members' actions. However, it is also right to ensure that the framework that is established to that end cannot be hijacked by those who wish purely to sour a member's credibility by promulgating claims that cannot be thoroughly investigated.

Earlier, Parliament agreed that the bill should provide for those involved in the complaints process to enjoy qualified privilege when making statements. That reflected the need to increase the accessibility of the system to a degree that ensures that complainers have the freedom to inform the commissioner of all the facts surrounding their complaint, without fear of legal reprisals.

Parliamentary scrutiny has shaped the bill and increased the effectiveness of the new system for the complainer and for members of the Parliament. The Executive is confident that the bill will provide the commissioner with a strong and robust statutory framework that will provide the necessary powers and independence to discharge his or her investigatory duties.

However, the effectiveness of a new system cannot be fully assessed or proofed before it comes into effect. Strengths and weaknesses are ultimately discovered through practical experience. The Standards Committee will, on behalf of Parliament, be best placed to monitor the work of the standards commissioner and to ensure that the measures contained in the bill continue to deliver the aims of the parliamentary complaints system.

The Executive welcomes this important bill, which further cements the accountability of our parliamentary framework.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This is only the second committee bill to be introduced to Parliament. As Mike Rumbles said, the task of scrutinising the bill at stage 2 fell to an ad hoc committee. It was the first time that such a committee had been established in Parliament. I suspect that I now hold the record for serving the shortest time as a committee convener.

I express my thanks to colleagues on the committee. I think that we all enjoyed the experience of working in the way that we did, which was rewarding, and everyone contributed successfully. I also thank the clerks. We may have been a short-lived committee, but I believe that other, less transient committees might want to consider adopting elements of our approach and practices at stage 2.

We were mindful that the bill is, in places, complex. Indeed, it could be described as a piece of legislative Kerplunk: if one element is taken away, the entire framework could come crashing down. Consequently, before we began to consider amendments, we had, as Donald Gorrie said, informal briefings, which Mike Rumbles and officials from the non-Executive bills unit attended.

The Deputy Minister for Parliamentary Business asked how Donald Gorrie and I had given Mike Rumbles a hard time. Like old cops, we knew where to put the blankets so the bruises do not show.

Mike Rumbles and the non-Executive bills unit were able to throw some light on the policy intentions behind the bill, which enabled committee members to explore the intricacies of the bill's provisions and set those in the wider context of the four-stage investigative process. The briefings were highly constructive. Committee colleagues found them valuable in framing our scrutiny of the bill. Indeed, one of the stage 2 amendments on the admissibility of complaints—to which Mike Rumbles referred—stemmed from those informal discussions.

Although the bill was not subjected to extensive amendment at stage 2, that should not be taken to suggest that the committee did not subject it to thorough examination and scrutiny. In our formal meetings and the informal briefings, the role not only of the standards commissioner but of the Standards Committee in handling complaints against MSPs was thrashed out, picked over and analysed in a frank yet consensual atmosphere.

The bill strikes the correct balance between the rights of the complainer, to ensure that his or her concerns are investigated thoroughly, and the rights of the member, not to be exposed to malicious or unsubstantiated allegations. The Standards Committee is right to identify the need for an independent element in the complaints process. By giving the commissioner statutory powers to compel evidence, we send a clear message that the Parliament is serious about accountability. In adopting transparent procedures for appointing the commissioner and in providing security of tenure, the Parliament is saying that it is committed to the highest possible standards of integrity.

Over the past three years, the Parliament has seen much criticism, some of which has been justified, but some of which has been ill informed and misplaced. Much good work has also been done, a lot of which has gone unnoticed. The bill represents such a piece of work. I am sure that it will be a model of good practice, which other places may want to follow, as Mike Rumbles suggested. It is a pity that more coverage has not been given to this positive aspect of parliamentary life. More focus on the positive and much less focus on the negative would be good for democracy.

I congratulate the Standards Committee on introducing the bill, and I commend it to political commentators for their summer reading.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I have had the good fortune to serve on the Standards Committee and the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill Committee. I pay tribute to Mike Rumbles and Bruce Crawford for convening those committees. It is fair to say that we had a meeting of minds on the issues.

Public appointments have been a matter of considerable debate. The bill sets out transparent appointment procedures. The recruitment process will be seen to be open and fair. The procedure that the bill sets out for removing the commissioner, which we hope will not happen, would be used only if two thirds of MSPs voted for it. That will help to secure the independence of the post and ensure that it is free from unnecessary party-political interference.

The commissioner's independence will also be enhanced by the statutory powers to compel evidence that the bills sets out. Those are significant powers, and their existence will ensure that the commissioner is able to carry out the role effectively and thoroughly.

The bill also proposes arrangements for an acting commissioner, which will ensure that Parliament is able to deal with complaints if the commissioner is unable to do so through illness or conflict of interest.

We anticipate that the commissioner will be appointed on a part-time basis, but the successful candidate would be required to demonstrate the necessary flexibility to be able to deal with a substantial or complex investigation, which might require him or her to work full time. We think that it is likely that the commissioner will be required for between five and 10 days a month.

The Parliament already has in place a rigorous code of conduct and a tough members' interests regime. Indeed, contravention by members of the paid advocacy rules is a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to £5,000. That may be regarded as a modern equivalent of the stocks—or perhaps even something more serious. We very much hope that the offence in question will never be committed.

The bill will complement the rules by providing an effective and fair means of investigating complaints against members. It will command the confidence of the public, and I commend it to the Parliament.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I want to speak not about the content of the bill, but about the reason for its introduction. We are here not because we are mired in allegations of sleaze, dishonesty or corruption, but because we are introducing a new way of working for a new Parliament. We are not trying to tackle a perceived problem in the Scottish Parliament, but establishing a transparent, robust procedure that will help to maintain the highest standards in public life in Scotland.

It is important to make that clear, because we all remember the unsavoury headlines that accompanied the end of the previous Tory Government. Those headlines were bad for all of us. They were bad not for us as individuals, but for Parliament and democracy. The cynical attitude that many people take to politics and politicians corrodes our institutions. Most worrying is the fact that it is becoming cool among young people to be disengaged from politics. I hope that measures such as the bill will help to reverse that process.

As we all know, trust is difficult to establish and all too easy to lose. The bill is about putting in place a framework that protects the public and the reputation of the Parliament. It will help to restore faith and trust in public life.

The bill establishes an independent commissioner with statutory powers. The scope of those powers can be daunting. I do not think that anyone who has been investigated by the standards adviser or who has appeared before the Standards Committee has found it a pleasant experience. However, the process reflects the high value that MSPs place on their integrity. The cases that have been investigated so far have related not to major transgressions or questions of honesty and probity, but rather to overly political—as opposed to parliamentary—behaviour.

We still need rules and guidelines within which to operate and standards to which to live up. We take our duties, responsibilities and office seriously. People unfailingly treat MSPs with respect. The bill will help to ensure that we do not disappoint them.

I thank my colleagues on the Standards Committee and on the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill Committee for their work. I am pleased to be able to support the bill.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I am happy to endorse the tributes to Mike Rumbles and the Standards Committee and to Bruce Crawford. If he ever needs a reference when applying to be convener of another committee, I will be happy to supply one.

I draw members' attention to an area that particularly interested me, which is the balance between allowing genuine complaints to advance without obstruction and not deterring whistleblowers, and protecting members from whatever is the correct parliamentary word for nutters—people who have a vendetta against us.

I am that sure members have the same experience that I have of spending many hours trying to help someone who, in the end, because we have not made the earth flat or whatever it was that they wanted us to do, turns against us and tells everyone they know what complete rats we are. There are also the ordinary, rather unpleasant political opponents whom we have all met along with the pleasant political opponents.

We need protection from those people and the wording in the bill copes with the matter well. When the commissioner opens a letter of complaint against a member, he has three tests. First, he must ensure that the complaint is relevant—that it is about our activities as members of the Scottish Parliament. Secondly, the letter must fulfil the technical requirements—it must be signed, for example. Thirdly,

"a complaint warrants further investigation if it appears after an initial investigation that the evidence is sufficient to suggest that the conduct complained about may have taken place."

That is the first trawl.

The wording was discussed at great length and tries to hold the balance. If there is any sign of a realistic case against the member, the complaint goes to stage 2 and a proper inquiry. If it is clear that there is no evidence worth pursuing at that stage, the commissioner can throw the case out. We all know the argument that there is no smoke without fire and if rumours circulate that a member is being investigated, they are harmful. The wording in the bill can prevent that.

I am happy to support the bill and I hope that I never have to appear before the lady or gentleman.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is customary to thank the clerks to a committee for all their work. On this occasion, on behalf of my colleagues on the Standards Committee and the ad hoc committee, I offer my sincere thanks to Sam Jones and her team and to David Cullum of the non-Executive bills unit. The bill is most complicated, as it deals with the relationship between the standards commissioner and the Standards Committee. I pay tribute to the clerks and the non-Executive bills unit for all the help and guidance that they gave us.

As Ken Macintosh said, we are considering the bill at a time of growing concern about people's disengagement from politics, which is reflected in low election turnouts and a general atmosphere of cynicism about the motives of politicians. In reality, that scepticism and cynicism about the ethical conduct of MSPs and the suspicion of endemic sleaze are misplaced. In this Parliament, we are governed by a tough code of conduct, which the members of the Parliament put in place. Breaches of the rules on the registration and declaration of members' interests are a criminal offence. To date, the Standards Committee has never had to recommend the imposition of sanctions on a member. The few breaches of the code that we have identified have related to matters of protocol, not of probity.

However, we cannot afford to be complacent and we must acknowledge that although public cynicism might not be well founded, it exists and has the potential to erode the democratic process. I am sure that I am not the only member to notice that not one member of the press is present for this debate. Perhaps the press simply does not want to report a debate about standards in the Parliament and the good news about the independence of our process.

By passing the bill, we will demonstrate the Parliament's commitment to upholding the highest standards of integrity among members. The appointment of a commissioner will inject an independent element into the complaints procedure. He or she will consider complaints and conduct investigations in private, independently of the Standards Committee. The commissioner will also have the backing of statutory powers to compel evidence.

The four-stage complaints process that we have developed strikes the right balance between the need for investigations to be carried out in private and the demand for transparency. We make no apology for proposing that the commissioner's inquiries take place in private, because we simply cannot countenance trial by the media. Speculation in the press is not only unfair to the complainer and members, but it will erode confidence in the complaints procedure.

I make a plea to colleagues from all parties to ensure that the complaints procedure is not used to settle political scores. The later stage of the investigative process, which is oral evidence to the Standards Committee, will of course take place in public. Both the commissioner's report and the committee's report will also be published, together with any relevant evidence. It is important that the member, the complainer and the wider public see the reasons for the findings of the commissioner and of the committee.

The bill marks the end of a long journey for the Standards Committee, which began in 2000 with the models of investigation inquiry. That concluded that an independent element was critical if the Parliament's handling of complaints about conduct was to have credibility. By enacting the bill, all members of the Parliament will make our commitment to accountability and integrity a reality. I support the bill.

Budget Process 2003-04

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3225, in the name of Des McNulty, on the Finance Committee's third report in 2002. Mr McNulty just gave me a severe shock by leaving the chamber, but he has rejoined us. I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am pleased to speak to the Finance Committee's report on stage 1 of the 2003-04 budget process. I begin by offering my thanks and the thanks of members of the committee to the Finance Committee clerks and to the clerks of the Parliament's subject committees, who have made substantial contributions to a comprehensive stage 1 review process. This year, we tried to work in concert with the subject committees to assist them in reviewing the Executive's budget proposals. The co-ordination between the clerks and the advisers to the various committees has enhanced the process and has made it much better for everyone concerned than previously it was.

We should pay particular tribute to Professor Arthur Midwinter, who is the Finance Committee's adviser on the budget process. Professor Midwinter has contributed a great deal of expertise and background knowledge to our work and has been the source of many difficult questions about the budget process, which we have asked the Executive. That has assisted the scrutiny process and has made construction and analysis of the budget much more effective.

Since the first budget in 1999, the Finance Committee has become more effective in scrutinising the budget. We have undergone a learning process and have developed our procedures in a way that will allow us further to improve budgetary scrutiny in future. There will be less concentration on documentation and more focus on priorities and improved output information from the Executive. I thank Executive ministers and officials for assisting the committee by providing improved and better-targeted information. We have managed to generate specific spending recommendations from the subject committees, which is a first. In future, we expect to spend more time on cross-cutting issues; the Finance Committee has initiated two cross-cutting reviews, which we hope will report later in the year.

Angus MacKay, the former Minister for Finance and Local Government, and his successor Andy Kerr, the Minister for Finance and Public Services, have helped us by improving the presentation of the budget. Although the budget documentation is much more comprehensible than it was, we are concerned that the Executive was not able to produce all the information that we needed on baseline expenditure for new spending proposals. However, we have received assurances from the Minister for Finance and Public Services that that information will be made available in subsequent annual expenditure review documentation, and will include a summary of outputs and data.

One of the themes of our report is that more work is required on certain areas, such as gender proofing the budget. We want the Executive and the Equal Opportunities Committee to agree a working definition of equality proofing and a mechanism for ensuring that the equality strategy is reflected in budgetary allocations. We need greater consistency in that area, as well as greater clarification and definition.

The committee makes the specific recommendation that, when the draft Scottish budget is published in the autumn, the document should illustrate systematically how additional funding will be spent and what outputs will be provided. We want the draft budget to contain an explanation of how the decisions that have been taken advance the Executive's spending priorities, which is particularly important in the context of the spending review. In the past, documentation has focused on tables and columns of figures.

We want to move towards targeting money at particular kinds of outcome, so that we can see how budgetary allocations match up with delivery; the Executive has in its policies made a great deal of wanting to ensure that delivery takes place. It is important that budgetary decisions and allocations match priorities and that they lead to delivery targets being met. We must make that more explicit.

During the Finance Committee's deliberations, we became aware of the need for clarification on how consequentials from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget will be dealt with in the context of health. The Minister for Finance and Public Services has made it clear that all the money will not necessarily go to the national health service budget; rather, consideration of allocations will take place in a broader health context. We believe that that is a positive step in the devolution process—we do not have to mirror exactly the way in which money is spent down south. We are trying to develop a more holistic approach.

Subject committees came up with 12 spending recommendations and the Finance Committee tried to consider them in depth and detail. We also tried to reflect the integrity of the work of the committees. This year, the committees considered the budget process more systematically than perhaps they did in the past. Not all committees were equally successful, but certain committees did an excellent job. As I mentioned to its convener, I would like to highlight the work of the Rural Development Committee, which produced an excellent budget report. However, that was just one among a number of very good reports from the subject committees.

The reports contained concrete recommendations that I hope the committees will pursue, not only in the context of reports to the Finance Committee. The recommendations reflect choices that the committees want to make in their own subject areas. For example, the Transport and the Environment Committee highlighted the need for greater focus on roads maintenance; the Health and Community Care Committee made recommendations on provision of chronic pain services and neurological services and on the need for specialists; the Rural Development Committee focused on the rural development fund and the need for additional resources; and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee focused on school estates. I will not go through them all, but those are the kinds of things that we want committees to do. We want them to consider their remits and the areas where spending is required, to identify where problems lie, and to propose solutions that the Executive can consider.

To be fair to the Executive, it has welcomed the responses from committees and it has considered their proposals. Even in yesterday's statement on end-year flexibility, there were indications that committee proposals were being taken into account. We hope that that will continue in deliberations of year-on-year spending.

In future, we want to move from an input-based budgetary approach to a greater focus on outputs—so that we are clear about what is obtained from spend—and then on towards an outcome-based approach. In the past few weeks, we have been consulting on a major report on outcome budgeting by Norman Flynn. Outcome budgeting is some way off; we will have to build up expertise and understanding. Trying to transform the way in which budgets are put together cannot be done in one, two, three, four or possibly even five years. However, we want to move towards a system that is based on defined outcomes. We want to bring together the different services that can contribute to those outcomes to see how spending priorities and allocations can become less of a barrier to and more of a help in achieving outcomes.

