Scottish Parliament, 14 November 2002

414 contributions from 86 members. The official report.

Introduction

Crime

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

The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S1M-3569, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on crime, and two amendments to that motion. I call Michael Matheson to speak to and move the motion.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Although the motion is in Roseanna Cunningham's name, she is unwell and unable to be with us this morning.

As we approach the end of the Scottish Parliament's first session, it is a good time to consider the Scottish Executive's record on our justice system. There is little doubt that Scotland's criminal justice system is creaking under the pressure that it is having to sustain. Why, after three-and-a-half years of this Government, do we have so many problems with our justice system? Even if the Lord Advocate were to tell us this morning that the Executive has identified all the problems and is committed to addressing them, I would have little confidence in the ability of this Government to address all the problems that exist in the system and to effect the change that is necessary to deliver the type of justice system that we require.

We have only to look at the Executive's handling of the issue of secure accommodation places for young people to see why I hold that view. First, the Executive admits that there is a requirement for 25 new places, then it says that the places will probably be filled almost immediately, but, two months after that announcement was made, we have no idea when or where those places will be provided. That is hardly what I would call strategic planning.

To create a change and deliver an effective and efficient criminal justice system, we must be prepared to tackle the overall management of our justice system.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Will the member give way?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I would like to make some progress first.

We appear to have a court system in which delays are endemic, which is symptomatic of a system that is struggling to cope. Trials can be adjourned over and over again for a host of reasons, some of which relate to a lack of resources in the system. The consequences of those problems are that witnesses are inconvenienced, victims are affected and, in some extreme cases, time bars are breached, resulting in prosecutions being lost entirely. In such cases, justice is not being served.

Recent figures from the High Court show a rise of 300 per cent in the number of cases that do not go to trial. Part of the problem is the need for more up-front resources and better management, but a major part of the problem is the increasing level of crime. Crime and offences have risen under this Government, with a 24 per cent increase in non-sexual crimes of violence over the past five years. Meanwhile, during the same five-year period, the number of police has risen by a mere 1.2 per cent. Serious staffing issues in the police need to be addressed at the moment.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Mr Matheson recognises that the number of police has risen marginally in recent times, but does he agree that, in the first period of this Government's term in office, the number of police fell dramatically from the level that was inherited?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is well recognised that, during the first two years of this Government, police numbers declined from the inherited levels. Only in the past year—in the lead-up to the election—has the Executive recognised the need to address that problem. Last year, however, only 21 per cent of police officers completed their 30-year service before taking retirement, compared with 40 per cent five years ago. Over the past five years, there has been a 21 per cent rise in ill-health retirements. As Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary put it in his annual report, that leaves us with

"an increasingly inexperienced front line requiring increased training and supervision".

Over the period in which crime has increased and police numbers have decreased, fewer prosecutions have taken place. Despite more than 4,000 more offences having been recorded in 2000 than in 1997, the number of proceedings taking place has fallen. A combination of inadequate police numbers, fewer prosecutions and court delays serves to undermine confidence in our justice system.

In the Executive, we have a Government that has failed to grasp the need for a more co-ordinated approach in the management of our justice system. As alternatives to custody have been a topical issue, I will take them as an example. There are bail schemes in Edinburgh and in Glasgow, but nowhere else. Supervised attendance orders are easily available in some sheriffdoms, but not in others. Supervised attendance orders were intended to keep fine defaulters out of prison, but there are massive variations in their use. In East Ayrshire, 253 people are on supervised attendance orders, whereas in Midlothian, there are only five.

The disjointed nature of our justice system only undermines its effectiveness. Drugs can be found at the root of many of the problems of youth crime and youth disorder. However, the services that we have to deal with drugs and drug offences are patchy throughout the country.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Before Michael Matheson makes another series of attacks on the Government, perhaps it is time that the Scottish National Party told us the precise measures that it would take to join up the system.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Pauline McNeill should be patient. At the previous election, we proposed the establishment of drugs courts in Scotland. What happened? Hey presto, three years down the line, the Government stole the idea, having rubbished it three years earlier. That is an example of the SNP policy ideas that have effected change. The initial signs are that our drugs courts are proving to be effective.

My colleague Richard Lochhead will address drugs in more detail, because he has been doing work on the issue. However, let us consider the example of drug addicts and their experiences in the Grampian Primary Care NHS Trust. A drug addict in the Grampian area who is looking for help will have to wait longer than 18 months for an appointment to be assessed. If we cannot deal promptly with the needs of even those addicts who are looking for assistance to address their habit, how can we tackle the problem of drugs issues clogging up our courts and the human tragedy of those with a drug dependence ending up in our prisons? That is the type of issue that undermines our system.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I agree with what Michael Matheson has said. Drugs courts and drug treatment and testing orders cannot be rolled out until we have more residential and non-residential programmes in place. However, when will the Opposition address—indeed, when will the Executive address—the major alcohol problem, which is five times the scale of the drugs problem and causes infinitely more violence, including domestic violence?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I agree that we need to address the alcohol problems in our society. Christine Grahame was probably the first member to raise that issue and the need to tackle the problem, which shows the SNP's commitment to tackling it.

On the number of pilot projects that we have in our justice system, everybody agrees that we need to ensure that any new scheme is effective and can deliver the necessary change. We also need ministers who are prepared to decide whether to end a pilot project or to roll it out throughout the country. I will give an example. Two pilot bail information and accommodation schemes were introduced in 1991. A report into their workings, which was produced in 1994, found them to be effective but expensive in reducing unnecessary remands. A further evaluation was undertaken in 1999 and the findings were broadly similar. Rather than a decision on rolling up or rolling out the schemes, we have two projects that are still working in isolation. We have had two evaluations, but the reports are just gathering dust on the Executive's shelves.

Let me turn to what we believe is needed to address the problem. There is clearly a need to ensure that more resources are put up front to invest in the system and ensure that it works to deliver the justice system that our people need and deserve. As well as delivering more effective management of the system, we need to ensure that the police are effectively resourced, so that a real increase in the number of police can be achieved, rather than the smoke-and-mirrors exercise that is being used by the Executive. Only through increasing police numbers can we improve deterrence and detection, and ease the fear of crime that paralyses many of our communities. Rather than tinkering at the edges of providing secure accommodation for young people, we should be providing enough places to ensure that the system is sufficiently flexible, as the Association of Directors of Social Work has been calling for.

We need to end the proliferation of reviews, strategy groups and so-called pilots that have been instigated under the present Government. In order to find a more effective way of tackling the problems in our justice system, we require an overarching review of our whole justice system to identify precisely where the problems are and to ensure that resources are applied to the right areas to tackle the problems. The Government's failings on the justice system are marked. An overarching review will let us ensure that we take our justice system into the 21st century and that justice is provided in an even-handed fashion to people throughout the country, irrespective of where they live.

I move,

That the Parliament acknowledges that all sectors of the criminal justice system must be managed effectively to ensure the even delivery of services across Scotland and calls on the Scottish Executive to conduct a fundamental review of the criminal justice system to establish how best to ensure that justice in Scotland is delivered in a fair, effective and appropriate manner.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Is not it the case that the Justice 1 Committee, particularly when considering the budget, was extremely supportive of the Procurator Fiscal Service, especially front-line procurators fiscal, who we know are under strength and underfunded? It would not be appropriate to say that we are attacking them. In fact, we have been very supportive of funding for the system.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

We are talking about the SNP, not the Justice 1 Committee.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The same applies to members of the SNP on the—

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

Order.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Does the Lord Advocate think, in the spirit of not making party-political remarks, that his introductory remarks were appropriate for a Lord Advocate to make in the Parliament, bearing in mind his particular role as a law officer? Secondly, does not he recognise Michael Matheson's legitimate criticism that the problem with the Government's approach is not the fact that it undertakes reviews, but that it undertakes many reviews that have little in common with one another?

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

On the relationship between the Procurator Fiscal Service and the police, how will the new structure help to ensure that we have a better and quicker throughput of cases?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for listening so carefully to the Conservative campaign on behalf of the public that convicted murderers should not be released on bail pending appeal without the prosecution having the statutory right to put arguments before the judge about the protection of the public, police concerns and the public interest. I am also grateful that he is dealing with the issue of the Crown having the right of appeal against a bail disposal of a person who is convicted of murder or other extremely serious crime.

The Conservatives were armed with our own amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that we were to lodge today. It is refreshing that the Lord Advocate has seen fit to reply to our campaign. The massive expertise of his department will ensure that the clearest and best drafting should be readily available. As a result of the Lord Advocate's major announcement on bail this morning, the families of victims of convicted murderers will be able to sleep more soundly in their beds, as will the general public. I also support strongly the Lord Advocate's call that hoax calls to the fire service, which can imperil lives, be dealt with with the maximum severity.

Yesterday, in the Queen's speech, a number of new law-and-order measures were announced for England and Wales. They include new sentences to protect the public from dangerous offenders, help reduce offending and deal with young offenders. The proposals include new sanctions to allow courts to enforce the payment of fines more efficiently; modernising laws on sexual offences; developing international co-operation on tackling crime; and tackling the anti-social behaviour that damages communities.

Some of those issues have a definite relevance for Scotland. It would be helpful for the Deputy Minister for Justice to state, when he winds up the debate, which Sewel motions may be introduced in due course in that respect. Although we will wish to study the detail of those motions, I can give the minister a reassurance that any measures that are designed to give greater protection to the public and to make the voice of victims louder than that of the criminals will be given a fair wind by those of us on the Conservative benches.

The reality is that crime is rising. Between 1997 and 2001, the total number of recorded crimes soared. Drug-related crimes increased by 23 per cent and non-sexual crimes of violence rocketed by 24 per cent. Littered streets, graffiti, fly-tipping and abandoned cars are all symptoms of lawlessness and of crime being on the increase. It is no coincidence that fire raising and vandalism is up by 17 per cent on 1999 figures.

Against that background, the Conservatives believe that far more police are needed and that they should be visible within communities. It is no use for the Executive to pile extra responsibilities on to the police when their numbers are insufficient to provide a highly visible, high-profile presence throughout Scotland in neighbourhoods that are affected by crime and disorder.

On 3 October, in a reply to a question that I asked in the chamber, the First Minister confirmed that there was a need for more police. Cathy Jamieson, when asked, supported the First Minister's statement. The Conservatives would like to see that policy developed with a considerable increase in numbers, which would put the police in a better position to detect and deter crime and to work with parents, schools and voluntary groups to the benefit of our communities.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

rose—

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I will give way in a moment.

We need a court system that will back up the police and that is able to deal with criminal cases speedily and efficiently. We have argued that we must have more fiscals operating at the sharp end. It is no use for police officers to arrest criminals if those cases never get to trial owing to a lack of prosecution staff.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does Lord James Douglas-Hamilton support the Scottish National Party's pledge to put 1,000 more police on the streets of Scotland?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I will not respond to that precise figure, but the number should increase by whatever amount is necessary to allow the police to do the job properly. As no one from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents or the Scottish Police Federation will give me an exact figure, I do not see why I should second-guess them. However, I would like to see a substantial increase.

We have also called for an overhaul of youth justice. Children's hearings lack deterrent clout and there is a need for more increases in secure accommodation and more disposals and powers for children's panels. In September 2001, we advocated the use of weekend and evening detention, compulsory grounding and the expansion of community service and supervised attendance orders. We opposed the Executive's plan to raise the age of criminal responsibility and to refer 16 and 17-year-old lawbreakers to children's panels. Far from helping young offenders back on to the straight and narrow path, delaying effective punishment sends out the wrong message and is likely to lead to higher crime rates in future. Surely it would be far better to continue to send 16 and 17-year-olds to adult courts and persistent and serious young offenders under the age of 16 to youth courts, and allow children's panels to focus their energies on dealing with at-risk children.

We take a hard line against crime in favour of the rule of law and law and order. Crime disproportionately affects poorer and more vulnerable people. We want to create a society that is free from crime and free from the fear of crime.

I move amendment S1M-3569.1, to leave out from "and calls on" to end and insert:

"regrets that the Scottish Executive has presided over rising crime and rising fear of crime; regrets that the Executive is only committed to 'maintaining the capacity of the police' and not increasing the number of police officers on our streets; regrets that the Executive has chosen to focus on politically correct issues such as smacking, and calls on the Executive to address the real issues of concern to the Scottish public by increasing the number of police officers and procurators fiscal, overhauling the youth justice system and dealing adequately with the drugs problem that blights our communities."

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

I call Keith Raffan.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I think that there has been a mistake. Donald Gorrie will open the debate for the Liberal Democrats.

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

In that case, I call Donald Gorrie.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I am sorry if there was an error, Presiding Officer.

I have the privilege of speaking officially on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in strong support of the Executive amendment moved by Colin Boyd. There is obviously a war of reviews: the Scottish National Party calls for a review, and then the Lord Advocate lists a large number of reviews. There are two questions behind that: when is a review not a review; and what good does a review do?

I start by recognising the personal commitment of the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General for Scotland and the two justice ministers to improving the system. All have achieved a considerable amount. There has been improvement in the services provided by the police, the court system and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. We should recognise that, and I hope that the other reviews that were mentioned will produce more improvements. I recognise the good work that has been done, but as there is no point in standing up and congratulating everyone all the time, I will take a wider view of justice.

This and previous Governments have failed by failing to tackle crime before it happens. We want to prevent, not to cure, which is a simple message in medicine. We must see our society as unfit and sick and deal with it in the same way as we would deal with unfit and sick individuals. We try to prevent people from getting sick by keeping them fit and healthy, and we must tackle the unfitness of our society in the same way.

I am sure that the Lord Advocate has discussions with the judiciary, during which he could usefully press them on short sentences and the revolving-door principle. People go to prison officially for six months but they are in prison for only three months, which leaves no time to improve them and sort them out. When they come out of prison, they just go back in again, which is a complete waste of everyone's time and does not help society at all. I know that politicians are not meant to interfere in sentencing, but I am sure that the Lord Advocate can influence the judiciary so that they see the futility of that exercise; Parliament could back him up. There is also the question of how we treat remand prisoners, many of whom would not need to go to jail if we had more resources to deal with them in the community. Those two changes would greatly reduce the number of people whom we send to prison; the existing figure is a great blight on our society.

Other members have already mentioned drugs and alcohol, which are two great causes of crime. I recognise that the Executive has made efforts in that direction, but a lot more could be done.

I share Michael Matheson's view that there are a lot of pilot projects around. From my knowledge of nautical activities, a pilot is meant to be followed by the fleet. In this case, the pilot is halfway across the Atlantic but the fleet is still in the harbour. We have to extend successful pilot schemes more quickly, more vigorously and more widely. For example, as far as alternatives to custody are concerned, the Freagarrach scheme for younger people and the Airborne Initiative, which helps slightly older people, have proven records of reducing reoffending. However, they struggle to find funding to keep going; indeed, they have no money to extend their activities to other parts of the country. There are many other examples of pilot projects that should be extended more rapidly.

I return to my point about a healthy society. The causes of crime affect people from very early in life, and in that respect we grossly underfund many activities. For example, all the national youth organisations effectively receive less funding than they did quite a few years ago under our wicked friends, the Tories. That situation is just not acceptable. Such organisations provide local activities that help to keep children within society rather than allow them to rebel against society.

Indeed, many organisations try to help families. For example, I recently visited Couple Counselling Scotland, which is one of a number of organisations that help people in marriages and partnerships not to break up. However, those organisations are also desperately underfunded. After all, every time we stop a divorce, we save a lot of trouble later in life—many children from troubled homes end up getting in trouble with the law. I realise that such activity is not within the Lord Advocate's personal remit; however, I hope that he will use his authority to press different Government departments to tackle problems in the way that I have highlighted.

We also need more resources to back up the children's panels, alternatives to custody and courts in general. It does not really matter where a person is sentenced if there is no proper support for the sentence within the community. The situation is notoriously bad in many cases.

I hope the Lord Advocate will take my points on board. I am very happy to support his excellent amendment.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

First, I welcome the Lord Advocate's condemnation of last night's hoax calls to the fire service. Every decent person in Scotland will also roundly condemn those actions.

I make no apologies for highlighting the situation in Grampian and Aberdeen in my speech. After all, the city of Aberdeen has the second highest crime rate in Scotland; for example, housebreaking is 144 per cent above the national average. At the moment in Grampian, we have a prison that is more than a third overcrowded and sheriff courts that have the longest waiting times in the country as far as bringing criminal trials to court is concerned. Indeed, in response to the weight of work in those courts, there will be four extra sittings this month and next month.

Of course, the problem of drugs misuse is behind the recent rise in crime in Grampian. The police reckon that more than 80 per cent of crime in Grampian is drugs related. There has been a dramatic rise in drugs misuse in the area in recent years, especially problems with heroin and, more recently, a very severe problem with crack cocaine.

However, one of the reasons why Grampian has such high crime rates is that the area has a chronic lack of drug rehabilitation services. I want to turn the minister's attention to an article in the local press.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No, I want to finish this point.

The article read:

"An Aberdeen drug addict who stole from his mother's home to fund his habit asked a sheriff to send him to prison for better treatment ... His defence agent claimed"

that the addict

"was eager to go to prison to kick his drug problem, as he felt there was little help for him outside jail."