People are interested in whether there will be an effect on them as a result of the way in which the Executive spends its money and the way in which services are delivered. There is sometimes a gap between budgetary allocations and processes and what happens on the ground. The Finance Committee, the Executive and the Scottish Parliament have a strong interest in trying to ensure that the way in which we spend our money delivers the most that it can. We must ensure that departmental or budgetary structures and boundaries between different organisations and areas of the budget do not form barriers. We have a considerable way to go towards delivering barrier-free budgeting, but that is the direction that we should take. The Parliament and the Government of Scotland have an opportunity to lead the way in barrier-free budgeting. Our new Parliament should do things in new and different ways and our efforts to work with and develop the mechanisms that we have point to an exciting future.

We have moved the budgetary process forward significantly in the course of the year and we have worked more closely with the subject committees. The standard of the reports that we received this year was much higher than was previously the case. Credit for that should go to Arthur Midwinter and the various advisers to the committees, as well as to the committee members and the clerks. We have mapped out the direction for scrutiny of the budget, the organisation of the budget and the data that we need in order to reach better decisions. The subject committees have made recommendations that the Executive will consider systematically. We have identified areas in the process in which there are data gaps or where points of focus—such as gender budgeting—have not been given sufficient attention, and we have identified areas where there is need for improvement.

We want to move towards outcome budgeting; the work that we have done this year has taken us a significant step forward. We have been able to take that step forward partly because the resources that we are receiving this year and next year are a significant step up on what was previously available. We have been experiencing budgetary growth, which has allowed us to make positive allocations and priority decisions more freely than we have been able to at various times in the past.

I hope that the Finance Committee has done its job effectively. We hope to continue to do that, not just over the next two stages of the budget, but in dealing with the spending review and the budgetary process in the years to come.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the 3rd Report 2002 of the Finance Committee, Stage 1 of the 2003-04 Budget Process (SP Paper 597) and refers the recommendations to the Scottish Executive for consideration.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Executive to the Finance Committee's report on stage 1 of the budget process. I welcome the constructive approach that has been taken by the whole Finance Committee over the course of the past year. Ministers have useful dialogue with the committee, which helps us to refine our thinking and plans and allows us to move things forward in the spirit that was set out by Des McNulty. I acknowledge that this year there has been wider involvement by other committees of the Parliament. That is to be welcomed and, as Des McNulty said, we expect that involvement to increase and develop as time goes on.

Des McNulty also mentioned Arthur Midwinter. I know him of old—I recognised some of the questions that were put to me—and I gather that he is sitting behind me in the public gallery. The fact that Arthur Midwinter works for the Finance Committee makes ministers extremely nervous, because he is one of the few people who understand public finance. It is said that only three people in the universe understand public finance, but one is mad, one is dead and no one can remember the third. I suggest that the third person might be Arthur Midwinter, who has made significant contribution to the budget process.

Looking up at the public gallery, I see that some young people have for their end-of-term treat just walked in to listen to the debate—they have my sympathy. This might not be the liveliest debate in the Parliament—[MEMBERS: "Shame."]—but it is certainly the worthiest. I look forward to Alasdair Morgan's speech, because he seems to be indicating that it will be as exciting as ever.

As members know, the annual expenditure report kicks off the annual budget round. This year we are focusing on the 2003-2004 budget. The AER sets out the Executive's initial view on the allocation of resources in the 2003-04 budget. As members are aware, this year we have also undertaken a major spending review, which has examined not just the year ahead, but the budgets for the current three-year period. As a consequence of that spending review, we might well bring forward some additions to the 2003-04 budget and, in due course, we might propose some re-structuring. We have spoken to the Finance Committee about the way in which we might handle the additional input that will come at particular points of the year.

Nonetheless, the AER sets out expenditure details of some £22 billion. It is worth repeating that figure—about £22 billion will be spent on Scottish public services in the year 2003-04. The AER document is a worthwhile tool for discussion—[Interruption.]

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

They are all leaving.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am not surprised that the young people in the gallery are leaving. Their departure demonstrates the quality of our young people these days and how discerning they are in their appraisal of other people.

However, if the young people had stayed to listen to the debate, they would have heard that the AER document is a worthwhile document for discussion, for information and for dialogue with the Parliament and the people of Scotland. The AER document sets out clearly our spending plans, puts expenditure in a strategic context and attempts to make the budget and the budget process much more accessible to wider groups than has hitherto been the case.

We recently completed four budget roadshows in Hamilton, Galashiels, Stirling and Stornoway. The roadshows allow us to consult people on the budget process, its contents and on our priorities.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will give the minister a rest—especially as he has lost part of our audience. The minister mentioned the budget roadshows. Were the rules about who had access to the roadshows changed this year? We heard evidence that, when the roadshow went to Dundee last year, it was open only to an invited audience. When interested members of the public turned up, they were refused access on the ground that they had not been invited. Will the minister tell us why that happened?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I would never refuse anyone access to such meetings. Members might find it hard to believe, but we even allow Conservatives into the meetings. Indeed, a Conservative candidate attended one of the meetings in the south of Scotland. At the end of the meeting, he congratulated the Executive on how well the meeting had been conducted, how open it was, how forthright and frank we were in our appraisal of situations and how much we had revealed of our intentions. We welcome Conservatives to those meetings and we welcome their positive contribution and comments on the way in which the Executive conducts such consultation.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will happily do so, but I will thereafter have to make some progress.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

We do not wish to miss any of the minister's pearls of wisdom, but will he tell the chamber what changed in the budget as a result of the public consultations that took place this year?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

As Des McNulty said, in the end-year flexibility that was announced yesterday, the Executive told the Parliament that it had reflected on the views that we picked up in the public meetings. Members—including Des McNulty—told us about the need to improve the way in which we treat local roads expenditure, and that we should try to give councils the capacity to deal with some of the immediate problems that people face, such as problems with litter, graffiti and poor environments. I must say to Brian Adam—I said this at the public meetings, too—that we try to reflect on what people tell us. Some of the thinking behind yesterday's announcement reflected the feedback that we received at those public meetings.

As each year passes, we cover more and more of Scotland with such meetings, at which we explain the budget process, set out our priorities, increase understanding of the budget, encourage engagement in the process and listen to people's concerns, as I have just outlined. As the budget evolves over the course of the year, I suspect that members will see further evidence of that being reflected in our future thinking.

The meetings are useful strategy sessions in which a range of local and national issues can be highlighted. The meetings have broadly confirmed that our priorities match those of the public, which are to tackle health, education, jobs, crime and transport. People are very pleased with the progress that we have made on investing in our schools, teachers, hospitals, nurses and doctors. They are also pleased that we have reduced crime rates, increased detection rates and that we have put in place record numbers of police.

People are in tune with what we are trying to do on all those issues. However, although people are pleased with the progress that we have made, they would like us to do more on a range of fronts, some of which were picked up by the Finance Committee.

As I said, we showed yesterday that not only do we listen, but we act on what we hear. As we announced yesterday, we are making substantial new resources available to local government to take us even further toward meeting people's concerns and ambitions, many of which were expressed at the public meetings.

I want to pick up on some of the improvements that the Finance Committee and the Executive wanted to make to the AER document. As Des McNulty said, the AER document is much more than a list of numbers. We have given some sense of the purpose that we attach to the numbers and of how the spending is allocated. It is the Executive's third AER and, with the Finance Committee's assistance, we have made the report much better; I am glad to say that the committee acknowledged that in its report. As we did last year, we have published two documents: a summary and a much bigger and more detailed document for those who wish to examine the matter in such depth.

The AER is a pre-spending review document and, as we have largely sorted out the presentation of the numbers, our focus is now much more on targets and objectives. As members are probably aware, many of the changes that we have made reflect what we agreed with the Finance Committee. For example, in order to ensure greater scrutiny, we have reintroduced two tables into the document—tables 0.6 and 0.7—that set out the private sector's capital spend and estimated payments under the private finance initiative contracts that flow from that. Furthermore, in table 0.12, we have started to bring together all the different funding sources. As requested, we have included a separate chapter on the modernising government fund, created hyperlinks to local authorities and health boards and made other improvements.

We have also asked for a much more robust approach to targets and disaggregation of information to allow people more scrutiny of our plans, and we have begun to link policy development to expenditure in the way that Des McNulty suggested in his speech. Finally, we have changed the way we think about the AER by attempting to refocus it to provide a gateway to consultation instead of simply providing information about numbers. I know that the Finance Committee has welcomed all those steps.

Although the Executive's priorities are health, education, transport, jobs and crime, we are also addressing a range of cross-cutting issues that relate to closing the opportunity gap and to sustainable development. In one form or another, those priorities have been central to the Executive's programme since we came to power. We have been criticised for the absence of social justice from the list of priorities that I mentioned; however, that absence is more apparent than real. Our focus on closing the opportunity gap ranges across all our programmes; indeed, it is at the crux of achieving the social justice that we desire. The impact that the Executive seeks to make on health does not include only making available and allocating resources and our other work through the health department; it also includes our work through the social justice programme, housing, transport, jobs, education and so on. All those aspects impact on people's health.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister share my concern that, although we are making progress on openness, accountability and transparency in the NHS, we are making very little progress on local government's accountability in delivering care in the community? Given that free personal care will be introduced on 1 July, will he do something to help the Health and Community Care Committee hold local councils to account for the huge amount of care that they will deliver?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Mary Scanlon has raised a matter that is a major and continuing concern not just in Scotland and the UK, but around the globe. There is an inevitable tension between local government and central Government both about matching autonomy and democratic accountability at national and local levels, and about meeting national priorities locally. We are trying to achieve much firmer outcome agreements with local authorities on the promises that the Parliament has committed to keep, but which must be delivered through the local authorities. Although local authorities recognise increasingly the importance of such matters, they also want the local freedom to allow them to fine-tune and adjust their programmes to suit immediate local circumstances. The debate will continue.

Presiding Officer, I am aware that time is moving on—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

As we have a little bit of time in hand, I can compensate you for the interventions.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am glad that you will be indulgent. In that case, I will relax. However, I am very surprised to hear what you said—I thought that we would be under pressure from members wishing to speak.

Turning to the committee's most recent set of recommendations, I want to begin by welcoming the committee's view that although the budget process is not perfect—I doubt that any budget process ever will be—it offers a sound basis for proper scrutiny of financial decisions. The Finance Committee's recommendations fall into two types; those that relate to points of principle and those that are financial.

As some of the recommendations on matters of principle are quite detailed, I want to consult Executive colleagues, consider the recommendations in detail and respond to the committee in due course. However, I am happy immediately to endorse other recommendations. For example, the Executive shares the committee's desire to move the public expenditure debate from inputs to outputs and—more important—to the outcomes that we receive from that expenditure. As Des McNulty quite properly pointed out, what matters to people is what happens to them locally and how their immediate circumstances improve. We need to get a much better handle on that, rather than simply specify inputs.

Such an approach is essential if we are to develop dialogue on the budget fully. It is not just the quantum of money that matters, but what that money buys for the people whom we serve; addressing that issue will require mature dialogue within a fixed budget.

No Government in history has all the resources that would be required to meet all its ambitions. Priorities have to be set—that is the nature and business of government. An outcomes focus will naturally take us away from the much simpler past focus on the amount of money in any specific spending line.

We live in a world where our greatest needs require action in many fields. Achieving better health for our people requires effort not just in the health department, but in education, enterprise, culture, leisure and sport. That emphasises another of the Finance Committee's recommendations on new health funding and the wider definition of what constitutes health spending. It marks a move in the right direction, and it marks recognition of the greater complexities in public expenditure and the need to move from a silo mentality in public service delivery. It recognises that improving health is not just a responsibility of the health service per se.

The Finance Committee further recommends that we agree a working definition of equality proofing for budgets. Des McNulty drew specific attention to that and I want to make it clear that we want to make progress on that. I met the Equal Opportunities Committee recently to discuss the matter. We have established an equality proofing budget advisory group, and key individuals who are expert in such matters are helping us. We have undertaken research and sought expertise from other parts of the world in that work and I am happy to continue to pursue a way forward. None of us should underestimate the challenge or expect instant solutions, but I am confident that we can make progress if we focus on tangible, practical and achievable objectives. The key to equality proofing is ultimately to focus on how the Executive equality proofs policy development, because financial consequences will flow from that. In a sense, to tackle the budget as the means of securing equality proofing is to act too late in the process, although that has a part to play. We must have a clearer definition of how we want to develop that process, and the Executive is committed to that work.

The committee also recommends that the Executive address the cost of national insurance contribution increases that arise from the UK budget. We are addressing that issue in the spending review alongside the many other pressures that we face. There are many financial recommendations that will require more detailed scrutiny by the Executive over the coming weeks and months. There are recommendations on such varied matters as chronic pain services, neurological services, housing debt treatment, housing improvement, integrated transport funds, diversion from prosecution, the application of the Arbuthnott formula, lifelong learning, transport, education and justice. Des McNulty also drew attention to recommendations on special educational needs and roads. We made provision for some of those areas in yesterday's budget revision statement, but we will consider all those matters as we move through the budget process and the spending review.

The budget for 2003-04 is £22 billion for Scottish public services. That is a lot of money by any standards and represents a significant increase in resources over this year. It is delivered through the fair, stable and transparent Barnett formula, which delivers a good deal for Scotland's public finances. The increases will help us to deliver our major objective of making a difference to the lives of people throughout Scotland. Our AER sets out the framework for how we want to spend that money. The work of the Finance Committee during stage 1 of the budget process will influence the budget and coming budgets. The work of the committee is a major and important part of the scrutiny of the Executive's plans. I look forward to the remainder of today's debate and the speeches from members that will help to inform our thinking. I also look forward to continuing to work with the Finance Committee as we move through stages 2 and 3 of the budget in the coming months.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I associate the SNP with the Finance Committee convener's remarks about all those who helped to produce the report. In particular, I thank all those members of the public and representatives of organisations who engaged with the Parliament's committees, particularly the Finance Committee, and who attended the roadshows. I hope that they feel that their contributions have not been in vain, as such events give politicians the opportunity to engage with the public on how the priorities for Scotland can be delivered.

We hold today's debate against the background of a low growth rate in the Scottish economy, an international corporate financial scandal in the order of billions of dollars, the reputation of commercial auditors in tatters, stock markets in free fall and pension schemes in serious disarray. In all those areas, there are consequences for ordinary Scots—there will be knock-on effects on their daily lives and they will be looking to politicians for answers. In particular, they will expect their jobs and pensions to be protected, and there is little, if anything, that Mr Peacock and his colleagues can or will do about that. Not only do they lack the will to do anything about it; they and the Parliament lack the powers to do anything about it.

The budget process in Scotland is tortuous largely because the principal components are out of our hands. The total spend is determined elsewhere through the Barnett formula, which determines Scotland's share of UK spending, with adjustments made through the autumn statement and comprehensive spending review increases, to which the minister has referred. What he and his colleagues have done is rearrange the deckchairs regarding end-year finances, of which we heard a little yesterday. Mr Kerr said yesterday that the budget announcements on the reallocation of the end-year flexibility were influenced by advice from, among others, the Parliament's committees, including the Finance Committee. I hope that Mr Peacock will identify a little more specifically than he did in response to my earlier question exactly what changes have come about as a consequence of that advice. It is important that specific changes are identified to give people confidence in the process.

Mr Kerr said that the Government's investment is focused on the five key priorities of health, education, crime, transport and jobs. He went on to say that he has identified three areas for action: investment for results, Scotland's children—clearly, that is education—and our local environment. I do not know whether those are consistent with what seem to be the Government's priorities. It is not obvious how they fit together. Nevertheless, I would like to address a constituency transport issue. I note that the end-year flexibility allocation gives more to transport—something in the order of £16 million. The minister might care to tell us whether, as part of that allocation, any further progress will be made on the modern transport system for the north-east—in particular, the western peripheral route around Aberdeen.

We recognise that the object of the budget process is to allow the Government the opportunity to explain what it has done, what it proposes to do and what outcomes it expects. We have heard much about outcomes in the debate and I suspect that we will hear a lot more. Parliament, its committees and, importantly, civic Scotland are given the opportunity to scrutinise the outcomes and the Government's plans and to suggest changes.