Two weeks ago, I met privately with six drug addicts in the city. I sat around the table with them and heard how they spend their days on Union Street asking for money because they do not want to commit crimes to feed their drug habits. One couple told me that it costs between £90 and £120 a day to feed their habit. The other people did not tell me how they got the money to feed their habit, but if we put two and two together, we will get four. They begged me as their MSP to take up their cases. They said that in April 2001 their general practitioners referred them to the local substance misuse service, which is run by local the primary care trust. They were told they would have to wait a long time but, 18 months later, they have still not heard back. Since April 2001, they have had to fund their habits on a daily basis.

If I was a drug addict and left the chamber today to commit a crime in Aberdeen—if, for example, I broke into a house and the police turned up on my doorstep tomorrow and found stolen goods in my house—I would appear in court the following day to plead guilty and the sheriff would ask for background reports. Three or four weeks later, or even two or three month later, I would appear back in court in Aberdeen and would be given a drug treatment and testing order. That same day, I would be assigned three workers to help me with my drug addiction and I would get immediate treatment.

Many thousands of addicts do not commit crime, but must fund their habits. Indeed, many people who commit crime to fund their habits, but who have not been caught, are told to come back in 18 months because the authorities—which are supposed to be funded by the Government ministers who are sitting in the chamber today— cannot help. I ask the ministers: What sort of message are we sending to drug addicts throughout Scotland who are in such situations? The matter is urgent and the minister must intervene. Grampian has one of the lowest levels of funding in Scotland for coping with drug misuse. However, communities, individuals and families in Grampian—which has among the highest crime rates in the country—are paying through the misery of losing someone to drug addiction or through having their houses broken into time and again. I know people in Aberdeen who will not leave their houses because they have been broken into three or four times in the past two years. That is an unacceptable situation.

I invite the minister to go to Aberdeen and sit down with drug addicts—I can set up a private meeting for him. I ask him to sit around the table with them and hear their stories first hand. It is not only drug treatment services that are the problem, but police funding. In Aberdeen, we have the lowest numbers of police officers in the country.

I ask the minister to address those serious problems, to get in touch with reality and to do something about the situation.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I subscribe to the views of many members in the chamber concerning the hoax calls that have been made to the fire service. I hope that the Lord Advocate and the police use every possible intelligence source to detect and follow through on those serious crimes.

I agree in some ways with what Donald Gorrie said about the evaluations and pilot schemes that we hear about regularly in evidence to the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee. We must move away from the constant flow of glossy documents that we receive and consider instead the action that we can take to tackle many of the issues to which members have referred today. I once said to a constituent that if I set up a car boot sale in the Blochairn area to sell the glossy evaluation documents that I receive, I would be a wealthy individual. We must deal with the problem because it concerns the delivery of action in our local communities.

Michael Matheson seeks credit for the drugs courts. I do not care who introduced the idea of the drugs courts; all I care about is that they work in communities such as Glasgow and throughout Scotland. I have often said in Parliament that we must grow up and that we must share and deliver ideas, rather than care where they came from.

It is mentioned regularly by and in respect of the police authorities that crime is being reduced, but Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said that we must at the same time tackle the underlying crime trends; for example on graffiti, abandoned vehicles and antisocial behaviour. We cannot be complacent in dealing with those types of crime and the effective way to tackle those problems is through sharing information. Organisations must work together to tackle crime. I was impressed when I visited the Dalmellington area of East Ayrshire at the invitation of Provost Boyd. The police and health authorities and the local authority there are based in one facility. That ensures not only that they talk about partnership, but that they live in partnership by being co-located in one multi-facility. That is an effective way of ensuring that they work together to tackle crime. We often talk about partnership, but we do not necessarily deliver it in our communities. We must ensure that we deliver partnership.

I want to talk about the gimmick that 1,000 police officers will deliver on tackling crime. I believe that we must make best use of those police officers to ensure that they do not spend day upon day in our courts. The time that police officers spend in the High Court dealing with a large volume of cases is one of the issues that the Lord Advocate must deal with today. He must consider more effective ways of dealing with reports so that our police officers do not spend so much time in court when they could be in our communities.

I welcome the Lord Advocate's commitment to continue to examine ways in which to reform the criminal justice system. However, it is time to move away from glossy documents; we must ensure that they are action documents and that we deliver in our local communities.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will begin by addressing the motion and picking up on management issues. The SNP's Michael Matheson addressed many of the concerns that we have about management and its effects; the Lord Advocate's amendment covers that by suggesting that everything is in hand, albeit through reviews. Enough has been said about reviews for the moment. Reviews will perhaps ultimately bring solutions, but in the short-term there are actions that the Conservatives feel could be taken to improve the situation without waiting for further review.

I commend Paul Martin's comments on the number of glossies that MSPs, voluntary organisations and the Executive get. The amount of money that is spent on glossies through this Parliament is immense and could be put to better use, perhaps within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

In the past, the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee have pointed to deficiencies in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I have to tell Colin Boyd and Elish Angiolini that, since they have come in, it seems to me that attempts are being made to address some of those issues. I congratulate them on that and wish them well, particularly in trying to bring the Procurator Fiscal Service up to scratch. It has long been needed, and if they can achieve that they will have achieved much.

I take the opportunity to add to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's comments on what the Lord Advocate said today about bail. That is the kind of news that we want to hear. We heard Donald Gorrie saying that ministers in this Parliament had achieved much on justice issues; however, one of the great disservices that they have done Scotland was to introduce the bill that became the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Act 2000. I like to think that the Lord Advocate could go a bit further in dealing with bail issues.

The Lord Advocate's amendment and the SNP motion both mention justice being

"delivered in a fair, effective and appropriate manner."

How can that happen when members of the judiciary do not come under pressure from politicians to meet politicians' requirements with respect to sentencing? I would like the minister who will respond to the debate to explain exactly what is meant by "fair" and "appropriate" dealings in the courts.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does not Phil Gallie think that there would be extreme dangers if politicians began to determine sentences and did not keep the judiciary at arm's length? The independence of the judiciary is essential to the delivery of justice.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Yes, there are dangers. I note from the Queen's speech that there seems be a drive by the Government south of the border for consistency in sentencing, but I do not know how we can achieve that without direct political involvement, which I do not want.

I would like to pick up on one aspect of the Queen's speech on which I would love the Scottish Executive to act. I am sorry, but I have forgotten the words. I am thinking of the situation in which somebody has gone through the court process and been discharged, but there is additional evidence to demonstrate—

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Double jeopardy.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I thank my colleague. I welcome the fact that, south of the border, the Government intends to consider double jeopardy. I ask the Lord Advocate, is there an opportunity in Scotland for us to consider double jeopardy? I am thinking of the Chhokar and Cawley trials. Those trials created much concern in Scotland and an element of double jeopardy would have helped to solve them.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Will the member take an intervention?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.

I noticed a recent case in which a person was charged and found guilty of paedophilia. The Parliament seems to think that child abuse is a serious crime, but the sheriff who sent that person to jail did not. He said that the biggest sentence he could give—given that the accused's appearance was under summary procedure—was six months, which was automatically halved to three months. If we take remand into account, that probably means that the person will spend even less time in prison. I suggest that the Executive should pick up the Tory idea of making sentences mean what they say. If that were done, we would meet an objective of the Parliament and reduce the nonsense of people being sent to prison on sentences that are far too short.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In the short time that is available to me, I will focus on drug and alcohol problems and their relation to the criminal justice system. It is in everybody's interests, especially victims' interests, that we break the cycle of reoffending. Ultimately, that is what prison and alternatives to custody should be about.

Sixteen years ago, when I was an MP at Westminster, I took through the Controlled Drugs (Penalties) Act 1986 as a private member, but my interest and focus have now moved away from enforcement. I am not saying that enforcement is not necessary, but that my interest has moved towards treatment and rehabilitation.

The statistics in Scotland are frightening. The latest figure from Professor Neil McKegney is that there are 55,000 addicts. I have argued with the minister about the issue, but at least 35,000 of those people are injecting heroin addicts. To finance their habit, they steal well over £500 million a year and nearly £200 million of that is stolen in Glasgow alone.

I am a great supporter of drug treatment and testing orders and drugs courts. I do not care who introduced them—in fact, the idea was debated back in the 1980s; I am sorry that the SNP was absent from the debate then. The SNP has tried to make a party-political point about them today, but what matters is effective policy to deal—[Interruption.] I know that we are reaching the run-up to an election, but SNP members should not peak too early, if they are going to peak at all.

Let us concentrate on devising effective policy in dealing with the problem, rather than try to make party-political points. I have been involved in the matter for 20 years and am sick to death of hearing the SNP playing party politics with such serious issues. I hope that I have the support of the other parties in the chamber in that respect, if not that of the SNP.

Ultimately, we must focus on rolling out the pilot programmes in DDTOs and drugs courts. The Deputy Minister for Justice knows that that is the problem; he is in touch and does not need to have meetings arranged for him by Mr Lochhead. I was present with the minister at drugs raids in Clackmannanshire just a few weeks ago. I pay tribute to him for being thoroughly in touch with the problem, not just as a politician, an MSP and a minister, but in his previous incarnation as a doctor—as a psychiatrist and general practitioner. If we are to roll out those programmes and make them effective, that will require more residential beds and more day programmes, as the minister knows.

I also ask the minister to consider halfway houses. If we are to invest in treatment—whether residential or non-residential—we need a mechanism by which we can ensure that that investment is worth while. Halfway houses, which ease problematic drug users back into mainstream life, are absolutely crucial in making that investment worth while.

The scale of alcohol abuse is that it is five times the size of the drug problem in Scotland. Of course, the press focuses on drugs and Michael Matheson was right to emphasise the repercussions of the drug problem—theft, shoplifting, burglary and so on—but alcohol abuse leads primarily to violence and domestic violence. I do not in the four minutes that are available to me have time to go into the issue of cross-addiction, but many people who have alcohol problems also have drug problems, and vice versa. We need to focus far more on alcohol problems.

Earlier this year, the Executive published its plan for action on alcohol problems. It launched the plan somewhat bizarrely in a pub—let us not go into that—but it is yet to be debated in the chamber. Anyone who has attended drug action teams, which are mostly now called drug and alcohol action teams, will know that treatment of alcoholics is the poor relation of treatment of problematic drug users. Anyone who has attended a DAT's discussion on the allocation of resources will know that.

The Executive must focus on the alcohol problem, which is far greater in scale than the drugs problem and is also the cause of far more violence and domestic violence. If we could effectively address the alcohol problem, that would help greatly in reducing the tremendous overload on the criminal justice system.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

We have heard yet another Liberal make cheap political points by accusing others of making cheap political points.

The reason for today's debate is the cruel neglect of the criminal justice system and the police by new Labour in its first three years in office. We have already heard the figures: serious assault is up 20 per cent and there has been a 50 per cent increase in the handling of weapons over the past three years alone.

We have also heard Paul Martin say that it does not matter where good policies come from, which is why I am surprised that he did not support the establishment of drugs courts back in 1999. Would his constituents in Springburn agree with him that there should be no increase in police numbers and that the matter is all about efficiency?

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Will Kenny Gibson clarify where in the Official Report , or in any public statement, I said that I did not support drugs courts.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I did not say that Paul Martin did not support drugs courts, but that he did not call for them in 1999. Now that drugs courts are Labour policy, Paul Martin thinks that they are a great idea, but he did not call for them when they were SNP policy.

I am also interested in how Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's views have moved. During a previous debate on crime, Lord James talked about redeployment of police officers rather than additional police officers—if Lord James will check the record, he will find that I am right about that. I am pleased to see that he now believes that we should have additional officers. However, he also needs to think about how many officers we want to deploy.

Today, I want to focus on two issues. The first is postcode policing. It is totally unacceptable that some parts of our country have policing that is inferior compared to that of other parts. That is a reflection not on the police but on the way in which they are deployed. People in one part of Scotland should not be more in fear of crime, or be more likely to be the victims of crime, than people in another part of Scotland.

My colleague Richard Lochhead mentioned that Aberdeen had the second-highest crime figures; the highest crime figures are, of course, in Glasgow. Let me provide some statistics: for offensive weapons, the incidence in Glasgow is almost three times the Scottish average; serious assault in Glasgow is almost three times the Scottish average; the number of assaults involving knives is four times the Scottish average; almost a quarter of Scotland's racially aggravated problems happened in Glasgow; and one third of Scotland's homicides took place in Glasgow.

It is clear that some areas have particular policing problems. Overall crime—including crimes such as vandalism and housebreaking—is 70 per cent higher in Glasgow than the Scottish average. No other place in Strathclyde is more than 16 per cent above the average, although that is a bad enough figure in itself.

Until we recruit, train and deploy the extra 1,000 officers, it is important that chief constables use their resources to ensure that police are redeployed to areas that have specific crime problems.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Kenneth Gibson mentioned that the way in which the police are deployed is the problem, but he has not said what he means by that. He went on to provide some numbers about crime being different in different areas. Will the member please clarify what he means by deploying police differently? I assume that he means that they should be deployed in different parts of Scotland. What is wrong with the deployment of police in Glasgow—

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I have only about 45 seconds left. I acknowledge Sylvia Jackson's point. However, if crime is a significant issue in a certain area, the resources that are available must be devoted specifically to tackling that problem. That would mean that a pensioner in an area where crime is three or four times higher than it is in another neighbourhood would not have to suffer that level of crime or the fear of crime; the risk of crime would be the same everywhere. We want to reduce the level of crime, but we do not want huge anomalies in certain areas of the country.

In my final few seconds, I shall touch on delays, which show that the available resources are limited. The number of delays that have resulted in cases not being proceeded with has increased from 4,214 in 1998-99 to 8,409 in 2001-02. That is a 100 per cent increase in only three years. It is clear that the system cannot cope. In Glasgow, the number has more than doubled. In 1998-99 in Glasgow, 1,384 cases were not proceeded with because of the time bar and because of delays by the procurator fiscal, the police and other reporting agencies, such as HM Customs and Excise. In 2001-02, that number had risen to 2,872 cases.

The Executive is failing Scotland. It is failing to put resources into tackling crime and it is failing to reform the criminal justice system. We need more resources and more officers. We must examine what is happening in the criminal justice system so that the people of Scotland will feel safe from crime.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The SNP wants a more joined-up system—so do we all. The Parliament's justice committees have repeatedly made that point to ministers over the past two years. However, to deny that the Executive has taken measures to improve the quality of justice in its attempts to join up the system, and to deny that it has made major changes to the criminal justice system is to deny the truth. Given what Mr Gibson said, is the SNP arguing that there should be a new crime in Scots law—the theft of SNP ideas? I think not. I am prepared stand corrected, but I think that it was the Americans who invented drugs courts.

The artificial debate that we often have over whether crime figures have risen or fallen is something that we need to address. The reality in Strathclyde is that the level of crime is down. The incidence of serious crime might be rising, but so are detection rates. Mr Gibson should get his facts right before he starts talking about crime in that area. Only the other day, the chief constable for Strathclyde, Willie Rae, explained to me that, leaving aside the problem of offensive weapons, there has not been an increase in the level of serious crime in the past 10 years. It is people's perception of crime that needs to be tackled, as I am sure we all agree.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I took two interventions from Labour colleagues.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I will take a very brief intervention.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Serious crime is obviously the most significant issue. Is Pauline McNeill aware that Glasgow's homicide rate is more than double that of London or Paris? Does not she think that that is a serious issue that should be addressed?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Mr Gibson is not acknowledging the fact that the figures show that there has not over the past 10 years been a massive increase in serious crime. He can interpret the figures any way he wants, but my point is that we must tackle people's perception of crime and their fear of crime. I am sure that we all agree on that.

I shall say a few words about the impending changes to the criminal justice system, which I think are important. No one can deny that the way in which victims are to be treated in the future will be better, or that the measures that the Executive is taking are good, but I have some issues with the Executive about the way in which it is tackling crime and I am prepared to disagree with it. However, I do not deny that the Executive is putting in place measures that will make victims central to the criminal justice system.

Section 15 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill has not been focused on in the debate. That section will give victims the right to have information about the release of offenders who have offended against them. That is a crucial aspect of the bill. The liaison office that will be set up for the victims and the prospect that there will be some type of victim impact statement will be important factors in the joining up of our criminal justice system.

As the Lord Advocate said, the Justice 2 Committee is to report on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service soon, probably in December. We need strong procurators fiscal who recognise that they are not simply lawyers, but that they have special powers and that the decisions that they make daily affect people's lives and the quality of justice. I welcome the plans for the reorganisation of the Procurator Fiscal Service in Glasgow, which will make the service more interactive with agencies and the public. That is the way forward. For too long, the PFS has been a hidden service that has not been visible to most people.

I would like the Lord Advocate—or Richard Simpson, if he intends to address points from the debate when he winds up—to tell us what is happening with the pay comparability study. I also think that the issue of the time bar is of real concern. Statistics suggest that police reports are the biggest cause of the time bar being used. That matter must be addressed; there is obviously a problem that needs to be dealt with.

On secure accommodation, the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee have called repeatedly for an increase in the number of available places. The committees also think that the justice department, rather than local authorities, should co-ordinate secure accommodation because if there is a shortfall in secure accommodation, local authorities do not necessarily have to meet the demand whereas the justice department does. Therefore, there should be a move towards the justice department co-ordinating secure accommodation. It is crucial that the matter of the type of accommodation is addressed. Secure accommodation is not appropriate in all circumstances. For example, it is more appropriate to have places of safety for children. Therefore, the issue is not just the amount of secure accommodation, but the type of accommodation.