We are still in the early stages of allowing our new Parliament—as well as our third finance minister—to settle in. Early criticisms of the budget process included the lack of transparency; insufficient detail at the level of individual programmes; what appeared to be cosmetic consultation; and few proposals for alternatives.

Successive ministers promised improvements to address those weaknesses and changes have been made. I am happy to acknowledge that that is the case. This stage 1 report on the Scottish budget acknowledges that progress has been made, especially in relation to the detailed concerns that were raised by the Parliament's subject committees. I will leave most of those concerns to be dealt with by my colleagues later in the debate. It remains to be seen whether the minister and his colleagues will acknowledge those concerns or, more important, act on them. This year, the committees have taken a much keener interest in the budget process. I welcome that and I look forward to their more detailed recommendations on alternatives.

Successive ministers have offered Government help in costing proposals, which is a useful advance. This year, the Finance Committee took evidence from representatives of civic Scotland, which was another significant advance in the process. Their evidence helped to form our views at stage 1 and I hope that we can build on that in the future. The Finance Committee also took evidence outwith Edinburgh. We heard some interesting views from Orkney about the impact of the Scottish budget in general as well as about the way in which it impacts specifically on one of our many diverse communities.

The committee's findings and recommendations have our broad support. I shall focus on those that deal with health. Immediately following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget announcement in the spring, the First Minister told us that the increase in Scotland's Barnett share of the budget would be spent on health. Mr Kerr clarified that for the Finance Committee when it met in Orkney. He assured members that the extra money would go to health spending in general, but not necessarily directly to the health budget, as I think Mr Peacock acknowledged today.

The committee acknowledged that that was a sensitive decision and I look forward to having the details of those variations spelt out so that we can see which health outcomes are targeted for improvement as a result of the budget changes and how the Minister for Finance and Public Services will adjust the budget heads to achieve those outcomes.

As a result of the chancellor's budget, there will be increased costs across public services as the rise in national insurance contributions from employers kicks in. Those increased costs will be particularly evident in health, where service delivery is labour intensive. Hence, significant new costs will fall on health authorities—the chancellor giveth and the chancellor taketh away. Those costs must be funded from allocations made to public bodies and not just through efficiency gains, as has been the previous practice. Will the minister reassure members on those matters?

When the committee was in Orkney, members asked the minister about the application of the Arbuthnott formula to general medical services. In the past, concerns have been expressed about how the McCrone settlement will impact on individual authorities. Some authorities appear to have been allocated more money than they require for McCrone, whereas other authorities have less than they require.

The impact of the funding formulae on individual local authorities must be worked through in more detail. Orkney NHS Board and the Finance Committee expressed the concern to the minister that we must be careful about how we apply the Arbuthnott formula to general medical services, as service delivery in a lot of communities might be significantly affected. I commend to the minister the Health and Community Care Committee's recommendation on that issue.

Finally, if the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services wishes to enhance his reputation—and no doubt he does—and that of the Parliament, he must prove that the public consultations, the evidence from witnesses to committees, including the Finance Committee, and scrutiny by MSPs will lead to changes in the budget. Nine of the 12 specific recommendations from the committees are in line with the Government's priorities, so the minister should not find it too hard to accept them.

The minister will be measured by the outcomes and unless he can, at the close of the budget process, demonstrate the specific changes that have been made to the budget as a result of the process, the consultations will have been cosmetic and the scrutiny will have been in vain. I commend the Finance Committee's report to the Parliament on behalf of the Scottish National Party.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

This is the third time since the Parliament began that I have been at such a debate. I thought that we might have had a third minister, but we have Peter Peacock trotting out again as he has done in the past.

We have reached an interesting time. The committee has had three years of considering and focusing on the budget process. I can understand why we had to do that in the first two years. In the first year, the Executive, the committees of the Parliament and the general public were all struggling to understand what the budget process was all about. We concentrated on the process and we did not concentrate on what was coming out of the budget, how the money was being spent and where it came from.

Now that we have reached this stage, I am beginning to be concerned. We still seem to be concentrating on the process, even though it is more refined. Although we are engaging with the committees of the Parliament, I am not convinced that the time that we are spending and the load that we are putting on the committees are producing the results that we should be looking for at this stage in the Parliament's life.

I believe that the time that the committees are spending on consideration of the budget might be better spent on considering other things. The committees do not seem to be able to use the opportunity that they have to be radical and to reprioritise within the budget or to discuss the structural and process changes that are required to implement spending programmes and to convert them into action on the ground. I will refer to some of the committees' recommendations but, as I know from all the members who have sat in on other committees in the role of reporter, members do their best, but they struggle. The problem is not that they have not been given advice; it is that they would rather spend time discussing other issues. That is another matter that we will have to revisit.

My colleague Mary Scanlon intervened with a point about structure, which is the point that I am making. It is pointless throwing money about like confetti and scattering it in dribs and drabs if there is no strategic focus. The minister cannot answer every query by simply throwing a small amount of money at it when enough fuss is made. If we are to get value for money in Scotland and if we are to justify the amount of money that we take from people's pockets—which includes money from families and money from businesses, in the form of the increased business rate—we have to be seen to be turning that money into something that produces added value.

The Local Government Committee made no suggestions, yet the one debate that the Parliament has ducked out of since the beginning is the debate on what local government should be responsible for. We raise the question every year. There is uncertainty. Some councils interpret their freedoms in a way that allows them to do certain things and it is right that they should be free to do things that are appropriate locally. However, there is no clarity, which, in terms of the budget, makes it difficult to focus on whether Government policy is being implemented. Once it has been decided what local government should be responsible for, local authorities should be given clear tasks, which they should be left to get on with and for which they should be held accountable. Once we have done that, we can provide a properly guided funding package.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I accept that some of the committees may not have been as radical as David Davidson would like, but everybody has a responsibility to examine the spending choices that are available. In that context, does David Davidson accept two points that came out of the evidence? First, a number of witnesses, including the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, said that reducing the amount of income tax that is collected would be inappropriate. Secondly, we heard evidence that business rates—an issue that his party has highlighted—make little difference to businesses in Scotland, given the cost element that they represent.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The convener of the Finance Committee has not been in touch with business lately, particularly small businesses, which are the engine house of the Scottish economy. We get complaint after complaint asking why businesses are put at an unfair disadvantage by a different poundage rate. Why do we have such an odd system of reliefs, which militate against some of the very businesses that we are trying to maintain, particularly those in rural areas and certain areas of towns? The convener of the Finance Committee is missing the point.

If we have all this spare money at the end of the year and we are fiddling around looking to do something with it, I believe that flattening out business rates so that we are competitive would give a clear signal to small business, because the business rate is a straight tax on employment, a tax on the economy and a tax on investment for the future. If we want a full employment system in Scotland with highly qualified people, we should invest the money in doing that.

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

I recall that, after the announcement of last year's underspend, David McLetchie suggested that the money should be used to reduce income tax. This year, Mr Davidson is suggesting that it should be used to reduce business rates. Is that a change in policy?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not at all. We have said all along that artificially adjusting business rates upwards was not a clever thing to do, just as we do not believe that student loans should be introduced. We need to ask whether that policy will be helpful to our future, given that we need highly trained people to come through the system.

I have talked about structure, which this debate seems to be about, but another issue is the clarity of documentation. We have all talked about output information, because the purpose of spending money is to get an output. To examine the outcomes of last year's funding, the Finance Committee has to have accurate output figures. I go further and remind the minister that a previous incumbent of his ministerial post promised to give in-year figures for the roll-out of some of the Executive's programmes.

Cross-cutting is an essential part of outcome budgeting. Everybody knows that Scotland is a complex society and that many governmental bodies and agencies have a finger in many pies. However, there is no clarity in the budget process on that and I am sure that much more needs to be done in review work. Not only should the Audit Committee do its piece, but the Finance Committee should go back and see what outputs the moneys that were put through the system achieved. There should be clarity.

Brian Adam referred to Jack McConnell's wonderful statement about money going to health. The Minister for Finance and Public Services refined that statement and said that the money would go to things that might benefit health. The matter is still unclear. It would be helpful if we were told where the money is going. The broad and sweeping statement made for a nice press release and was shown on television. However, I noticed that what Andy Kerr said in Orkney was not terribly well reported. Today, the deputy minister has an opportunity in front of the television cameras and in the chamber to give us the truth about what is going on.

Throwing money at the health service is not a solution. Unless there is reform and aims are clear, there is no point in simply throwing money at it. That is not to say that we do not want health spending. However, we want that spending to produce better health and better access to health care so that the current inequality no longer exists. The Arbuthnott formula and general medical services were mentioned. The Arbuthnott formula causes inequalities. On the same issue, will the minister tell us what will be done to deal with postcode irregularities in access to health care throughout Scotland?

The increases in national insurance contributions arising from Gordon Brown's budget were mentioned. The minister said that the matter will be dealt with under the spending review. Is that a total commitment to cover all aspects of the increases in all the public services, many of which have heavy staff costs? Will the minister be clear about that today so that, when we return at the end of the summer recess and get into the next round of the budget process, we can identify what will be built into the changes?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

rose—

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Alex Neil is indicating that he would like to intervene.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The member is over time, but I will allow a final intervention.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I will keep my question short. The other big budget increase in Chancellor Brown's budget was the introduction of the windfall tax on oil. Will the member tell us whether scrapping that tax is Tory policy, or do the Tories want to keep the revenue and earmark some of it for spend in Scotland?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Mr Neil will know that I am on record, as people down south are, as saying that the tax is iniquitous, badly thought out and ill considered and that it will do nothing but damage, particularly to the economy of the north-east, the area that I have the privilege to represent. It was foolish to implement the tax in such a way. I have said that consistently and I said it in the chamber when the Parliament met in Aberdeen. Perhaps Mr Neil was not there.

I will touch briefly on the committees' comments. The Transport and the Environment Committee made some pertinent comments and I hope that the minister will refer to its report more directly at some point. For example, will he assure us that the committee's proposals for road maintenance will be dealt with properly? There is a 30 per cent revenue expenditure shortfall on what is required to maintain and replace the existing network. The list of proposals goes on.

The deputy minister rattled through all the committees and got their names in, but he did not say anything about what they had put in their reports. He is supposed to address such issues today. All the information is in a wonderfully large document, which I am sure will nicely keep his office door open on a warm day. He needs to look at the print that has come in from the committees—that was the purpose of their activity. If they do the work but the minister does not respond, I suggest to him that the process is failing.

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

Some members will be aware that I am only a recently appointed member of the Finance Committee, so I do not bring the depth of knowledge to the debate that David Davidson does. The convener thanked all those who have helped us and I associate myself with his remarks. In particular, I pay tribute to the clerks of the Finance Committee and the other subject committees and to our adviser, Arthur Midwinter.

As no member has yet done so, let me give credit where it is due and thank Des McNulty, who convened the committee fairly and thoughtfully. That is one reason why we have worked as well as we have done. It is also why Brian Adam warmly supported the committee's recommendations, although he did so against a rather glum backdrop, referring to the falling stock market and accountancy firms going bust. He began to sound a little like Marvin the paranoid android; he was not his normal sunny self. David Davidson, in his contribution, was interesting.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Was he really?

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

No—I am so sorry, of course he was not. However, he made an artful trip-up. The CBI was asked about the cost consequence of raising income tax by a penny. The answer was that the cost consequence would be many millions of pounds, as the pay-as-you-earn system would have to be rejigged, there would be an impact on the information technology system and so on. Des McNulty then asked a trick question, which was whether those costs would apply if income tax were reduced by a penny. The CBI answered with an emphatic yes, which brought the sound of David McLetchie, off-stage, tearing up the Conservatives' policy. It is important to bear that in mind.

The level of scrutiny that the Finance Committee and other committees have given to the budget process was much higher than the level of scrutiny that pertained in the days of Westminster. However, the improvement is not only to do with MSPs scrutinising the budget; it also relates to the close relationship that we have built up with the minister and the deputy minister. I thank them and the other members of the Executive for their reasonable and courteous approach at all times. If a question could not be answered at the time, an answer was always forthcoming later. That is a successful way of running the budget process.

In the bad old days when Peter Peacock and I were councillors, when councillors tried to communicate with the Government to ask what the settlement would be or where the money would go and why, they were up against a brick wall and, no matter how hard they tried, it was impossible to get to the answer. Occasionally, a minister would visit a local authority and listen politely, which might give some satisfaction, but the mechanism was not at all clear.

We should not be mean spirited when the minister talks about the budget roadshow and the associated consultation, which has been genuinely open and successful. I have seen evidence with my own eyes that input from ordinary people is going right to the heart of Government decision making. That is right and proper. The process is not only about co-ordinating with MSPs, but about working closely with local authorities and the people of Scotland. Even in the three years of the Scottish Parliament, the system has improved and has become more efficient.

The minister, Des McNulty and every other speaker have referred to outputs. Forgive me for being parochial, but I want to talk about roads, a subject that has been touched on. In the Highlands, non-trunk roads are deteriorating. The problem is major and is made even greater by the fact that, in the remote and far-flung parts of the Highlands, we rely totally on the road network, as we have no railways or airports. If a minor road in Sutherland or Argyllshire starts to deteriorate, that has a marked effect on the local communities.

When we talk about outputs, we are always careful to say that we do not want to ring fence funds. However, in our heart of hearts, we are not all convinced that money that is allocated to local government or local health services goes where it should. I have suggested that at some point—perhaps a year or six months—after an allocation of funding, such as the recent EYF money that has gone to local government, we should examine whether the money is hitting the targets that we want it to. More work has to be done in that regard and, having spoken to the minister, I know that he is receptive to the notion.

We have heard about barrier-free budgeting and cross-cutting, which I am involved with as a member of the Finance Committee.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am sure that Mr Stone receives the same mail that I do about the roads in the Highlands. Given that bringing the roads and bridges up to normal standard will cost £180 million—and I point out that Highland Council says that it can afford to resurface roads only once every 180 years—how is the council to maintain the critical road network on £6 million a year?

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

The answer is, "With difficulty".

As Peter Peacock and I recall, those figures were put together by Philip Shimmin, a splendid official who has retired from the council and who was adept at suggesting that there would be century-long periods before the roads would be done up. To be honest, the Executive should check those figures. Mary Scanlon is no more convinced by them than I am.

I have spoken for quite long enough. [Laughter.]

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Jamie Stone felt the vibes.

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

Presiding Officer, you can tell when it is the end of term. This is just like being in a classroom. As a former teacher, you will recall trying to amuse pupils with games or by drawing pictures on the blackboard.

I thank my fellow committee members, the clerks and the adviser, who is sitting in the public gallery. I am thoroughly enjoying my time on the Finance Committee or whatever it is called.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Alex Neil and I might recall Mr Stone's performance the last time we had a meeting of the Parliament on the day before recess. I would be grateful if Mr Stone would simply do colouring-in for the rest of the morning.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Given the level of attendance in the chamber, perhaps some members are already away to Skibo Castle for the golf. Who could blame them?

I congratulate the Finance Committee on another excellent report and on a job well done. I begin by making a couple of process points and then I will try to deal with some issues of substance.

The process points relate to table 4.1 on page 15 of "The Scottish Budget 2003-04", with which I know the minister will be familiar, and to the projected funding for the careers guidance service. Anyone from outside who looks at that table would take from it that we were to spend nothing on careers guidance in subsequent years, although the careers guidance budget is going to be incorporated into the budgets of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

I make a plea: in future budget tables, at every stage, we should still highlight the amount spent on careers guidance, albeit as a subsection of the Scottish Enterprise budget. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee made a major recommendation that the budget allocated to the careers guidance service should continue to be transparent for the obvious reason that that would allow us to measure the budget and to ensure that appropriate investment continues to be made in that service.

My other process point is about the same table and the spend on investment assistance. As the minister knows, the regional selective assistance programme is undergoing a major re-engineering exercise. As part of that work, a venture capital fund has been established with moneys specially laid aside from the RSA budget. The Executive must consider how to present that information, as we must be able to examine the input to the RSA budget and, separately, the input to the venture capital fund and the outputs. That will allow us to see the additional benefits—such as jobs and successful businesses—that are being produced from levering funds in from the venture capital fund. I know that the minister may not be able to give specific answers today, but I would appreciate it if he would consider those process issues, as they are quite important for parliamentary monitoring.

I also draw his attention to the other recommendations in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report on the budget process. In particular, I draw his attention to the need for further investment in both enterprise and lifelong learning. Everyone always pleads for more money, but one can see from the state of our 46 further education colleges that about two thirds of them face major problems with structural deficits.

Those problems did not arise over the past year or two. They have been building up since the colleges were decoupled from the local authority system. Some of our traditionally well-endowed universities are also facing financial difficulty. We have major problems in that regard. If we are to maintain progress, for example, in increasing the percentage of people who go to university from school, then we are reaching the stage where many of the financial issues will have to be resolved in the next few years.

Having made those specific points, I want to move on to points of substance that are about the context in which the Executive's budget is decided. First, of course, the Executive does not decide the overall amount that is available to it. As members will know, the chancellor in London decides that amount.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

God bless him.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

That is a lone voice.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Well, if God blesses the chancellor, he might be the only one who blesses him.

I have several further points. I am not going to labour the first point, which I think is obvious, but I believe that this Parliament should decide the overall level of funding and should have greater responsibility. An additional £7 billion will be extracted from the Scottish economy by the Treasury in London between now and 2010 as a result of the introduction of the windfall tax on oil. I believe that at least some, if not all, of that money should be earmarked for reinvestment in Scotland.

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

Does Alex Neil agree that it would be interesting to get an on-the-record answer from the Conservatives to the question that he posed to David Davidson?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I agree with Jamie Stone that that would be interesting, but it would also be highly unusual. Given that, within our lifetime, the Conservatives are unlikely to be in a position, here or in London, to do anything about those matters, I will treat the issue as purely academic and theoretical, if Mr Stone does not mind.

The other important point is that the minister reiterated, rightly, the five priorities for Scotland. However, if one compares outputs with each of those priorities, the outputs are wholly unsatisfactory. One of the priorities, clearly, is health. We see what is happening in the health service in terms of waiting times and waiting lists. Another priority is education, but the announcement of the new investment programme for schools represents only one third of the total investment requirement for schools. The outputs for further and higher education, again, are lower instead of higher or better.

Key measurements, such as those for child poverty, show that the situation is getting worse, if anything; it certainly is not getting significantly better. On pensioner poverty, we still have the same proportion of pensioners in Scotland living in poverty as we had five years ago when the Labour Government was elected. There has been a welcome reduction in unemployment during the past five years, but unemployment in Scotland has risen by 25,000 in the past year. Of course, the consequences have still to feed through from the events of this week.

On the transport system, the railways are in one of the worst situations in living memory and we have made no substantial progress in road transport. The A77 upgrade has still not been started and, as Brian Adam said, the Aberdeen western peripheral has not been given the timetable for going ahead. The Borders railway is still a dream, and many other projects besides. The figures show that congestion and traffic pollution are worse today than they were four or five years ago.

Crime is another of the five priorities. We will perhaps hear later today the outcome of the crisis meetings yesterday between the Lib Dems and the Executive in relation to youth crime and youth courts. I believe that the crisis has been partly resolved by the Lib Dems backing down as usual. No matter which of the five priorities one picks, the outcomes are getting worse and not better.

Instead of encouraging the chancellor to pursue a policy of reducing the overall percentage of gross domestic product that is allocated to public investment and spending, we should increase that percentage further. In the key areas, such as wealth creation, in which I am primarily interested, research and development—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Wind up, please.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am coming to a close, Presiding Officer.

I will pick only one of my 10 examples. Consider research and development in Scotland. The rate of spend on research and development is half the UK average, and the UK average is half the European average. In Scotland, we would have to quadruple our investment in research and development to get up to the European average. That is only one of the prerequisites to building a smart, successful Scotland.

The minister should measure the outcomes, but he should not only do that. He should also do something about them and improve them dramatically.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Presiding Officer, I thought for one delightful moment that you might let Alex Neil go on for so long that you might not have time for my speech. I noticed that, at the start of the debate, you asked for those members who wished to take part in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons. You did not say what those of us who have been pressed upon to participate should do. Nonetheless, I pressed my button and I am pleased to contribute to the debate. I will do so as convener of the Rural Development Committee, whose report has already elicited some praise from the convener of the Finance Committee.

The Rural Development Committee acknowledged strongly the clearer presentation of the budget proposals this year. Despite the continuing complexity of the proposals, that presentation has undoubtedly made it easier for the Rural Development Committee to scrutinise them at stage 1. We have pressed for clearer presentation for the past two years. I am sure that that has been significant in allowing us to produce the excellent report that Des McNulty acknowledged. I had always wondered what it would take to bring out the true Des McNulty—the emotion behind the cool exterior. Obviously, it is a well-worded stage 1 committee report on the budget. How sad.

Nevertheless, an awful lot still needs to be done to identify outcomes and review cross-cutting expenditure in rural areas. The Rural Development Committee supports the Minister for Environment and Rural Development in his concern about the relatively poor evidence base that affects his ability to pursue those matters. We also highlighted the overall expenditure in rural areas as being ripe for cross-cutting review by the Finance Committee.

The rural development budget is interdependent with European policy. The Rural Development Committee was able to examine it in the context of continuing debate on the possible mid-term reform of the common agricultural policy. We were anxious to identify and consider areas in which national discretion could allow the use of European moneys to be tailored in support of Scottish strategic priorities for agriculture.

With that background, the Rural Development Committee drew five main conclusions for the Finance Committee's consideration. First, we sought clarification on the implications for Scotland should the Curry commission's proposals on increasing modulation be implemented in England. A debate is needed on whether the devolved Administrations can implement such a policy differently from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Secondly, the committee invited the minister to assess the costs and impacts of introducing enhanced rates of modulation in Scotland, with progressive and discriminatory rates of modulation and with the proceeds matched by UK funds and applied as part of a revised rural development plan through land management contracts or whole farm support and development schemes as envisaged in "A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture".

Thirdly, the committee sought clarification from the minister in his objectives in allocating additional funds to the less-favoured areas support scheme rather than to other rural development measures. The reason is that the figures suggest that the minister has allocated more money to the LFASS than is strictly required by European match funding rules. He therefore appears to have made a policy decision to put extra money into that scheme.

Fourthly, the committee welcomes the minister's commitment to review the crofters grants and loans scheme and has asked to be kept informed of the progress on that matter. In evidence, issues arose about whether the levels of grant available were suitable to secure adequate provision of housing in remote rural areas. We were keen that that issue should be addressed.

Lastly, the committee seeks clarification of the minister's priorities for the expenditure of the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department on the agricultural and biological research group programme. Evidence suggested that only 2 per cent of SEERAD expenditure on the programme is devoted to socioeconomic research pertaining to rural economies and communities.

The committee also identified one or two options for the use of increased funding, should that become available following the comprehensive spending review. As Des McNulty indicated, we suggested that the rural partnership fund might be prioritised for enhanced funding. As I hinted earlier, we also suggested that funding an improved evidence base for rural communities and development would be another suitable priority.

We recommended that the minister give serious consideration to three proposals that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has made. The federation proposes, first, that the Executive should make adequate budgetary provision to attract the proposed European centre for fisheries research and management to Scotland. Secondly, it argues that a continuation of the programme of research cruises jointly managed by fishermen and scientists would be extremely beneficial and would provide work for underemployed vessels. Lastly, it proposes the establishment of an executive body such as a specialist enterprise company to manage inshore fisheries and related marine resources—to manage and oversee the contribution of the inshore fisheries industry to the general health of the coastal community and economy.

I was very pleased by the way in which the Finance Committee received our report. I record formally my thanks both to the clerks and to Professor Mark Shucksmith, our adviser, who guided us ably through the intricacies and complexities of the budget process. This is a good report and has been acknowledged as such. However, as Alex Neil said, the report will be no use unless it is acted on. I hope that in his summing-up the minister will assure us that that will happen.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

As some people know, my engagement with finance is on the fruit level—apples and apples, apples and pears. However, I understand more since Professor Brian Main appeared before a joint meeting of the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee to give us serious and much-needed advice on the shadowy business of considering the budget report.

The report from the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee is covered in paragraphs 10 to 20 of the budget report. It was sometimes difficult to understand where money was being applied. We want budget headings to be revised to be more consistent with programme-based activities so we can find out what happens to the money.

We want to better understand what is meant by "Miscellaneous Categories". We were allocated a miscellaneous category in 2001-02 with approximately £13.5 million of spending. In 2003-04 the category was split in two: "Miscellaneous Projects" and "Support Programmes". What does that mean? I am no clearer about the matter. We require subject committees to state how much money has been spent and on what the money was spent. I understand that there will be changes in the way information will be presented. When spending crosses several parliamentary briefs—for example, in the care and treatment of offenders—the collective sum of money could be co-ordinated to inform us how much was spent where by various departments.

Members will be glad to know that my contribution will be brief. I do not need 10 minutes. The substance of the budget concerns us, given that crime is one of the Executive's five key priorities. The amount of money spent on justice is decreasing. Managed expenditure is increasing by 3.1 per cent in 2002-03 and 2003-04. However, in the justice department, spending is set to fall by 1.7 per cent in real terms. In order to stay at the same level, we would need an extra £18.5 million for justice. In order to keep in line with the rise in managed expenditure, justice would need an extra £36 million. I do not see how cutting the justice budget balances with the fact that justice, and reducing youth crime in particular, is a key priority.

I say to David Davidson that the Justice 1 Committee made and costed specific recommendations. I will give examples of three of them. We asked for an increase in the diversion from prosecution budget from £1.5 million to £4 million. We asked for an increase in the budget for time-out centres, such as the centre in Glasgow for women offenders, from £0.6 million to £1.2 million. Those are examples of how we could keep people out of prisons, save money, stop people reoffending and get people back into structured lives. It is money well spent at the front end to stop spending excess money at the other end. Finally, we asked for the budget for voluntary through-care provision to be almost doubled, from £3.5 million to £6 million, because that hits recidivism on the head, as we know. Something like 70 to 80 per cent of offenders are back in prison within two years. Money spent on that in the budget would cut the amount of money that is spent elsewhere.

We think that, overall, the justice budget—I should not be doing this; Jim Wallace should do it for himself and I am sure that he does—should be increased. Within that, priorities should have more money spent on them to save money at the end of the sequence of events that happen in people's lives. I draw those priorities to the minister's attention and I hope that he will respond.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I thank my many colleagues in the chamber for giving me room for a speech of about half an hour. I note the enthusiasm of some members for that prospect.

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

It is not essential, Mr Stevenson.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

We have heard that the underspend is £643 million, which follows the more than £700 million underspend of last year. It is interesting that over the past four years—I move straightaway to one of my obsessions, and one of the obsessions of members of the SNP—there has been an increase of £250 million in private finance initiative payments. We do not need to worry about underspend, because in a few years' time we will be heading rapidly towards overspend. There will be no end-year flexibility if we continue to adopt the high-cost finance policies that are associated with a PFI approach to funding public projects.

There is another way. I note from today's edition of Business a.m. that a not-for-profit company is taking over the rail network. The SNP has been advocating that policy in relation to capital projects for some time. If we are to keep our finances in good order and if we are to remain within our budget, one of the things that should be high on the list of the Executive's priorities is to reconsider how we fund our capital projects. I commend to the minister and the Executive the approach of having not-for-profit trusts that we have been advocating for some years. I would welcome the minister's response as to whether that is under consideration.

I mention that in the light of the fact that Grant Thornton—an accountancy company that gave evidence on the prison estates review to the Justice 1 Committee—indicated that that was a practical way forward that would undoubtedly save money. However, we have to be slightly cautious when we are taking about accountants. Once again, they are not getting a good press. There is a great debate in business as to whether accountants or computer people are the more boring. As a computer person I have my views on that and I need not pursue them further. I will talk more about accountants later.

Business a.m. is the only paper that I read in the morning. We see today that WorldCom is being charged with fraud after that well-known and once highly respected company, Andersen, moved WorldCom's accounts in a way that concealed £2.6 billion of costs.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I watched the minister thumbing through the budget documents anxiously, but he cannot find a listing for WorldCom in the Scottish budget.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

If the minister were to examine parliamentary answer S1W-22582—I provide the reference number merely to use up a little more time—he might find that Arthur Andersen was a happy recipient of £381,000 from the 2001 budget. My question is whether the fingerprints of accountants on our accounts have led to such successfully inflated outcomes as the outcome that the shareholders of WorldCom have been subjected to.

No less a luminary than Sir David Tweedie, who was lately the chair of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England, posed a question about whether there is a difference between an accountant and a supermarket trolley, to which he gave the answer, "Yes, the trolley has a mind of its own." Accountants have demonstrated considerable imagination in recent times. I am glad to note that the minister enjoyed the joke. The partners in Arthur Andersen are probably not enjoying it.

Are our figures contaminated? Let us look at some of the possible sources of contamination. The Justice 2 Committee discovered that impairment costs were associated with the Scottish Prison Service's costs. What are impairment costs? In business, we would otherwise describe them as depreciation. Business companies properly include such items in their accounts to offset the taxation that they pay. The existence of such items in the Scottish Executive's accounts does not mean that the Executive is spending the money in question or that it is offsetting taxation. The presence of such items is simply confusing.

The problem does not affect only the justice area. Table 8.1 in the annual expenditure report contains a footnote to the entry on motorways and trunk roads:

"Includes capital and depreciation charges for the existing trunk road and motorway network".

We have spent the money already and we will not spend it again. Has that been done just to inflate the numbers so that they look a little better, or have we used accountants such as Arthur Andersen who are as numerically illiterate as the tribe in Papua New Guinea that has only three numbers—one, two and more? As a mathematician, I have the googolplex, which is the world's largest number.

That is what happens when one is given half an hour and one has written a three-minute speech.

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

It is absolutely not essential to take half an hour.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

On a serious note, I turn to an issue that emerged from the justice budget and which reveals a lack of joined-up thinking. We welcome the introduction of drug treatment orders and the priority that is being given to people in the criminal justice system who need treatment for their drug habit. The difficulty is that that is happening at the expense of people outside the criminal justice system. An increase in expenditure for drug treatment for people within the criminal justice system should be matched by corresponding increases of expenditure elsewhere.

There is a degree of confusion in the budget, particularly in relation to the handling of depreciation. I look forward to hearing how the minister plans to handle that in future years.

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

Before we move to wind-up speeches, I should say to the whips that we are running about 20 minutes ahead of time, in spite of the efforts of Mr Stevenson. I expect that we will reach the Police Reform Bill shortly after 12 o'clock.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am slightly concerned to be winding up so early, as the final 20 minutes of the debate is not happening and I usually spend that period preparing my winding-up speech. I will do my best.

I am afraid that, once again, SNP members have breached one of their promises: they promised to liven up the debate, but they have failed to do so. However, earlier on, I did get an interesting image—of mild-mannered Brian Adam, Independence Man, dashing into a telephone box, stripping off and coming out in a single leap to stop the free-fall of the stockmarkets, clean up the international accounting trade and prevent the bankruptcies of Enron and WorldCom; all with the stroke of independence. Then, after breakfast, he would deal with world poverty and global warming.

In reality, however, the SNP did not come up with any alternatives for the budget. It is disappointing that committees have again gone through a budget process without hearing alternative ideas from the Opposition parties. David Davidson spoke about concentrating on the technicalities, but we do not hear the alternatives so that we can judge them.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am not sure whether Iain Smith was in the chamber when Christine Grahame presented some views that came out of considerations of the justice budget. Those views were constructive and I am sure that Jim Wallace, the Minister for Justice, will want to read them carefully. Once again, we have some SNP ideas to help the Lib Dems on justice issues.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I do not think that Jim Wallace needs any help from the SNP on the justice budget; he is perfectly capable of working on it himself.

There has been a disappointing lack of radical suggestions on the budget, yet it is up to us—the members of the various committees and of the Parliament—to make such suggestions. That is not happening.

I will concentrate primarily on the Local Government Committee's report. David Davidson criticised it, but it addresses some fairly important issues. There is a mismatch between the present budget process—which was set up as an annual process—and the fact that we now have, in effect, annual budgeting every three years through the spending review process.