I wanted to say something about alternatives to custody, but I am running out of time. I will welcome the Justice 1 Committee's impending report on alternatives to custody. We should also welcome what the Executive is doing in that area. At some stage I would like to examine further the question of tagging orders, which we might do during discussion of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Before I speak in support of the SNP motion, I intimate that I do not seek to dress up the current system as a disaster area, so I hope that my comments and criticisms are taken in that spirit. I do not think that we can say that the Executive has not attempted to join up the criminal justice system. Pauline McNeill is partly right to say that the effort that the Pryce-Dyer report represents points the way forward for many of the substantial issues. What is important, however, is the implementation of that report and I have concerns arising from that. First, we have not recognised the depth of some of the justice problems and are not implementing changes quickly enough through the management review and restructuring of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which I think are widely supported.

However, I refer members to a visit the Justice 2 Committee made during its inquiry. We asked people who work in the justice service for their views on the restructuring and the management culture. One person replied, "Actually, to be honest, all I want is a desk." That is the bottom line—the issue is still about the nuts and bolts of the service. That individual did not even have a desk at which he was guaranteed space in which to work. Is it surprising that there are problems in such a working environment?

Equally, there is a problem with the position of senior fiscals. Concern has been expressed that when fiscals move through the service and become senior fiscals, they move into management and out of direct involvement with prosecution. That strikes me as odd, not only because it assumes that good prosecutors are good managers—there is no evidence that that is true—but because the system takes out of the service and away from the front line the people with the experience and expertise that makes them best qualified to do the job of prosecution. That does not strike me as being a particularly commonsense approach to prosecution.

Secondly, I want to spend a couple of minutes on an area on which the Lord Advocate spent some time talking to the Justice 2 Committee. I make no apology for raising again the vexed question of victim statements. Everybody in the debate has recognised the need for the greater involvement of victims in the justice process and I think that we all welcome the fact, as Pauline McNeill said, that victims will have greater access to information.

I still have profound concerns, however, about the current format of victim statements. Yes, we want to re-balance the rights of the victim and the rights of the accused or, indeed, those of the guilty. However, there is a profound concern about being unable to cross-examine a victim about their statement in order to test it. The issue is not just about the basic fairness that is built into the system, but the fact that the victim statement could make matters worse for the victim.

Evidence to the Justice 2 Committee suggested that if the expectation is raised that the victim will, through the victim statement, have a material effect on the sentence, and if the victim statement subsequently does not have such an effect, that could make the situation worse for the victim in many cases. Therefore, if we are all concerned about victims' rights, I suggest that we reconsider that issue.

Evidence to the Justice 2 Committee said that there are two aspects to victim statements; the first is punitive and the second is therapeutic. The first aspect is about whether the statement will or will not materially impact on the sentence. There is still confusion about whether that is the case. The explanatory notes to the bill said that victim statements would have an impact on sentencing. In evidence, ministers said that the judge would take cognisance of all of the facts, but that the victim statement would not have an impact on sentencing. That matter needs to be clarified.

One of the main arguments for having victim statements is that they would be therapeutic. However, that is absolutely not proven. There is no evidence that in the majority of cases victim statements would be of therapeutic value.

I want to make a plea on behalf of the police, who are often ignored in debates of this kind. The firefighters' strike, in particular, has made us aware of the role that public servants play. The police in Scotland need to know that they are valued as public servants, but that has not been the case in the past. It is important that more police are put on the streets and that more resources are made available to them, but those are not the only issues. We must let the police know that we value the work that they do. At the end of the day, when we pick up the phone and dial 999, we expect the police to be there for us.

There is a reciprocal responsibility on members of the Parliament to be there for the service.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

The SNP motion and the Tory amendment show how out of touch those parties are with what is happening on the ground in Scotland. Over the past three years, there have been real and significant improvements in different parts of the criminal justice system. The Lord Advocate outlined many of those improvements and I will mention a few that are beginning to make a real difference in Aberdeen.

I do not disagree with Richard Lochhead that Aberdeen has a serious drugs problem and that that causes high levels of crime. However, I do not accept the other points that he made. When one speaks to people working in the area, it is clear that there is beginning to be a sustained input of resources in Aberdeen to support effective policing, drugs education and further development of community rehabilitation services.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

No.

An increasing range of services is being made available. That is clear, whether one speaks to the chair of the local DAT, to Grampian police or to Aberdeen Drugs Action, a voluntary group that does good, valuable work in the city. I am aware that, like his predecessor, the Deputy Minister for Justice is clear about the problems in Aberdeen. I am pleased that Richard Simpson came to Aberdeen to launch the £10 million better off programme. I hope that soon Aberdeen will receive an extra £0.5 million, which will provide further rehab services for 300 addicts in Aberdeen initially.

We need to develop services as quickly as possible. Increasingly, the barrier to doing so is not a lack of resources but a lack of people. Because of the lack of trained drugs workers, we were slow to get DTTOs up and running in Aberdeen. We must recognise how effective DTTOs in Aberdeen are. They are beginning to offer drug abusers who are involved in crime ways of addressing their behaviour and moving out of drugs use.

I would like DTTOs to be complemented by a drugs court in Aberdeen. I know that the two drugs courts elsewhere are having a positive impact. A drugs court would be a useful addition to our strategy for addressing the drugs problem in Aberdeen.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

No. I have very little time and want to speak about a number of issues.

The other service that I want to mention is the Procurator Fiscal Service. Recently I met John Watt, the new procurator fiscal in Aberdeen. He is happy with the increased resources that have been made available and the focus on modernising the service. When the current Solicitor General was the fiscal in Aberdeen, there was a problem of low pay for fiscals compared with other local opportunities. That problem has been solved. More generally, the Procurator Fiscal Service has been restructured and more information technology has been introduced to streamline services and produce better justice.

No one would dispute the suggestion that there is still a great deal to do. As usual, Mr Lochhead tells us that we are all doomed. However, we should recognise that there have been real successes. Grampian police were not receiving as much money as they ought, but that problem is being solved—they will receive an increased share of resources over the next three years. The force is undertaking the biggest recruitment drive for many years and I am sure that the extra money will allow it to recruit even more officers. Grampian police are to be commended for introducing initiatives such as intelligence-led and problem-solving policing and better call handling, all of which make a real impact on crime in the city.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton called for more highly visible policing. I suggest that he come to see what is happening in areas of Aberdeen, such as Middlefield, where the police are rolling out initiatives that involve high-intensity and high-visibility policing. The police there are working with other agencies such as the Prince's Trust and Barnardo's Scotland to reduce crime and to offer real opportunities for young people to get out of crime.

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

We come to wind-up speeches. Members should try to keep them to time, please. George Lyon has four minutes.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The debate has been reasonable and a large number of points have been covered. I begin by highlighting a point that has not been touched on, however, which is the problem of hard-core young criminals—the so-called untouchables. Overall youth crime figures have been running at approximately the same level for the past 10 years. However, when one looks into the statistics, one quickly discovers that the number of those who have been dealt with for more than 10 offences has grown by more than 40 per cent. We need to deal with that crucial area of youth crime.

A number of cases from my constituency have been raised with me in which one young person is a one-man crime wave. His parents cannot control him, the schools cannot control him and the police and social work services cannot deal with him. Hence the tag "the untouchables". We have to address that issue. The Executive has carried out a lot of work in improving the criminal justice system, but we need to come up with answers to the problem. I am not suggesting for one minute that there are easy answers, but the problem is not intractable. However, the issue is raised time after time in my constituency surgeries and my dealings with local police.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

George Lyon has raised an important point, because there are one-man and two-man crime waves all over Scotland. Is not the solution to have more secure accommodation? That is what I hear from the Borders and East Lothian. There are insufficient places. The police can point to people on the street who are committing crime waves and should be in secure accommodation, but who come back time and again. The issue is rehabilitation.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I do not think that locking up young offenders is the answer, because they will come back out into society and the reoffending behaviour will continue. We have to come up with solutions that tackle the fundamental problem with such children, to try to prevent them from reoffending. That is the key issue. Secure places might have a role to play, but they are not a solution in themselves.

In Michael Matheson's opening remarks, we had to wait 10 minutes before we heard what the SNP's answers were to the problems that he raised. He suggested having more resources up front, but he did not say how much more was needed. He suggested that there should be more police, but he did not say how many more. Christine Grahame clarified that by saying that there should be 1,000 more, but she did not say where the money would come from. Michael Matheson also suggested that there should be a sufficient number of secure places, but again he did not say how many or how much they might cost. He went on to say that we should end the tinkering and the reviews, but the SNP's solution to the problem of the number of reviews is to have another one. Instead of having six reviews, it wants one great big, overarching review to replace them—that is its answer to the problem.