Local government's budgets for the next three years will be fixed by the spending review in the summer and autumn and not by the budget process that we are currently going through, which deals with the details. The committee was concerned because evidence from the likes of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers was actually more about the spending review than about the budget documents. That made it difficult for us to make a proper judgment on the budget process.

I hope that the Finance Committee will consider how the Parliament engages in the spending review process. At the moment, it is an Executive exercise and not a Parliament exercise. The Parliament has to be involved if it is meaningfully to shape Scottish spending over the next three years and over the rolling three years thereafter.

The way in which the local government budget is considered contains a fundamental problem. That budget represents one third of the Scottish spending block and provides some of the key services to the public—education, social work, community care, transport, roads and the police and fire services. All those things are dealt with through the Scottish block, but the Local Government Committee does not have the opportunity to consider how the funding matches the spending needs of local authorities.

It is not the Local Government Committee's responsibility to consider whether the education budget is delivering the Parliament's priorities on education, or whether the social work budget is meeting needs in community care and other social services. Those matters are the responsibility of individual subject committees which, naturally, tend to address the central services rather than the amount of money that goes to local government. We need to look into that, because we are not answering the question whether local government's spending needs are being properly met by the present budget process.

The Local Government Committee has suggested that an additional budget document may be required, to show the match between the spending on services in local government and the funding that is available through aggregate Exchequer finance, rates and council tax.

I wonder whether, when summing up, the Conservatives will explain how they would fund a cut in business rates. Will they demonstrate that they understand that the reason for the uniform business rate being different in Scotland and in England is that, in England, there has been a revaluation?

We are not now on the same base, as we were when the UBR was introduced. Scotland has not had the same revaluation, so the UBR is different here. We should be examining comparisons of like with like premises, not debating whether the rate poundage is the same north and south of the border.

The Local Government Committee also considered concerns about the capital budget. We all welcome the move towards prudential budgeting, which may help to address those concerns, but some serious issues remain. I am delighted with this week's announcement on education spending through the private finance initiative. That substantial boost in education spending will help to address the long-term backlog in capital spending.

The Local Government Committee also raised the important issue of national insurance contributions. I hope that the Executive will address that in its submissions to the Westminster Government on the comprehensive spending review. We welcome the substantial new funding for health, although the mechanism that Gordon Brown has chosen to deliver it will mean that it will be subsidised by other public services—unless the money is found elsewhere.

Local government estimates that, next year, it will cost £40 million to £50 million to meet the increased national insurance contributions. That money might be going to boost health services, but why should other local services suffer as a result of cuts, or increases in council tax? It is not right that we meet increased spending on health at the expense of other essential public services. I hope that the Executive will address that issue and that it will talk to Gordon Brown about redressing the balance before next year's budget comes into place.

I commend the report of the Finance Committee to the Parliament and I hope that the Executive will consider the individual committee reports carefully.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I pay credit to my fellow members of the Finance Committee, especially the newer ones who have worked hard to get themselves up to speed on such a difficult, technical and time-consuming process. We were aided by the work of Arthur Midwinter, to whom I must pay great credit. I agree with members who have said that, this year, we have heard robust evidence from excellent witnesses. The ministers have also been as open as they can be. I do not expect ministers to know all the numbers—or for all the numbers to add up.

Ministers have been robust and honest where they can. There has been a change in culture that means that senior civil servants are happy to answer sensible questions, as long as there is a minister sitting next to them to take the blame. That is a refreshing development in the process, although, as I am sure Iain Smith will agree, some problems remain.

I want briefly to reply to Christine Grahame. I know that the justice committees made two or three specific costed proposals and that some other committees have taken a similar approach, but I was talking about the principle and whether that is the best way in which to do things. Committees have approached the process in different ways.

The minister opened with the comment that things have changed because we now have three-year budgets that are completely adjusted as the spending review, the Barnett consequentials and other money come through. There is nothing new in that. That is what used to happen before we had the Scottish Parliament: the Secretary of State for Scotland, depending on their quality, would go off and fight the cause and come back with some money. I know that the nationalist party did not like that arrangement either.

The minister referred to the consultation process. I repeat the comments of earlier speakers: there is nothing to show that the evidence from the consultation has turned into a policy line spending direction. The Executive has a role in taking all the evidence and being seen and understood to be delivering on what people are seeking. Members who have commented on EYF should remember that EYF is a one-off payment, not core funding. As I said yesterday, EYF is a sticking plaster. Further to the comments of Jamie Stone, Mary Scanlon and others, I must point out that the small amount of money going into the roads budget results in, literally, a little piece of tar on a road. That money amounts to a few pieces of tar on a few roads. The committee reports called for a fundamental move to tackle the maintenance problems of our roads and the transport network.

Like Brian Adam, I am a great fan of getting something done in the north-east. We must invest in serious projects that will—to pick up on Alex Neil's point—facilitate wealth creation. There is too much talk about putting out social spending, which seems to be on the top of everyone's wish list. We must create wealth and it must be sustainable. People will get health benefits and so on from being in employment; they will have money to spend.

I failed to mention in my earlier speech that the Social Justice Committee's report included a comment about investment in the voluntary sector not being transparent enough. We all meet people from the voluntary sector who do a fantastic job. If a value were put on the collective activities of the voluntary sector in Scotland, the sector would be worth somewhere between £5 billion and £6 billion, which is 25 per cent of the current Scottish block grant. All of that comes down to small amounts of investment that are strategically placed, but the investment has a huge, huge leverage effect.

I am concerned about the voluntary sector. When the health service in Grampian was squeezed for money under the Arbuthnott formula, £18 million was taken out of investment in the voluntary sector. I say to the minister that we need joined-up thinking; we need to examine where the money goes and what we get for it.

The oil and gas tax has been mentioned. I regularly advise the shadow Treasury team. When the tax on the oil industry was introduced, I advised the team and it held on to my original advice. My advice on the subject now is that when the team comes to draw up its budgets after the Conservatives have taken power again, I expect the tax to be abolished. At the moment, that decision is in the hands of the chancellor. The recommendation from the Scottish Conservative party and me to the chancellor is to abolish the tax.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I thank David Davidson for clarifying the advice that he gave the shadow Treasury team, although I have to say that Conservative policy is still not clear. In the meantime, should not the money that is raised from the windfall tax be earmarked for spending in Scotland?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The tax should not be raised in the first place. We have to spend money in Scotland on supporting retraining and investment in new jobs in the sector. That money will have to come directly out of the budget for which the minister is partly responsible.

I notice that, for the third year running, Brian Adam told us the recycled joke about shuffling the deck chairs. It is a shame that the SNP does that. We are not in a straight debate with a minister about what he is going to do with his money. If we are to debate the budget process, we have to talk about shuffling deck chairs, but it is possible to do that effectively. The process is about cake cutting, but above all we need to consider investment. When a Government has something to invest, we need to debate the process. I am not sure how the subject of independence can be brought into that particular argument, but at least Brian Adam is consistent.

Alex Neil mentioned wealth creation and Alex Fergusson mentioned the good report that was produced by the Rural Development Committee. All the committee reports flag up issues for the Government. When we return from the summer recess and we move on to the next stage of the budget debate, I hope that we will debate the substance and not the process. I also hope that the minister will have specific comments to make on all the committee reports and that a full report will result from the massive tome that the committees have produced this year. Such a report should focus clearly on what the Executive has taken from the budget scrutiny process and what it intends to do with the evidence. The three-year budget process gives the Executive an opportunity to discuss three years' movement and not simply to give a knee-jerk reaction for short-term gain in advance of the next election, which is sneaking gently up on us.

Other members have made good comments. I have to accept, grudgingly, that Iain Smith made some of them. It is not his normal style to agree with anything I say, but he made a good comment today about the mapping of local government finance. That could be part of the process of getting into the debate, which the Parliament should have, about deciding what local government is responsible for. We heard about those problems in the report from the Local Government Committee, but other committees take responsibility for local government services such as education.

A debate needs to be held about where responsibility for certain aspects of delivery of community care lies. Should delivery of community care be more clearly focused on the primary care trusts to make the service more inclusive or should some delivery continue to be made as part of local government services? We need to have that grown-up debate. We expect COSLA to make the comments it made—it is, after all, a bit like a trade union for the authorities that care to join it—but it is concerned deep down about the future and about the building blocks that are laid with the investment that is made.

At the moment, any investment that we might receive from companies, individuals and so on is hard-earned money. People in Scotland are deprived and there are deprived areas even in Aberdeen. We do not acknowledge that, because the current formulaic approach is based on the attitude that nothing can be wrong if the headline figure for unemployment is at a certain level. People want the Parliament to get inside the budget and to find out how we ensure that everyone in Scotland has fair access to facilities and services. That needs to happen on a sustainable basis, not through some weird and wonderful bid for a capital grant that is not backed up by anything sustainable. I hope that some of the committees will address that issue over the next year.

This has been a fairly good-humoured debate. I know that we are all supposed to be going off on a break of some sort or other. I hope that, when we come back after the summer, we will be sufficiently refreshed to take on board the work that the minister will be carrying out during the recess.

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

Picking up from where David Davidson finished off, I am very glad to speak at this climactic event in the parliamentary year. I am sorry that no Labour back benchers wish to take part in the debate on their own Government's budget. I suspect that they will give us the same reason that Helen Liddell gave after Labour narrowly held the Hamilton South by-election, which was that Labour voters were so happy that they did not bother to turn out to vote. I take it that the same can be said of Labour back benchers and this budget.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

They were all at a party last night.

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

Ah, well. That explains it.

The convener of the Finance Committee talked about the improved presentation of the AER document that is before us. We welcome that, and indeed notice the year-on-year improvement in the document. One of the consequences is that, besides the experience that the committees are now receiving, we have for the first time been able to make suggestions for changes to the budget. It will be interesting to hear the Executive's response to the committees' concrete suggestions. However, although the budget process is beginning to be meaningful, we should not indulge in an orgy of self-congratulation—we clearly have some way to go.

In his opening speech, David Davidson expressed some disappointment with the committees' recommendations. We have to be a bit realistic, especially at this stage in the Parliament. As all the committees have an Executive majority, there is a limit to the extent to which any committee can overturn the Executive's budget rather than adjust it at the margins. The Finance Committee has already received indications from Professor Arthur Midwinter, who has been lauded by the committee convener and others, that year after year we will adjust many aspects of the budget at the margins.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

It is true that the committees are not likely to overturn the Executive's budget, but I refer the member—and perhaps the minister—to pages 254 and 255 of the budget report, which details the Transport and the Environment Committee's response to the budget. That committee has asked some pretty fundamental questions about the links between policy objectives, the financial means of delivery and the ways in which choices about allocation are made. The document demonstrates that the committees are carrying out very serious work and are asking fairly fundamental and challenging questions.

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

I was not seeking to demean the committees' contributions in any way. In fact, I am going to quote from the Transport and the Environment Committee's budget report.

However, I want first to cover the business of public consultation. Although such consultation has been valuable—indeed, the people in Orkney this year made some valuable contributions—it was obvious from meetings in Orkney and last year in Kirkcudbright that local organisations find it difficult to relate directly to the budget documents. Although they might have perceptions about what is right or wrong with their lives and some general idea of the link between that and Government policy, they find it by no means obvious how to relate such perceptions to some of the budget's specifics.

We have a bit of work to do to improve our consultation on a lot of the detail of the budget. In relation to specific recommendations on the budget, the Justice 1 and Justice 2 Committees made some interesting proposals for changes in expenditure. I am keen to see what comes out of that.

The Transport and the Environment Committee is particularly concerned about the underspend in the transport budgets and worried that the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services and his officials were unable to provide any accurate estimate of the underspend at the end of 2001-02. That committee said that it did not find the department's approach helpful in that regard, and that

"the Committee is more than willing to champion the cause of the transport budget—provided the evidence exists—but it is difficult to engage in the process when the Committee is in the dark over one of the key variables in the equation, namely the likely level of underspend."

When a committee feels that it is unable to carry out what it feels is its primary responsibility, we have a duty to examine that and see what can be done to help.

Many members have alluded to the recommendation that road maintenance should be taken up and talked over with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We are all aware of the problem with our non-trunk roads in nearly every region of Scotland. It is a bit rich for the Conservatives to complain about that, given the fact that pressure on local government finance over decades, at the behest of Conservative Governments, got us into the current situation.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will Mr Morgan give way?

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

No. I think we have heard enough from Mr Davidson today.

The Rural Development Committee talked about the difficulty it experienced trying to identify what is actually going on in the rural development budget, because most rural development activity is not within the budget of the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department. The Rural Development Committee asked that the Finance Committee institute a cross-cutting investigation into rural development. I am sure that that is one suggestion that the Finance Committee—at least those of us who are spared after the next election—will take up. I look forward to participating.

Various members of the Local Government Committee mentioned the need for the Executive to address the implications of the increase in national insurance charges. That is something the Finance Committee picked up on, and to which Peter Peacock responded. At least we have had a year's grace to make the adjustments, but the chancellor in London could have made the changes come in this year and we would have had no grace to adjust our budgets to take account of the extra expenditure that would have been forced on our health boards and local authorities by a decision of the chancellor at Westminster. That highlights the need for us to control taxation here in Scotland, so that we can do the full job of budget scrutiny. That is a point that Alex Neil made eloquently and elegantly in his speech.

Peter Peacock talked about the spending review, but any spending review in Scotland is only a consequence of the comprehensive spending review at Westminster. Whatever decisions we make in Scotland are simply a hand-me-down from the people who have the real power and make the real decisions down in Westminster.

The minister referred to the Barnett formula. The phraseology he used seemed to imply that we should all be grateful for the Barnett formula, but we must be clear about the fact that the Barnett formula simply determines how much of our own money we get back from the Westminster Exchequer. The answer is, of course, less than 100 per cent.

Getting back into consensual mode, I would like to draw the minister's attention to the first two recommendations of the Finance Committee's report. In particular, I ask him to consider how the additional funding will be spent this year and what outputs it will provide, and to explain how those decisions advance the Executive's spending review. That is what we want when the draft budget is published this year.

If we are to do our job properly, it is essential that we know about the additional funding and what specifically it is meant to achieve. That is an essential part of our being able to provide the kind of scrutiny that we are meant to provide. I hope that the minister will respond to that. I commend the report to the Parliament.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Many good points have been made in the debate and I shall try to pick up as many as I can. Several members—Iain Smith, Alasdair Morgan, David Davidson, Alex Fergusson, Christine Grahame and others—have asked for an assurance that we will respond to all the points that are raised in the Finance Committee's report. I give that undertaking. We will look at the report in detail, consider the suggestions and come back over the coming months with responses to all the points that it raises.

Christine Grahame raised a point about the justice budget having declined. It has not declined. One of the technicalities in the budget is the distinction between TME and DEL—totally managed expenditure and departmental expenditure limits. The actual cash spend on justice has risen. I am happy to write to Christine Grahame to explain the detail of that.

Other points were made constructively. Alex Neil made a point about the careers service budget moving to within Scottish Enterprise and about the need to continue to identify that. We will consider that and see whether we can continue to show that in a helpful way. We will also consider the presentation of the venture capital fund. Reference must also be made to Scottish Enterprise's documents and accounts, however. It is not possible to contain every detail in our own budget documents and keep them to a manageable size, but we will do what we can.

I disagree with Alex Neil's point that, despite all the expenditure in the budget, the outcomes are getting worse for Scottish people. That is not and cannot be the case. Waiting times are being reduced, waiting lists are being addressed, crime rates are falling, detection rates are rising, school attainment levels are rising, more jobs are being created and there is less unemployment. Those are exactly the kinds of outcomes that the Scottish people are looking for. Therefore, it is simply hyperbole to suggest that that is not happening.

Jamie Stone made good points about the improvements in the budget process. He said that the process is much more open and consultative than it used to be, that people can get involved and that ministers now engage not just with the local government community but with the public at large. He is right to draw attention to the fact that the process is improving.

Jamie Stone also drew attention to the need to increase investment in roads, bridges and so on, and his comments were echoed by other members. That matter has come up in our recent consultations and it is one of the issues that we will address through the spending review. Nevertheless, we have done a lot on that front already. A couple of years ago, £70 million was added to the local government settlement to increase expenditure on local roads and, at the end of the last financial year, a further £20 million was added to help that process. Yesterday, £95 million of end-year flexibility money was announced for local authorities, in part to address those issues. Those matters are not just being considered; they are being acted on—that is the important thing. Jamie Stone also raised questions about the way in which we monitor that spend and its impact. We are spending time with local authorities, trying to establish outcome agreements so that we can jointly agree what we are seeking for the expenditure and then monitor the progress towards those outcomes.

Brian Adam was positive for fully 30 to 45 seconds in his opening speech before he slipped back into rhetoric about the powers of the Parliament. Instead of focusing on what we can do with the powers that we have and the £22 billion of expenditure that is at our disposal, he chose to focus on what we cannot do. He proceeded to complain that the Parliament does not have control over the world's stock markets. What an extraordinary thing to say. He also said that we are unable to control the effect of the stock markets on international pension funds and that, somehow, international corporate fraud would end if only we had independence. Stewart Stevenson then implied that we are responsible, in some way, for American accountancy standards. It is utterly bizarre to suggest that giving the Scottish Parliament more powers or giving Scotland independence would automatically solve the problems of international fraud, American accountancy standards and the world's stock markets.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the minister give way?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

How can I resist? It is an enormous thrill to be intervened on by Stewart Stevenson. I can barely contain myself. It is an honour and privilege to be intervened on by one so great, who has had so many life experiences and jobs. For him to intervene on me is beyond expression. I wonder whether, in his intervention, Stewart Stevenson will answer the rumour—one of several that are circulating in the Parliament—that he was the first man on the moon.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am sure the budget for that would not have been sufficient if the Scottish Executive had been providing it, as with so many other things.

I have serious questions on two matters that the minister has covered in his speech. Will he assure members that when he says that the justice budget has risen he has taken account of the so-called impairment costs for each of the years to which I referred in my speech? Will the minister also confirm that in employing international accountants—the Executive has employed five companies over the past four years—the Executive and its civil servants took the decision to employ those companies?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

As I have said, I am happy to give Christine Grahame an answer to her question about justice and I will copy that to Stewart Stevenson. My answer will take account of his point about impairment, which is one of the reasons for the technical adjustment.

On the point about international firms, to suggest that the Scottish Executive is complicit in a conspiracy about international accountancy firms lowering their standards to mask figures in the Scottish budget is ludicrous and beyond belief. It is complete and utter nonsense. That was the implication of what Stewart Stevenson said. Again, it is ridiculous to suggest that if the Scottish Parliament were independent, it could sort out all those problems.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will come to Mr Adam in a moment because I am just going to refer to something that he said.

Brian Adam gave a critique of—or rather he moaned about—yesterday's EYF announcement. As always happens with the SNP, good news from this side of the chamber resulted in glum faces on its side of the chamber. However, the SNP's record on EYF is riddled with confusion and contradictions. Yesterday Alasdair Morgan issued a statement that mentioned an underspend. There is no underspend in the way he described. Alasdair Morgan knows that there was no underspend and Brian Adam agreed with the evidence we gave to the Finance Committee on what EYF comprises. There was planned provision for future spending from which Scotland benefits.

Alasdair Morgan's press statement also mentioned the figure of £750 million as being the underspend for last year. He got the figure wrong. I have a cigarette packet here that I am happy to pass to Alasdair Morgan to help him to work out the figures. There is plenty of space on the back of it. The Opposition spokesman should be depending on the right figures, although a fruit basket might be more appropriate in view of what Christine Grahame said about apples and pears helping to sort out the budget.

Not only are those things wrong and in contradiction of the facts, but Andrew Wilson—

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Where is Andrew Wilson?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I do not know where Andrew Wilson is and I am no longer clear about whether he is the SNP's finance spokesman. However, in his recent economic paper, Andrew Wilson said:

"The release of finances for re-direction through EYF will be the key to any specific spending commitments."

In others words, while the SNP moans about what we did yesterday to give money to Scottish councils and priority services, and it says that we underspend when we do not, it plans to use EYF more than we have been using it already. The SNP is riddled with contradictions and difficulties.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

rose—

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

Will the minister give way?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will give way to Alasdair Morgan.

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

The minister should have heard what I said yesterday when I was questioning the Minister for Finance and Public Services. I said that we have no problem with the concept that once there is an underspend, it can be carried forward to the next year and used sensibly. End-year flexibility and underspend are entirely different. End-year flexibility is the way in which the underspend is used. The question is whether the underspend should have been so big.

While we are on the subject, will the minister tell members when an underspend becomes a planned underspend? Is it in April, May, June or December? Does the minister even know when it is happening?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The point that we are consistently making is that EYF is a positive thing because it allows us to plan for peaks in future expenditure by carrying money forward over a year end. If we were simply to spend all that money in a given year, the money would not be there for a peak in expenditure and in the year that peak expenditure was required, we would have to cut into baseline expenditure. EYF is a sensible and planned use of resources and that is why we use it.

Alex Neil and Alasdair Morgan also referred to Gordon Brown's budget and its paucity, as they would say. However, Andrew Wilson disagrees with them again. In his economic policy and positioning paper released in April this year, he said that the key to any specific spending commitments that the SNP makes will be

"an assessment to the flexibility of new funds that come on stream following this summer's CSR."

So the SNP is just waiting for Gordon Brown's bounty of new cash for Scotland to decide how it wants to spend it. The SNP does not have, as Iain Smith said, any alternative thoughts on the Scottish budget, nor do the Tories.

Apart from the helpful suggestions at the absolute margins of the budget, missing from the debate have been SNP or Tory plans on how they would do things differently. Both parties appeal to this country to be elected on the basis that they would manage Scotland differently and better, yet there is no sign of how they would do things differently or better. What items of expenditure would they increase within the fixed budget? How would they finance those items of expenditure, and what other items of expenditure would they reduce? They imply that the system could be run more efficiently, but there has not been a single illustration of where or how it could be run more efficiently. Most of this is a combination of fantasy and fuzzy maths. That is the truth of the matter.

We now have a situation in which Alasdair Morgan feels compelled to argue against the benefits of the Barnett formula. The Barnett formula is simple, fair and easy to administer. It avoids annual wrangling within the UK between the four home countries, which is exactly what the SNP seeks—to have us wrangling with our neighbours and friends across the border. The formula allows Westminster, Stormont, Cardiff and Edinburgh to get on with what they should be doing, which is governing effectively and delivering good public services and not becoming involved in constant constitutional wrangling. The formula gives us the freedom to make our own choices in distributing funding. It provides the same increase pound for pound per head of population as in England, and it delivers for Scotland spending levels per head that are well above those in England.

Our budget proposals, which are the subject of the debate, provide record levels of spending. That spending will address the priorities of the Scottish people. It will make lives better throughout Scotland, through better education for young people, better health care for all our people, improved and improving transport connections, job opportunities and the dignity that work brings, and communities that are safer from crime. Our budget proposals make provisions for those priorities and much more. I look forward to working with the Parliament during the year to refine and deliver on those budget priorities.

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

I call Elaine Thomson to wind up for the Finance Committee.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

As the Parliament moves into its third budgeting cycle, it increasingly seems like it is summer time, therefore it is the stage 1 budget debate. I dare say that it is a key annual date. I am sure that Jamie Stone has it pencilled in his diary, as he is so enthusiastic.

One of the innovations that was introduced by the Finance Committee two years ago was increased consultation with Scotland outside Edinburgh. One of the benefits that that affords is the opportunity to see different parts of Scotland in the summer, when they look at their best.

This year, the Finance Committee took evidence from a range of organisations in Orkney. A clear message was received by the committee, and no doubt by the Minister for Finance and Public Services, about the issues that affect Orkney. In particular, we heard how transport is becoming ever more important and how the adequacy or otherwise of transport links impacts on almost every aspect of island life. It is vital that the Parliament understands clearly how issues affect communities, in particular when deciding on something as crucial as the Scottish budget. It matters how the budget is constructed and how priorities are made.

For the financial year 2003-04, the Scottish budget has continued to increase in real terms. Over the three-year period 2001-02 to 2003-04, TME has increased in real terms by 6.6 per cent, or £1.3 billion, which gives us a total budget of £22 billion. The Scottish Executive has made clear its priorities for spending—investing to provide effective public services and building an infrastructure in Scotland that is fit for the 21st century.

Significant steps are being taken by subject committees to scrutinise the budget. Advisers are assisting each committee and members of the Finance Committee have acted as reporters on the subject committees to assist them with the budget process. As has been said, increasingly large numbers of witnesses are participating in the budget process, either via the subject committees or this year, for the first time, directly with the Finance Committee. We took evidence from the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the CBI, some economic specialists and the Scottish Civic Forum.

This year, for the first time, we are beginning to move away from presentational issues towards discussing and making recommendations on budget choices. However, a number of issues remain that relate to the timing of the budget process and events that occur subsequent to the publication of the budget documents. Iain Smith raised some of those issues and spoke about how they impact on local government. The budget documents are published and a number of events then happen which, however welcome, have an impact on the information that is available to the Parliament. This year, there were consequentials from the UK budget. Yesterday, extra resources were made available as a result of this year's EYF. Later this summer, there will be the 2002 spending review. All those will affect the stage 2 budget process, as extra resources are added to the Scottish budget. That has led the Finance Committee to make recommendations on having more information about baseline figures. New financial proposals should come forward with more information about outputs.

This year, as a result of the UK budget, some 50 per cent more resources will be available to spend on health. The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing, which was ably prepared by Murray McVicar, makes it clear that that will add a further £224 million in financial year 2003-04 and £858 million in 2004-05, and that that will rise to an extra £3.2 billion in 2007-08. The Finance Committee discussed the proposals for the increased health budget in Orkney and whether health budget consequentials should go into health, but not necessarily straight into the NHS budget. The committee welcomes that approach and accepts that it is a Scottish solution to a Scottish problem and wholly consistent with the principles of devolution.

Increasingly, committees are producing more thoughtful and detailed reports on budget issues. The Health and Community Care Committee, for example, has made it clear that there are still issues to do with the transparency of the health budget and the need for the publication of health board allocations and budgets to aid that transparency. Mary Scanlon raised some of those issues this morning.

The Finance Committee has made further recommendations in respect of health that relate to delaying the implementation of the Arbuthnott formula to general medical services as a result of problems in the rolling out of the McCrone settlement. I look forward to seeing what happens.

Other committees are coming forward with different budgeting options. The Local Government Committee, for example, is concerned about the implications of national insurance increases. This morning, Alex Neil made proposals on the enterprise and lifelong learning budget and Alex Fergusson outlined clear proposals in respect of the rural development budget to support the Scottish fishing industry. Christine Grahame discussed the need for greater funding for the justice portfolio.

The Finance Committee and I welcome the minister's continued willingness to work effectively with the subject committees and the Finance Committee to discuss and understand issues and to help the Parliament to move towards outcome-based budgeting, which members have mentioned. I think that we all agree that we wish to go in that direction.

I also welcome the minister's commitment to continue to work towards equality proofing the budget. The committee is keen on the development of clearer definitions and on the development of a mechanism to ensure that the equality strategy is reflected in budgeting allocations. The committee and I look forward to the outcome of the discussions that the Executive will hold with the Equal Opportunities Committee and the results of the work of the equality proofing advisory group and others who are interested in the area, such as Engender. It is clear that instant solutions in that area, as in many other areas, are not instantly available.

Whatever its faults, the Scottish budgeting process is at the leading edge of budgetary processes that are used by Parliaments. A lot of time and effort is going into the Scottish budget process on the part of many people within and outwith the Parliament. Increasingly, it is building a sound basis for the scrutiny of financial decisions that I am sure will grow and develop. As Jamie Stone and others have mentioned, the level of scrutiny that is possible now is several light years away from what was possible in pre-devolutionary years. As Jamie Stone said, input from ordinary people is vital. That, together with the ability of the budget to deliver for the people of Scotland, will be one of the touchstones for the success of the Scottish Parliament and I commend this year's budget report to the chamber.

Police Reform Bill

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3237, in the name of Jim Wallace, on the Police Reform Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. I call Richard Simpson to speak to and move the motion.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

On 30 January, the Scottish Parliament approved a Sewel motion on the Police Reform Bill. Today's supplementary motion concerns some additional specific provisions to close a loophole in the existing sex offender order system and to do so in a way that is consistent across the United Kingdom. The need for that consistency is why it makes sense in this case to deal with this legislation in the UK Parliament. To do otherwise would mean continuation for a period of the current position under which sex offender orders that are made in one part of the UK are not enforceable in another part of the UK, and a delay in changes to introduce greater flexibility to the application process. I do not believe that either of those results would be in the public interest. We have a duty to do all that we can to protect individuals, families and communities. Not to approve these provisions would be to take an unacceptable risk with people's lives.

Members might remember the publicity surrounding a certain case earlier this year. In that case, an individual who was subject to a sex offender order in England moved to Scotland. That order did not apply in Scotland and the police here had to seek a new order. They did so quickly and effectively and with the minimum of fuss. However, suppose another offender, also subject to an order, were to come across the border unannounced. There would be nothing to stop that individual doing in Scotland what he has been banned from doing south of the border. That is the legal loophole that we want to close.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Given the nature of the proposal, does the minister regard the matter as urgent? If it is urgent, would it not be better to deal with it in Scotland?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I am grateful to the member for raising that highly specious point that is the basis of the SNP's opposition to the motion. If we dealt with this matter with a separate bill, we would go through a consultation process and the committee stages, which would take an equal length of time to the time that is being taken by the UK legislation. More important, if our measure came into effect before the UK legislation and was not wholly consistent with it, there would be an opportunity for sex offenders to move across the border and we would have to amend the act further. On both those grounds, this is, par excellence, a situation in which the Sewel motion should apply.

The bill offers the quickest way to close the legal loophole in a way that covers the whole of the UK. That is the right way forward. I am pleased that agreement has been reached quickly between the Scottish Executive, the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office. I point out to Mr Adam that it is important that consistency is achieved not only with England but with Northern Ireland, because, although there are 170 sexual offenders to whom the order applies in England, there could be a small number in Northern Ireland as well and we would have no idea about it. There is no doubt about the fact that dealing with the matter through a Sewel motion is the right way forward.

As members will be aware, a sex offender is defined as someone who has been convicted of an offence to which part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 applies, or an equivalent offence abroad. Sex offender orders were introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and form an important tool in the management of the most dangerous sex offenders who are living in the community.

If a sex offender has acted in a way that gives reasonable cause to believe that such an order is necessary to protect the public from serious harm from him, the police can apply for an order. The trigger behaviour concerned—such as a sex offender talking to children in public playgrounds—may not amount to an offence that could be prosecuted in its own right, but it must give the police cause for concern.

At present, an application for an order in Scotland is made to a sheriff whose sheriffdom includes any place where it is alleged that the offender has acted in a way that gives reasonable cause to believe that an order is necessary. Under the present arrangements, once an order is in effect, a complaint must be made by the police or the offender to the court that originally granted the order for it to be varied or discharged.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created separate provisions for sex offender orders in England and Wales and in Scotland. Orders are also provided for separately in legislation for Northern Ireland. While the existing system works well for the majority of offenders who are subject to a sex offender order, it has become clear that some real problems can arise when the police have to deal with offenders who move from one part of the country to another or between the separate jurisdictions of the UK.

The changes that are now being proposed across the UK will give the police, including the Scottish police service, greater flexibility in how they apply for sex offender orders and how the orders are amended and discharged. The provisions also extend the jurisdiction of sex offender orders to the United Kingdom as a whole. As a result, the revised system could prohibit the doing of anything anywhere in the United Kingdom, instead of being limited to the jurisdiction in which the orders are created. While some of the prohibitions may relate to specific localities, others may be more general and relevant wherever the offender might be. Breach of any such prohibition, wherever that may occur in the United Kingdom, would be an offence that would be prosecutable in the place in which the breach occurs.

We believe that the use of the Sewel system in this instance is entirely appropriate. It is the best way of achieving our common objectives from the point of view of both consistency and reasonable speed.