Colin Boyd was right to outline the major reviews that are taking place. More important, he pointed out that the Pryce-Dyer review is now being implemented. Over the next two to three years, we hope that the investment in management time and money and the changes that have been made to the system will deliver a criminal justice system and a Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that can deliver and back up the police's good work.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton agreed with the Lord Advocate's remarks about hoax calls. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I echo that view. I heard on the radio this morning that some 70 per cent of the 340 calls that have been made since the strike began have been hoaxes. That is disgraceful. I do not understand who could think that that is a sensible thing to do at this time, when people's lives are at stake.

Donald Gorrie raised several concerns, including a concern about pilot projects. Although one might well criticise the Executive for the number of on-going pilot projects, there is a fundamental need to evaluate policy, to make sure that it works and to fine tune it before rolling it out across Scotland. Donald Gorrie's key point was that, once pilot projects have been evaluated, they must be rolled out across Scotland and the necessary resources must be put in place to ensure that they are turned into action.

As Colin Boyd said, police numbers are at an all-time high. The First Minister has pledged to maintain that track record. As the Lord Advocate also said, Tory Governments regarded the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service as a cinderella service for a long time. The first Labour Administration continued that neglect until the coalition took over. Record investment is reversing that position. In 1996-97, the spend on the Crown Office was £47 million; it is now £87 million. More than 100 new legal staff have been taken on and the number of backroom staff has also increased. I suggest that that track record of action is bringing the criminal justice system into a modern state that is fit for the 21st century.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Like other members, I associate myself with the remarks that have been made on the bogus 999 calls. It is depressing that such a moronic tendency should prevail in some parts of Scotland. I hope that the Lord Advocate's direction to fiscals will be that those cases should be prosecuted relentlessly and fast-tracked, because of the possible length of the dispute.

Several interesting speeches have been made. The debate is about the Executive's attitude to justice policy. That attitude was encapsulated in two joint meetings of the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee at which we discussed the budget. It was apparent from those discussions that justice is the poor relation.

There is a lack of cohesion between the justice ministers and law officers. The blame for that lies firmly with the justice ministers. In fairness, law officers are aware of the problems. They know that serious crime is increasing and that it is increasing in complexity. They understand the problems of court delays and of the importation into Scots law of requirements arising from the European convention on human rights. Justice ministers have manifestly failed to obtain the necessary budgetary support. In the never-ending litany of Executive priorities, justice is not only the poor relation; it is the cinderella department.

Winnie Ewing (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The lack of availability of forensic witnesses often hampers the prosecution's ability to bring a criminal to book when a crime of abusing a child or an adult has been reported.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

As ever, Dr Ewing makes a telling point. Other important points must be made. Fiscals' pay is under review. What will happen if the review results in a substantial increase? What effect will that have on the budget? It is true that a number of other reviews are on the go. That is a good thing. We wait for the result of Sheriff Principal McInnes's deliberations with considerable interest. The Justice 2 Committee will report in December.

I am becoming increasingly anxious about the progress of Lord Bonomy's long-awaited report on the operation of the High Court. The delay is inhibiting proper consideration of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. We need the report to be produced as quickly as possible.

Although things are happening, all efforts will come to nothing unless the justice ministers realise that many of their policies will increase crime, rather than reducing it. Their ludicrous proposal to extend the jurisdiction of the children's hearings system to 16 and 17-year-olds is a typical example. That sends out totally the wrong message.

We all recognise the immense drug problems that face every section of our society and we all hope that the drugs court pilots will succeed. However, that will not happen unless those courts are respected by all the agencies involved and particularly by their clients. I do not think that that respect will be forthcoming unless the clients are required to stay off drugs and submit to testing when necessary. Otherwise, what sort of message will be sent out to people who have many previous convictions and custodial sentences? If the procedure is not tightened up, people will come to regard the drugs courts simply as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

The Executive has opportunities to make improvements as the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill makes its way through the parliamentary system. Next week, we will discuss deducting fines from benefits and civil diligence. Will the Deputy Minister for Justice follow his colleagues down south and agree that such measures represent the way forward? Will he go ahead with the increased powers of sentencing and disposal that we are recommending for the children's hearings system? Will he support our proposal for a realistic non-custodial alternative rather than the present racket of unfulfilled community service orders? Public cynicism about the Executive's justice programme is at its height. The Executive must move to allay that cynicism at the earliest opportunity.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

This has been an interesting debate. In fact, I think that members have raised about 20 issues today, some of which could be the subject of individual debates in the chamber. However, I am disappointed that the Opposition parties have not accorded the Lord Advocate and the justice department any significant praise, although Bill Aitken went some way in that direction.

Massive steps are being taken. The review of the Crown Office and the subsequent reforms represent the biggest set of changes that the prosecution system has experienced for some time. The pay negotiations are continuing and are at a sensitive stage. The Bonomy review should report in a few weeks, followed by the McInnes review. The Nicholson committee is doing important work on licensing legislation. The new judicial appointments system has been introduced. Those are just some of the initiatives that the justice department is dealing with in a highly effective way.

All that work is being done against a background of a worldwide increase in violent crime, which is a challenge to our society. Many speakers, including Donald Gorrie, Richard Lochhead, Michael Matheson, Keith Raffan and several Labour members, have alluded to the drug problem, which comes on top of the existing alcohol problem. Alcohol has always been a problem in relation to crime and that needs to be addressed. The review of the licensing legislation is part of that, with a possibility of tests in relation to purchasing alcohol and the introduction of non-compulsory youth identity cards. There is a range of initiatives that try to deal with the alcohol problem more effectively.

The drugs issue is fundamental to the major changes that have been occurring in our society. In that regard, Elaine Thomson has invited me to Aberdeen and I have agreed to go. Richard Lochhead does not appear to acknowledge that we have nearly doubled Grampian NHS Board's expenditure from £0.75 million to £1.3 million and that we have introduced £2 million of new money for rehabilitation. That money was not fully spent in the first year by the local authorities, but it is in the system nevertheless. We have also put other moneys into the system through social inclusion partnerships and many other initiatives. Furthermore, because Grampian has a specific problem in relation to psychostimulants, we will run the pilot scheme on psychostimulant treatment there.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the minister think that it is appropriate that people in Grampian have to commit crime in order to get drug treatment?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Nobody should have to commit crime in order to get drug treatment. I openly acknowledge that there are problems in some areas in that there are waiting lists for standard treatments that are based on a traditional medical model and that someone who injects heroin will get treatment more quickly than someone who only smokes heroin. However, the justice department is driving through DTTOs and drugs courts, which will enable treatment to be obtained more quickly. We are trying to integrate treatment programmes to ensure that they are effective. However, I do not deny that we have a long way to go. We must improve matters.

In the brief time that I have, it is difficult to deal with all the issues. However, on police, the SNP's simple approach of calling for 1,000 more officers sounds wonderful and gets a headline—the press respond to it beautifully in an almost Pavlovian way—but the important point is what those police actually do. My colleagues, such as Paul Martin, addressed those issues. They acknowledged the fact that police officers do inappropriate tasks and that we need to improve the court system so that the police are less involved in it. They also acknowledged that we need to improve police efficiency and effectiveness.

I do not have time to address all the other issues that have been raised, but the debate has been interesting. The other fundamental point that was raised—I think that only Duncan Hamilton and Pauline McNeill referred to it—is the total change that we are trying to bring about by redressing the balance between the victim and the offender. That is fundamental to the way in which we progress the justice system. I hope that the Parliament will support the Executive amendment and recognise—

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the minister give way?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I do not have time, I am afraid. I am already over time.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

What about Sewel motions?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

We are considering Sewel motions. We will publish a list in due course. We are examining the Queen's speech.

The choice before the Parliament is stark. It is between following what the Executive is doing—a number of reviews, with incremental improvement and steady progress—or waiting for the big review that the SNP suggests. How long will that take? Would it be four or five years to have a royal commission? Let us continue with the Executive's effective programme. That is the way forward.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I call Christine Grahame to close the debate for the SNP. You have up to eight minutes. If you can shave anything off that, that would be helpful.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I would not want to offend you, Presiding Officer, so I will do my best.

I associate the SNP with the remarks that have been made about the absolutely outrageous hoax calls. Last night's hoax calls follow a spate of outrageous attacks against firefighters at fire scenes. Such attacks are increasing. I note what the Lord Advocate says about prosecuting hoax callers rigorously. He has the full support of the SNP on that, because firemen—and women—risk their lives every day. The public are doubtless ashamed that a minority takes part in hoax calls.

Richard Simpson rightly says that there is a plethora of issues. I will try to touch on them as they came up. As the Lord Advocate knows well, across the Parliament's parties and committees, we—the Scottish National Party is represented—have fully supported those areas of the prosecution service that require support. We have acknowledged the severe stress that procurators fiscal are under, even to the extent that, as has been remarked, one has to look for a desk. I am not surprised: the procurator fiscals have been the Cinderellas of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Another concern is the fact that senior procurators fiscal are moved into management. The difficulties in management have perhaps led to the disastrous failures in the prosecutions in the Cawley and Chhokar cases. We realise that resources are needed. However, we also realise that the prosecution service needs reform.

On secure accommodation, I have heard remarks in the chamber about 25 new places. I am content to take an intervention from Richard Simpson if he will tell us whether those 25 places have already been allocated, which is my understanding. Perhaps he will write to me later on that.

I endorse what Pauline McNeill said about the justice committees' thoughtful analysis of the criminal justice budget. We would like the resources for secure accommodation to be mainly in the justice budget line and streamed down into the children and education line. Those areas overlap; there is a clash. The ADSW requires that the resources be budgeted in that manner. We lack secure accommodation places.

That partly answers George Lyon's point about offenders being back on the streets. Putting offenders into secure accommodation is not the entire answer, but it is part of it. It is frustrating for the police to see on the streets one young offender who is a crime wave in his own right. By way of explanation, I should add that, when we refer to secure accommodation, we are referring to a whole range of facilities. We do not just mean bars for keeping in baddies; we mean secure accommodation for the protection of young people who run away from home and separate secure accommodation for young women and young men and for disabled people. That area has been neglected and the Parliament and its committees have shone a light on that neglect. The SNP is committed to 100 more secure places across the range, to ensure that there is no longer a lack of accommodation for all the young people out there who need our help and, in some cases, from whom the public need protection.

The SNP is committed to 1,000 more front-line police officers. The police are put into jobs that they do not require to do. I visited one police station where a police officer was spending two days putting labels on evidence about fraudulent dealing in compact discs. That was a waste of police time. We need police out, on foot, on our streets. That is not simply for detection, but as a preventive measure. As Pauline McNeill correctly said, it would make people feel secure in their communities and make our streets feel safer. The young vandals and hoodlums who come along and bang at cars, breaking their wing mirrors, will not do that if there is a policeman on patrol. The elderly person who will not leave their house because they think that they are under threat from a group of youths—even if they are not in fact under threat—will have the freedom to go out if they see police on patrol, which will make them feel secure. Putting more police on the streets is essential as a preventive measure.

Far too many prisoners are on remand. I lodged written questions—S1W-29260 and S1W-29259—on bail schemes and had it confirmed that such schemes are only now being set up. The answer that I received was:

"Bail supervision schemes are currently being set up by local authority criminal justice social work services".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 4 November 2002; p 2108.]

I asked that question as recently as September 2002, three years plus into the Parliament. We know that 10 per cent of criminal justice social worker posts are unfilled. The pressures on the criminal justice social work system are enormous. That relates to issues that Donald Gorrie and others went into, including diversions from prosecution, alternatives to custody and keeping people out of prisons.

We know that being in prison is a waste of time in most cases. We know that more than 70 per cent of prisoners reoffend within two years and that 82 per cent of them are in prison for less than six months. That is a cock-eyed way in which to run the criminal justice system.

We have to put money into diversions from prosecution and alternatives to custody. I recognise Donald Gorrie's long-standing campaign on alternatives to custody. My party has been campaigning on it, too, although I do not want to make a party-political point about that—of course, Keith Raffan would not know a party-political point if he tripped and fell over it.

The Justice 1 Committee has had to undertake—under its own steam and in its own precious time—an investigation into alternatives to custody, because, as committee members know from the evidence that they have collected, there is no audit or directory of alternatives to custody or diversions from prosecution.

Good things are going on all over the place, however, including the Cluaran project in Falkirk, where young people are being diverted away from prosecution. There is also the breaking the cycle youth crime initiative in East Lothian. However, those initiatives are patchy and nobody has added up what is being done in those areas—if that work was done, sheriffs would know what was available to them.

It is interesting that the following debate is on poverty. That is a relevant issue, as so much that happens to young people depends on where they live and on their start in life. Some young people can see a life of crime from when they are toddlers. Their chances of not getting into that life are sometimes remote.

Proposals for drugs courts came from the SNP, of course. We have no problems about where ideas come from, but I ask Paul Martin to recognise please where the idea for drugs courts, which he opposed, came from. Keith Raffan raised the possibility of our examining the extent to which alcohol is involved. That is a pet project of mine. We should consider how people with alcohol problems can be diverted from prison. We know that the coalition invests little in that and that the extent of alcohol problems is far and away greater than the extent of problems associated with drugs.

Furthermore, alcohol is often seen as the gateway to drugs. I know that Keith Raffan agrees with me on that matter.

The situation with Sewel motions is a disgrace. We have had 38 Sewel motions so far. There was supposed to be a trickle of them, but it is turning into a flood. The fight against Sewel motions will continue in the chamber. What is the point of having a devolved Parliament if devolved issues are clawed back to Westminster?

Point of Order

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It has come to my attention that I was recorded as not voting for the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill yesterday. I sat on the working group that considered the bill closely for 18 months and I supported the bill yesterday. I would be obliged if someone would consider the matter.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am sure that the technical staff will examine the matter, but obviously, the vote is now on the record.

Poverty

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3570, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on poverty. The debate was already tight and we are now six minutes late in starting it. I advise members that I will be strict on timings and that I might not be able to call all members who wish to speak. I call Kenneth Gibson to speak to and move his motion.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

One complaint that is voiced about the Executive relates to the absence of independent analysis of what it delivers. The Executive is often judge and jury on its own performance. Today, I will focus on independent analysis, which is provided in the report "Poverty in Scotland 2002: People, places and policies", which was published by the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, the Scottish poverty information unit and others. The main finding of the report is that around one third of Scottish children still live in poverty. The report also concluded that the Scottish Executive is limited in addressing employment policy and social security matters, which are the main areas of social policy and are reserved to Westminster.

As we know, in an independent Scotland, the Scottish Parliament would have full control over tax and benefits, which would allow Scotland to collect and target resources for the benefit of the population and would open the way to real social justice for all Scots. Does any member doubt that Westminster's hold on important reserved matters such as employment policy and social security holds back Scotland's potential? If Scotland had control over such powers, would invalidity benefit and benefit for single parents have been cut or—as a Liberal Democrat member of Parliament recently discovered—would secret plans to cut benefits for 650,000 working single parents throughout the United Kingdom have been introduced? I doubt it.

Unfortunately, devolution has led to little real change in social policy, which is influenced overwhelmingly by UK control. At the very least, attention must be refocused on the nature of policy co-ordination and Scotland's interaction with Westminster during policy development. The research from the devolution and constitutional change unit concluded that civil servants find it hard to discuss reserved matters. The report stated:

"Policy seems to be very reliant on Westminster".

The Scottish Parliament has no direct control over the most obvious anti-poverty measures, despite the valiant efforts of the Scottish Executive. Yesterday, while taking evidence on the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Bill at the Social Justice Committee, I asked representatives of the Big Issue in Scotland, Shelter Scotland and the Scottish Council for Single Homeless whether restoration of benefits for 16 and 17-year-olds would make a difference to the prevention of homelessness. The answer was a resounding yes, but the Executive has no powers to act. Does any member believe that the Executive would not restore those benefits, if it had the power to do so? Unfortunately, London says no.

What is the true picture of poverty in Scotland? Around a quarter of Scots, including 30 per cent of children, live in low-income households that are below the 60 per cent median income threshold. That is higher than the UK average and, in 2001, the figure increased by 1 per cent from the previous year, as thousands more families slid into poverty. In November 2001, the total number of people on income support was 668,000, which includes claimants, their partners and dependants. The percentage of the Scottish population who received income support was 13.1 per cent, which is above the UK average of 11.7 per cent. That figure is higher than in 1997, when new Labour came to power.

Thirty-four per cent of Scottish households now claim income-related benefits, in contrast to just more than one quarter in the UK. A higher proportion of households in Scotland receive housing and council tax benefit than in the UK. As has been stated, we would disregard those benefits in calculating working families tax credits, as advocated by One Plus and others.

It is significant that, in the UK, the number of people who are economically inactive is five times greater than the number of unemployed people. Economic inactivity is often described as hidden unemployment. It is high among groups that are vulnerable in the labour market such as older people, lone parents, people with disabilities and those who live in disadvantaged areas including the post-industrial communities of west central Scotland.