I move,

That the Parliament endorses the principle that sex offenders orders made in one jurisdiction within the United Kingdom should be recognised and enforceable throughout the UK with appropriate provisions in place concerning how the orders are applied for, amended and discharged, and agrees that the relevant provisions to achieve these ends should be considered by the UK Parliament in the Police Reform Bill.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I cannot welcome the fact that we are debating the 34 th Sewel motion in the Parliament, and the ninth Sewel motion on a devolved area that relates to criminal justice matters. However, I am sure that most members recognise the need to close the loophole that was highlighted in the Steven Beech case, which affected Grampian police. I am sure that most members agree that few issues create greater public concern than how we deal with sex offenders and ensure that there is sufficient public safety.

However, the matter—

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Get to the constitution.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I ask the member to bear with me.

The matter highlights not only the inefficiencies of the present legislation but the difficulty of dealing with sex offenders. For the price of an £80 flight ticket to Aberdeen, Cambridgeshire police has been able to rid itself of the costly exercise of having to monitor a sex offender.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

May I take it from the member's comments that, in an SNP-governed independent Scotland, the movement of UK citizens would be prohibited?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No, that is not the case. The situation highlights the financial implications for local constabularies. I understand that it is costing Grampian police £200,000 a year to deal with that individual, which highlights both the complexity of the matter and its financial implications.

The question arises whether Westminster is using the best mechanism for closing that loophole by using a Sewel motion. The Police Reform Bill is a House of Lords bill; it is not a House of Commons bill. There is considerable uncertainty over the bill's timetable. I repeat that I am sure that all members recognise that that loophole should be closed, but the clerks who are dealing with the bill at Westminster have stated that it will be extremely difficult to ensure that the bill is passed before Westminster gets away for the summer recess. The loophole could be left open until October, when the House of Commons returns from the summer recess, and the Government has no control over the timetable because the House of Lords will deal with the final stage of the bill.

I am sure that the minister recognises that it is important to close the loophole quickly. We have dealt previously with similarly urgent matters by means of emergency legislation. We did so with the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999 and the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2002. We also had emergency legislation on the Erskine bridge tolls. If legislation for reinstating tolls on the Erskine bridge was considered an emergency matter, closing a loophole in dealing with sex offenders is an even greater priority. The minister should have introduced emergency legislation.

To say that there might be inconsistencies in the drafting of legislation in Scotland shows a lack of confidence in the Executive about being able to draft its legislation. Further, the Home Office has confirmed that drafting instructions, which detail exactly what has to be provided for, have been passed to the Executive. Therefore, the Executive has the information that would allow it to act.

Can the minister give members a guarantee that the loophole will be closed before Westminster rises for its summer recess? If not, is he prepared to come back to Parliament, when we return from the summer recess, to introduce emergency legislation that would allow us to close the loophole, which would ensure public confidence in how we deal with sex offenders in Scotland?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

We strongly support the minister on the Sewel motion. I am sure that we were all concerned to read in the Daily Record of 17 June that people who were guilty of sex crimes and the subject of a sex offender order in England and Wales would escape monitoring by the authorities simply by travelling to Scotland. None of us wants Scotland to become some kind of sex offenders' Gretna Green. I am sure that those in Gretna Green would share that reservation.

The problem was highlighted by the case of a rapist with more than 100 convictions who moved up to Scotland. The same loophole exists for offenders travelling south who are subject to orders in Scotland. If someone who is subject to an English order moves to Scotland, the Scottish police must seek a new order, which takes a great deal of time.

It is imperative that that escape route is removed. We believe that a Sewel motion is the most appropriate way of doing that. Sex offender orders can be made against sex offenders whose behaviour gives rise to reasonable belief that an order is necessary to protect the public from serious harm. By amending the Police Reform Bill, it is hoped that a flexible regime will be in place for amending discharge orders throughout the United Kingdom. We feel that we must do everything possible to provide greater safety and protection for Scots people. I support the motion.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I did not intend to speak in the debate, but I feel that I must respond to the SNP's contribution. The Liberal Democrats support the Sewel motion because we believe in things being done properly and sensibly. The SNP seems to prefer constitutional obsessions to public safety. There is no logic to Richard Lochhead's argument on the subject. However, it is logical for the loophole to be dealt with consistently throughout the United Kingdom.

Even if the Scottish Parliament passed emergency legislation this afternoon—obviously it cannot do so, because no such legislation is on the table—that would not deal with the inconsistencies throughout the United Kingdom. The matter must be dealt with sensibly. The quickest and most logical way of doing that is by Westminster legislation, supported by the Scottish Parliament through a Sewel motion. We should reject the SNP's narrow-minded constitutional obsession on this important matter.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I, like Iain Smith, realise that the SNP has a fixed position of opposing every Sewel motion as a matter of supposed constitutional principle. The arguments and guarantees that Michael Matheson asked for are a smokescreen for the fact that the SNP's only argument is to oppose the Sewel motion in principle.

It is right that Westminster takes the initiative in changing the law to increase its effectiveness, particularly as it concerns the safety of the public at large. Labour and Lib-Dem members care about what happens to citizens in England, Wales and Northern Ireland on this issue. Therefore, it matters to us that we legislate consistently throughout the country. It seems that SNP members are not concerned about that. Mutual recognition is a crucial theme of the Police Reform Bill. The provisions that the minister has outlined are provisions with which the Scottish Parliament cannot argue because they protect public safety.

Richard Simpson's answer to Brian Adam's intervention is the most important point. Even if we could legislate this afternoon, what would be the point? If we have different provisions in Scotland from those in England, that means that the provisions throughout the UK will not be consistent.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

rose—

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

That is a point that Brian Adam does not seem to understand. The amendments to the Police Reform Bill are intended to change the law in two ways. First, they will give the police greater flexibility in how they apply for a sex offender order. That is crucial. I do not think that the Parliament would argue with that flexibility. Communities will benefit from the protection whereby a sex offender order that was granted in England for an offender who is resident in Scotland can be enforced in Scotland.

Other things need to be done, and the provisions in the Police Reform Bill—

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will Pauline McNeill give way?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I am not taking any interventions as a point of principle, because the SNP has no arguments.

Under the new provisions, sheriffs will be able to hear an application for an order if the behaviour took place in their jurisdiction or if the order has been breached. That provision is fundamental.

The SNP should tell us what provisions would be different from those in the Police Reform Bill if we were to debate a bill this afternoon. Brian Adam makes the point, which Richard Lochhead made in his press release in May, that the cost of monitoring Steven Beech is a problem to Scotland. In case the SNP did not know, monitoring sex offenders is a costly business. It is also time consuming. That is why the Parliament is spending so much time on the MacLean report to ensure that we get the provisions right.

The SNP is missing the point once again. The point is that, just as we have to pay the bill for an English offender who lives in Scotland, if a Scottish sex offender lives in England, England foots the bill. Even if there were an imbalance and Scotland were paying more money than England, it is not beyond the Executive's wit to discuss with the Westminster Parliament—

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

rose—

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

It might be beyond Michael Matheson's wit, but it is not beyond the wit of the Scottish Executive ministers to discuss with Westminster how that bill could be better balanced.

I warn the SNP: this is the 34th time that SNP members have stood on their feet and opposed a Sewel motion for the sake of it. Will that be the SNP position for every other Sewel motion that comes before the Parliament? People will be watching. The SNP must be consistent: it must oppose all other Sewel motions. We will be listening to the arguments that it makes. Opposing Sewel motions makes bad law. That is the point that the Parliament should take on board.

On the time that the Police Reform Bill will take, we could not legislate any more quickly. The SNP is arguing that important parliamentary business—some of the business for which the Justice 1 Committee, of which Michael Matheson is a member, wanted parliamentary time—would have to go. What would be the point of that?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I begin by apologising for missing the minister's opening remarks. I was delayed in getting to the chamber today, having returned from Shetland. I will take great delight in responding to some of the comments that the minister's Labour colleagues have made.

I welcome the debate. The issue is sensitive not just for the Parliament but for those in communities throughout Scotland who are concerned about how the Parliament and the Government respond to sex offenders and former sex offenders in our communities.

Let us make no bones about the matter. The bill is before us because of the case of Steven Beech, which is an extreme and high-profile case. Steven Beech has 115 convictions and was front-page headline news throughout England. He was described as England's most notorious sex offender. In spite of that, Cambridgeshire constabulary gave Grampian police 24 hours' notice that it would provide a one-way ticket for that individual, who had chosen to live by the seaside and had chosen Aberdeen on the map.

That is not a satisfactory situation and I do not think that any member of any political party would think that it is.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

So?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

One of the Labour members is shouting "So?" It is an extremely important point. The matter gave Grampian police an enormous headache. They received a phone call telling them—

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will Richard Lochhead give way?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member let me finish the point that I am making? This is an enormous issue for Grampian police, which was given 24 hours' notice of the fact that Steven Beech would be in its patch. Steven Beech is still deemed to pose a risk to the public. Surely that is an important aspect of the debate.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Does the member not agree that the only issue for the SNP is how to get itself out of a hole? The SNP has consistently opposed Sewel motions, even when they have benefited the disabled. Today the SNP is in a hole and is trying to get out of it.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I will return to the point that the member makes about Sewel motions. Today we are here primarily to debate an extremely important and sensitive issue relating to sex offenders and how the Parliament should respond.

The arrival of Steven Beech has created headaches not only for the police. The people of the north-east of Scotland were terrified when they read in the papers that Beech was coming to live in the area. There was a complete outcry—almost every MSP representing the north-east was contacted by members of the public who were concerned about the issue. Huge public concern was expressed, not least by women's organisations in the north-east.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Has the SNP faced those concerns?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I ask the member to let me finish.

We welcome any attempt to close a loophole and protect the public interest, but there are wider issues that the Parliament must address, such as cost. It has been revealed that it may cost the north-east of Scotland £200,000 a year to look after Steven Beech. No one is arguing that a penny of that £200,000 is wasted; it is important that we spend the money. However, is it right that the situation should be allowed to arise without the public authorities in the north-east of Scotland being notified of it? We must take account of the fact that the individual concerned is receiving treatment in the north-east—treatment that he did not receive south of the border. We should discuss with the authorities in England the treatment that is provided to sex offenders.

Michael Matheson argued that the Scottish Parliament should legislate in this area. The Parliament was elected by the people of Scotland and is responsible for justice. Surely we are obliged to legislate on issues such as this, which are important to communities the length and breadth of Scotland. Sewel motions have been abused. They were supposed to be used only rarely. This is an emergency situation, and the Parliament should pass emergency legislation. The man Sewel himself says that he is extremely surprised by how often the Executive uses Sewel motions to get Westminster to legislate on Scotland's behalf.

This is a very sensitive issue on which we should legislate here in Scotland. The people of Scotland elected us to do that, and we should do it today. We owe it to the people in the north-east of Scotland, who continue to be extremely concerned that Steven Beech is living in their community. Despite the fact that his offences were committed south of the border, Scotland is expected to pick up the tab for looking after Steven Beech, who is still deemed to be a risk to the community. We owe it to the people of Scotland to legislate on such matters in the Scottish Parliament.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I welcome the contributions from two thirds of the chamber. The common sense that members have displayed in their interventions and speeches demonstrates that this is an area in which a Sewel motion is entirely appropriate and should be used.

The fact that the bill is in the House of Lords is irrelevant, because that is where it began. The intention is to complete by the end of July, but even if there were slippage—

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

No, I want to finish my point.

The member should remember that although the Scottish Parliament is going into recess now, it is probable that the Westminster Parliament will not go into recess until the end of July. We return in September and Westminster returns in October.

One point that the SNP has failed to address is that of consistency. I am glad to hear that SNP members would be happy to take drafting instructions from the Home Office, which was the implication. However, drafting instructions do not mean that there will not be amendments at a later stage at Westminster, which means that we could end up with an inconsistency between our law and the law there. If there was such an inconsistency, and if a single sex offender got through it, the SNP would be responsible for it, not us. The SNP has failed to answer that point.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister guarantee that the loophole will be closed before October? If not, the Executive will allow people in Scotland to be exposed to sex offenders for four months. I believe that the Executive can deal with the matter more quickly. It has failed to address that point.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I cannot give an absolute guarantee. The SNP's assumption that the Northern Ireland Assembly and the UK Government are any less concerned about the situation than we are is an affront to those Assemblies. The SNP has failed to understand and answer the question of consistency and it has failed to address the situation. I challenge the SNP to vote in favour of the Sewel motion. The SNP should understand that if it does not, we will tell every community in Scotland that it is putting constitutional wrangling before the protection of the public, because that is the truth of the matter.

For Michael Matheson to compare the Erskine bridge tolls with the protection of the public and issues relating to sex offenders is an affront that will not go unnoticed or unchallenged. I suggest to the SNP and its leadership that they stop addressing Sewel motions on the same basis every time and consider each Sewel motion individually. We could then have a rational discussion. The SNP should not oppose this Sewel motion and if it does, we will make it pay.

Scottish Public Services Ombudsman

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

The next item of business is consideration of motions S1M-3244, S1M-3245, S1M-3246 and S1M-3247, on the appointment of a Scottish public services ombudsman and three deputy ombudsmen. Trish Godman will move all four motions en bloc and will speak to them all together.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

On behalf of the cross-party group of members who formed the selection panel, I speak to the motions in my name, which invite members of the Parliament to nominate for approval to Her Majesty the Queen the first Scottish public services ombudsman and three deputies.

The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002, which the Parliament passed recently, makes provision for a Scottish public services ombudsman, who is independent of the Parliament and the Scottish Executive. The new ombudsman is to be appointed by Her Majesty on the nomination of the Parliament and will take over responsibility for the services currently provided by the parliamentary, health service, local government and housing association ombudsmen. The one-stop shop will also take over complaints against Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the mental health complaints with which the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland deals.

Under our standing orders, a selection panel, under the chairmanship of the Presiding Officer, was set up on behalf of the Parliament to consider the appointments. Also on the panel were Brian Fitzpatrick, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Donald Gorrie and Andrew Welsh. I was on the panel in my capacity as the convener of the Local Government Committee, which scrutinised the passage of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002.

An extensive recruitment process was undertaken and I am pleased to report that it attracted a wide range of applicants. The panel was involved in the recruitment process from the outset and I hope that other members will have an opportunity to sit on such a panel. Much work is involved in ensuring that we have candidates who are able to fill such high-profile posts.

As a result of the process, I am pleased to recommend, on behalf of the panel, that the Parliament nominate Professor Alice Brown to be appointed by Her Majesty as the new Scottish public services ombudsman. Professor Brown is vice-principal and co-director of the institute of governance at the University of Edinburgh. She brings to the post extensive knowledge of the public sector, vast experience of community and public life through her membership of many committees and personal attributes that allow us to recommend that she be appointed the first Scottish public services ombudsman. I point out that the terms and conditions of Professor Brown's appointment as ombudsman and of the appointment of her deputies are a matter for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.

The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 also provided for up to three deputy ombudsmen who will undertake their duties on a part-time basis. The calibre of the field was high and it was not easy to make decisions, but I am pleased to recommend, on behalf of the panel, that the Parliament nominate the Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Carolyn Hirst and Eric Drake as deputy ombudsmen.

The Rev Smith, who is the rector at St John's church in Dumfries, brings to the post extensive knowledge of local government, which he has acquired through many years' service as a councillor and convener of Shetland Islands Council. Mr Eric Drake is an employee of the Scottish parliamentary and health service ombudsman. He brings to the post extensive knowledge of complaints about national health service services in Scotland and of the Scottish Executive and other agencies. Ms Carolyn Hirst is Edinvar Housing Association's director of housing services. She brings to the post extensive knowledge of the housing sector.

We believe that the team that we have proposed will prove to be formidable in undertaking a particularly responsible role in helping to shape the complaints system for the people of Scotland. I am sure that all members will wish them every success for the future.

I move,

That the Parliament nominates Professor Alice Brown to Her Majesty the Queen for appointment as the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

That the Parliament nominates Mr Eric Drake to Her Majesty the Queen for appointment as Scottish Public Services Deputy Ombudsman.

That the Parliament nominates Ms Carolyn Hirst to Her Majesty the Queen for appointment as Scottish Public Services Deputy Ombudsman.

That the Parliament nominates Reverend Lewis Shand Smith to Her Majesty the Queen for appointment as Scottish Public Services Deputy Ombudsman.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I warmly welcome Trish Godman's motions. I understand that the successful candidates will have to give their existing employers a period of notice. I express the hope that they will be in a position to start in earnest not long after the recess.

It was extremely refreshing that there were so many applicants of immense ability, talent and expertise. I not only support the motions, but wish those who will be appointed every good fortune and success in dealing with the tasks that lie ahead in their new role.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I add my support for the motions to appoint Alice Brown and the candidates who have been nominated for the post of deputy ombudsman. The process has been good and it has commanded all-party support. I am not aware of the other applicants or of their talents and expertise, which Lord James Douglas-Hamilton described.

I am certain that Alice Brown, with all her experience of governance in Scotland, will be a welcome choice as the Scottish public services ombudsman. I have no doubt that she and her deputies were chosen on merit.

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

Trish Godman has the opportunity to sum up, although she may waive that right if she wishes to.

She has waived that right.

David (None, Lothians)

Before we begin this afternoon's proceedings, I invite members to give a warm welcome to the speaker of the Norwegian Parliament—the president of the Storting—Mr Jørgen Kosmo. [ Applause. ]

Point of Order

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

David (None, Lothians)

Is the point about question time or could it wait until the end of questions?

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

My point of order is about question time.

David (None, Lothians)

Go on.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I seek your guidance on the fact that, at 12 o'clock today—the last plenary day before the recess—the Executive announced the new ferry services for the Clyde and the Hebrides. That announcement is extremely important to many members' constituents. Will you confirm that, under rule 13.8 of standing orders, an emergency question for today's question time would have had to be lodged before 10 am, and that, as the announcement was made at 12 noon, that was impossible? Given the seriousness of the issue, with the removal of services to areas such as Dunoon, is that an appropriate way for the Government to behave? Will you give guidelines for how the Government should behave?

David (None, Lothians)

The member is correct to say that it is too late to lodge an emergency question. The Presiding Officers have considered guidance on Executive announcements; we finalised a paper on the issue only yesterday. The paper will be issued shortly, so I hope that that will please everyone.

I have read the written answer about the ferry services. It leaves open a consultation period until the end of September, during which any member or parliamentary committee can deal with the matter.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to extend proposals to allow NHS boards to withhold medical treatment from repeatedly violent patients to include patients who threaten violence. (S1O-5437)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The draft guidance on violence and aggression covers the threat of violence and intimidation towards NHS staff.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The issue affects not only health care professionals in the NHS. Studies have revealed that violence and the threat of violence are most commonplace against pharmacists. Does the Scottish Executive plan to do anything about that? As I said, general practitioners, nurses and social workers are not the only people who are affected by the problem. Does the Scottish Executive plan to change the law to make an assault against a member of the public sector work force an aggravated assault?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The question is not a matter for me as Minister for Health and Community Care. However, having spoken to the Lord Advocate, I know that violence against NHS staff is taken seriously. I was pleased to launch the guidance last week; it was part of the larger guidance on health at work, which covers many issues. The guidance was developed in partnership, which is a strong feature of the way in which the NHS is run in Scotland.

A key point is that, in the last resort, the right to withhold treatment is available, following warnings in most cases. Obviously, exceptions can be made for people who are not capable or who have serious mental health problems. The last resort measure is to withhold treatment. The announcement last week was widely welcomed.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to introduce a certificate in the management of drug misuse in conjunction with the Royal College of General Practitioners in Scotland. (S1O-5428)

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

We are aware of the certificate in the management of drug misuse that the college has developed. We are considering its relevance to Scotland, in liaison with professional, training and educational organisations.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I press the minister to move on the issue as quickly as possible. The National Assembly for Wales and the Westminster Parliament have adopted the certificate. It is entirely reasonable that GPs in Scotland should have the same access to the required training, because a huge percentage of people who present for primary care services are suffering from drug abuse.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I assure Margo MacDonald that we take the matter very seriously. Scottish training on drugs and alcohol, known as STRADA, is developing a certificate on addiction. That scheme will start in September and will be for all front-line staff who deal with drug problems; it will not be restricted to GPs. Addicts who are looking for a service will have a range of professionals to contact, rather than just a GP.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I join Ms MacDonald in pressing the Executive to act on the matter. Does the minister agree that we must do anything that we can to improve GP training to ensure that the methadone programme is implemented in each health board area as uniformly as possible and that we do not have the kind of variation that currently exists? That is where the certificate and any extra training would be of great help.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The STRADA certificate will encompass as many professionals as necessary. It is crucial that we do not restrict the service to GPs, because it is important that addicts have as many places to go as possible to access services.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action will be taken following publication of the agriculture and environment working group report. (S1O-5424)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

There are 29 recommendations in the agriculture and environment working group's report, which I received last Thursday. The recommendations are varied and wide-ranging and the Scottish Executive will study them with great care. I expect to engage interested stakeholders directly in addressing the issues that the report raises and to ensure its implementation through the work of the agriculture strategy implementation group.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

One of the recommendations is that the rural stewardship scheme should be extended to allow access improvements to qualify for funding. Given the support from all sides for the provision of a core path network, does the minister support that recommendation? Is he aware that not only is the rural stewardship scheme heavily oversubscribed, but the situation is even worse than the statistics show? I am told by my local farming and wildlife advisory group officer that she could put forward at least as many applications again as she does, but does not do so because of the perception that the scheme is so oversubscribed.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The member asks at least two questions. We must put into perspective the total funding that is available under the Scottish rural development programme, which is worth about £685 million over a four-year period. Expenditure on agri-environment improvement schemes has increased from £3 million just before the Executive took office to more than £21 million in the current year. Although I appreciate and acknowledge that there has been a huge increase in demand, the Executive has certainly been putting more money towards the project. Additional moneys are now available through the matched funding in the modulation programme.

On the first question, which was about access, the only difficulty with extending the programme is that currently the rural stewardship scheme and the rural development programme are available only to those who are engaged in agriculture. Any amendment to the scheme would have to take account of that.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Page 34 of the agriculture and environment working group's report states:

"We recognise that the potential use of GM crops is contentious."

Is the minister aware of the European Environment Agency's report No 28 on genetically modified organisms? It states in its conclusions:

"The risk of hybridisation between oilseed rape and some wild relatives, particularly ... is high ... Oilseed rape can be described as a high risk crop for pollen mediated gene flow from crop to crop and from crop to wild relatives."

Will the minister tell the chamber what specific advice he has sought from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment on the findings in the working group's report, given that the GM crop trials that we have in Scotland involve oil-seed rape?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The agriculture and environment working group report states that GM crops are contentious and supports the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission's recommendation for a full, devolved debate on the issue. The report does not rule out GM crops, however—the whole paragraph should be quoted.

Bruce Crawford refers to the two reports. As I have made clear, before ACRE advises ministers on specific crops and locations for which permission is sought, it examines and takes into account all relevant published research material on those crops.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I acknowledge the work that has gone into the agriculture and environment working group's report, but I ask the minister to ensure that Scotland is not left behind on organics. Given that work on action plans on organic food and farming is already under way at the United Kingdom and European levels and that our sister Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland already have action plans, there is a real danger that consumers and producers in Scotland will lose out. Will the minister commit the Scottish Executive to producing an action plan on organic food and farming?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am not about to make a policy commitment in an answer to a supplementary question, but I can say that the working group's report contains a useful passage on organic farming. As I intend to implement the recommendations of that report, organic farming is one matter that will have to be taken seriously.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it remains committed to supporting community councils. (S1O-5427)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Yes.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for that honest answer. However, if that is so, why has the Executive reduced its support in grant funding to the Association of Scottish Community Councils?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

We have supported the Association of Scottish Community Councils for three years through a grant of around £81,000. Originally, that was designed as a tapering grant, but when I spoke at the association's annual conference a couple of weeks ago I said that, because we support community councils, I am sympathetic to considering a further grant application and to extending the funding. I hope that detailed discussions about the matter will take place in August.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

The minister obviously recognises the important role of community councils, but is he aware of the work of Stirling Council, which is committed to extending local democracy through area forums and the Stirling assembly? That gives local people the opportunity to have a strategic overview of services and to have an input into decisions within their communities.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Where there are strong community councils, local councils tend to engage with them and to use them appropriately, as Sylvia Jackson points out. However, the pattern varies enormously. Where the community council network is not so strong, local councils seek to use organisations such as tenants associations and other community groups to engage with communities. The important issue is to find appropriate means of involving community bodies; community councils have a big part in that.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

This afternoon, we will debate the document "Better Communities in Scotland: closing the gap". Given the important role that community councils have in community planning and other matters, will the minister explain why there is no mention of community councils in that document?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The white paper on renewing local democracy, which is currently out for discussion, refers to community councils. We see those councils as part of the local democratic structure. As I said, community councils are—and will remain—a significant method for councils to engage with communities about matters that concern them and their priorities.

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

Many community councils cover areas that were formerly royal burghs. Has the minister considered restoring the rights and privileges of historic royal burghs? In particular, will he consider restoring the title and style of provost?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I know where the question comes from. In Jamie Stone's home town of Tain, there is one Roddy Robertson, who argues consistently for the restoration to Tain burgh council of the fire, police and education services. On a serious note, in my time as a council leader, I encouraged the use of the term "provost" in communities that wanted to use it. In Dornoch, which is a neighbouring town to Tain, the term "provost" is used—I think that the title is given by the local community council. Indeed, in my home town in the Borders—Hawick—the same title is used for ceremonial purposes. It is possible to use the term and that is to be encouraged when people want to use it.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Has the Executive considered extending the powers of community councils by giving them proper budgets and the kind of money-raising powers that parish councils in England have?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

That was one of the issues that was debated at the annual conference of the Association of Scottish Community Councils. There is a clear difference of view about it among community councils. Community councils were established on the basis that they did not carry local responsibility for the delivery of services. That was to leave them free to ascertain, co-ordinate and express the view of the local community to the Government or local council. If they deliver services, they may become the subject of criticism for the way in which they do so. There is by no means a consensus among community councils that they should be granted new powers. However, some local authorities have sought to bestow powers on community councils. Much more power is devolved to local community councils in Shetland and Orkney, for example. It is a matter of local choice.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to revise the fee payable to optometrists in order to take account of extra time needed to conduct an eye test for an adult with learning disabilities. (S1O-5406)

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

No. To date the Scottish Executive has not been approached by the profession or any other body about that issue.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

The minister will be aware of the sterling work that is undertaken by RNIB Scotland's Springfield day service at Bishopbriggs in my constituency. The service helps multiply disabled adults to live as independently as possible. The specialist staff there have a number of times raised with me their concern that the table that currently applies does not reflect the extra time that eye tests for adults with learning disabilities take, with the result that those adults are often overly dependent on the good will of certain optometrists. Does the minister agree that that is unacceptable, given our ambition to ensure that adults with multiple disabilities should have their needs met just the same as his or mine are met and that unidentified visual problems should be reduced and, eventually, eliminated?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am happy to agree with Brian Fitzpatrick on his last point. I would be happy to open up discussion on how to address the concerns raised by the staff at the Springfield service. In addition, the independence of the opt— optomet— opticians—[ Laughter. ] That will teach me for trying to use the appropriate word.

We want to address the issue, which needs to be handled sensitively. Many opticians are capable of addressing the needs of adults with learning difficulties in the same time as they take to deal with the needs of other adults. The issue is to share and extend that good practice to all opticians. I am happy to open dialogue with organisations such as the RNIB to address those concerns.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

When the minister opens up dialogue with optometrists, will he consider revising the fees for domiciliary visits for eye tests, particularly for elderly patients in remote or rural areas?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

When I open up dialogue, I will get the pronunciation correct, too. We are happy to receive any evidence that professional bodies can gather to address the issue of the fees that are payable; we are happy to consider any deliberations on that. In the round, the aim is to address the way in which services are provided for those who enter an optician's. We need to share and extend good practice. Much of the issue is to do with some opticians' uncertainty in dealing with adults with learning difficulties. There does not seem to be any substantial evidence to suggest that, once the initial test is undertaken, any greater time is taken. We need to address the issue of what time threshold to apply initially and I reiterate that I am happy to receive views from professional organisations.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what consideration it is giving to amending police bail conditions. (S1O-5413)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The police in Scotland have no powers to grant bail. Only the courts or the Lord Advocate can do so. Mrs Grahame may be referring to the powers available to the police under section 22 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, whereby the police may liberate a person who

"has been arrested and charged with an offence which may be tried summarily".

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thank the Minister for Justice for correcting me on that. A court bail order can have a curfew condition attached, prohibiting someone who has been charged with an alcohol-related offence from being out between the hours of 7 pm and 7 am, thus denying them the opportunity to reoffend. Will the minister consider attaching a similar curfew condition to police bail, which the police have indicated to me would be a simple but effective measure?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Police liberation is at the discretion of the officer in charge of the relevant police station, with or without an undertaking by the accused to appear at a specific time before a specific court. That is very different from the standard conditions attached to bail as issued by the courts. The Lord Advocate issues the police guidelines on the subject. I am not aware that he currently has any plans to change those guidelines in any material way.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the Minister for Justice kindly confirm that priority will be given to witness protection from intimidation and violence when the persons accused of violent offences and crimes are released on bail?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Giving protection to witnesses and victims is an important part of our criminal justice system. We are evaluating the work of our police forces in extending adequate protection to witnesses and to victims of crime. For instance, the Strathclyde police unit that deals with such issues has been commended for its work.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Does the Minister for Justice agree that we should generally be more adventurous in the use of bail conditions? For instance, in my constituency, exclusion orders have been successful in excluding shoplifters from the entire city centre; the absence of those shoplifting offenders has made whole shopping centres easier to police.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As Pauline McNeill knows, a number of standard conditions are attached to bail. For example, the person must not commit an offence while on bail and must not appear with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. Of course, the courts or the Lord Advocate can specify additional conditions, such as those that Pauline McNeill has suggested. Given those circumstances, I do not think that there is any limitation on what conditions of bail can be issued as long as they are appropriate to the particular case. However, that is a matter not for the justice department but for the Lord Advocate or the courts. I am, of course, always willing to entertain Pauline McNeill's suggestion that the justice department should be more adventurous.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to support the work of local authorities and the police in respect of loan sharks. (S1O-5433)

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The Executive is committed to tackling financial exclusion in all its forms. Illegal and extortionate money lending and the threatening behaviour that often accompanies such lending are unacceptable in modern Scotland. We are therefore fully supportive of moves by the Department of Trade and Industry to tighten existing credit law and strengthen the powers of local authority trading standards departments in this area. We will work with all key partners to tackle that crime.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Does the minister agree that the strengthening effect of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill will be to encourage local authorities and the police to pursue non-harassment orders against loan sharks? Does she also agree that last night's debate in the chamber on how we can rid Scotland of the scourge of loan sharks gave much room for thought?

Given that debate, does the minister intend to encourage more community banking agreements, such as that which is provided by the Bank of Scotland in Wester Hailes, where targeted products, including savings and loan assistance, are provided for low-income families? That is one way of addressing the vile trade of these loan sharks. Will the minister encourage the establishment of such community banking agreements all over Scotland?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am happy to give that confirmation. I support the community banking agreement model that has been developed in Wester Hailes. We congratulate the Bank of Scotland on that work and fully support such a move. The Scottish Executive is working in partnership with Communities Scotland to develop that.

Last night's debate was significant as a number of the actions that we need to take were outlined. I congratulate Trish Godman on her efforts in securing that debate.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

What assessment has been made as to how widespread the practice of loan sharking is? Will the Executive consider the proposal from my esteemed colleague Fergus Ewing that the ill-gotten gains of loan sharks should be subject to legal attachment proceedings?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Obviously, we are giving great consideration to the legal issues. A number of matters relating to the subject are reserved, but the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 already gives the police powers to protect victims from loan sharks. As Trish Godman said, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which is currently under consideration, will reinforce those abilities.