Lone parents are disproportionately represented among those who face poverty. They are twice as likely as couples with children to be poor. More than a quarter of all pensioners live in households where the income is half the average income. A great percentage of households with disabled people are in the lower income bands; more than two thirds of such households have incomes of less than £10,000.

Fourteen per cent of Scottish 16 to 19-year-olds are not in employment, training or education. The proportion has remained virtually constant since 1992. Roughly a quarter of the new deal entrants in Scotland have no qualifications.

New Labour has published a consultation document on new ways of measuring child poverty. Indeed, that is typical of new Labour: if it fails to meet a target, it re-defines it. Last Thursday, in answer to a question from my colleague Linda Fabiani, the First Minister spoke of "absolute poverty". He was attempting to change the Executive's definitions—no doubt embarrassed at having the highest relative poverty in western Europe.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The member will recognise that the definition of absolute poverty has been used in the social justice annual report since the beginning. The member will also recognise that the level of absolute poverty for children has fallen sharply from 34 per cent to 21 per cent, which is 13 per cent lower. Does he welcome that—yes or no?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

That is because the Executive changed the definition of absolute poverty.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

No. Across the European Union, the definition that is recognised is that of relative poverty. I am getting a feeling of déjà vu—this reminds me of the argument on waiting times. Let us deal with the issue rather than seek redefinitions.

Any redefinition of poverty that produces dramatic changes in the figures would erode public trust. The redrawing of the statistical definition of poverty reminds the SNP of the Tories' continual remeasuring of unemployment when they were in power. The Social Market Foundation has commented:

"Any attempt to adopt this measure would result in allegations that the Government is 'manipulating' the figures".

The Social Market Foundation is not the Executive; it is an independent group, which has also set out:

"Any good measure of poverty must satisfy the requirements of being simple, intuitive, consistent, useful, robust, objective, appropriately relative and comparable."

In the Scottish Executive's annual report "Social Justice ...a Scotland where everyone matters", it sets out:

"Above all we wish to make child poverty a thing of the past within a generation."

That is not desperately ambitious when the statement is compared with the situation in other countries, but it is a start. However, child poverty levels in Scotland remain virtually unchanged. The Child Poverty Action Group states:

"The role of the Scottish Executive and Parliament is limited in addressing employment matters, especially income measures such as the national minimum wage and Working Families Tax Credit since these are reserved issues to Westminster."

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am sorry. I am afraid that I have fallen a bit behind. If I have time, I will let the member in.

The Westminster Government has failed to tackle the minimum wage for those aged 16 and 17 years. The Scottish Low Pay Unit has consistently argued against a separate minimum wage for young workers. It has said:

"There has never been any justification for paying workers doing the same job different rates simply on the grounds of age."

Does the minister not agree?

Low wages and the problems of the working poor remain the major features of poverty throughout Scotland today. The introduction of the national minimum wage is a step in the right direction, but much remains to be done. I highlight in particular: scrapping the youth development rate; linking future increases to movement in average earnings; improving the enforcement of the minimum wage; and setting up an independent operating mechanism.

For many people with disabilities, work is unobtainable. Claiming benefits such as disability living allowance and attendance allowance is an enduring challenge for them and their representatives. The working families tax credit increases the number of people who are entitled to benefit, but they are often drawn into marginal rates of taxation and the poverty trap.

The 2000-01 family resources survey found that more than one third of children below the poverty line did not receive income support or working families tax credit. Across the United Kingdom, another report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies found:

"Some 1.5 million children in poverty are in families that do not receive the benefits that are the Government's principal instrument for tackling child poverty. This puts almost two in every five poor children out of reach of increases in means-tested benefits making child poverty targets significantly harder to reach."

The new Labour Government has been slow to make inroads in addressing another key policy aim, which is ending pensioner poverty. The introduction of a minimum income guarantee and the new pension credit scheme that is planned for 2003 will increase pensioner's reliance on means-tested benefits, while the basic state pension continues to be tied to the retail prices index. The National Pensions Convention said that the minimum income guarantee

"coupled with the new Pension Credit proposals to take into account the amount of individual savings, will result in 5.5 million pensioners (half the pensioner population) facing some form of means-testing by 2003."

Life expectancy is a clear indicator of poverty, and the gap between life expectancy in Drumchapel in Glasgow and in neighbouring Bearsden is eight years. Children in Glasgow's Easterhouse, in the minister's constituency, are five times more likely to die before their first birthday than the United Kingdom average. Children from poor families have lower expectations about their future and are more likely to have lower esteem, play truant and leave school at 16. Individuals who leave school with low levels of educational attainment are at higher risk of experiencing social exclusion as adults and have significantly lower lifetime earnings.

Homelessness in Scotland is now at a record level. As Mel Young, a director of the Big Issue, has stated:

"It would be much better if benefits were devolved to Scotland as part of an integrated anti-poverty strategy."

Mike Aaronson, director general of the charity Save the Children, decried the Government's lack of ambition and said:

"even if the government meets its current 10-year target this would still leave the UK with the highest child poverty rate in Europe."

Of course, the rate in Scotland is higher than the UK rate. As today's edition of The Scotsman states in response to the third report of the Scottish household survey:

"The findings present a worrying picture of a widening social and economic divide between the country's haves and have-nots".

That is today, after five and a half years of Labour Government.

Across Europe, from the Basque country to Bavaria, devolved Parliaments have greater tools than Scotland has with which to tackle poverty. Obtaining such powers would be progress, but if we are to reduce poverty to Swedish or Finnish levels and beyond, we need the powers of those Parliaments. For that, we need independence.

I move,

That the Parliament deplores the fact that a quarter of all Scots and a third of all Scottish children live in poverty; accepts that any measure of poverty must satisfy the requirements of being relative and comparable, noting that the Scottish Executive appears to place less emphasis on reducing the incidence of poverty than changing its definition; is aware that the Scottish Executive is limited in its ability to eliminate poverty due to the inadequacy of the powers devolved to Scotland, and believes that the most effective way to tackle poverty in Scotland is to ensure that all powers over tax and spending decisions are transferred from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am pleased to respond to the SNP's debate. I want to talk about what we are doing to tackle poverty, the real changes that we have made to people's lives, and the challenges that still lie ahead.

I want to talk about the realities of poverty, unlike the SNP, which has nothing to offer Scotland's poor but empty rhetoric about independence. The myth of independence will not close the opportunity gap, which still stops too many of our children realising their potential.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the minister tell me whether levels of child poverty in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, France and Spain are lower than in Scotland? If so, does she believe that that might have something to do with the fact that they are independent countries with complete control over their own economy?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

There are two main points to make about that.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Just answer the question.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am sorry. I know that Lloyd Quinan wants simplistic answers like his simplistic analysis, but sometimes it takes more than one sentence to explain something to him. He will just have to bear with me.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

If the minister does not know the answer, she should admit it.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Order.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Please, let me try to answer the question. There are two main points to make about that. First, Lloyd Quinan compared European countries with our figures, but the figures are out of date. He was not comparing like with like, because the figures do not factor in the changes brought in by this Labour Government. Secondly, it seems to me that we have the best arrangements possible in Scotland, because we have a strongly performing Labour Government at Westminster that has tackled unemployment and produced economic stability and growth. That has given us a country of rising prosperity, which has allowed us to tackle the issues.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The minister has not answered the question.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I have answered the question. The constitutional arrangements that we have are delivering for Scotland.

Winnie Ewing (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Please bear with me—I have just taken an intervention. [ Interruption. ]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Order. The minister is not giving way.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The myth of independence will not give our pensioners the quality of life that they deserve. I understand that the SNP's central, and apparently only, plank of policy is that it wants the powers, but the fundamental question that it has yet to answer is what it would do with them. The myth of independence will not help lone parents into work, but our policies will.

Working with the UK Government, we are building a Scotland in which people can live in safe, secure communities, a Scotland that offers rights for all, and a Scotland in which poverty no longer destroys lives and stifles ambition. Since 1997, we have made huge strides in our fight against poverty. The percentage of children living in poverty dropped by four points between 1996-97 and 2000-01, and the percentage of children living in absolute poverty has gone down from 34 per cent to 21 per cent. Even the SNP would have to admit that that is a remarkable achievement.

I clarify for the record that it is a well-established fact in the field of poverty that absolute poverty must be measured. We need to measure the real changes in people's living circumstances. However, we must also measure relative poverty. It is quite legitimate to say that the poorest people have a stake in this country's rising prosperity. The SNP has failed to grasp that we are living in a country with rising prosperity, which is why the figures on relative poverty stand as they are.

We have also made real progress on pensioner poverty. For example, the percentage of pensioners living in relative poverty has dropped by five points to 23 per cent, and the percentage of pensioners living in absolute poverty has dropped by 15 points to 13 per cent.

Although those statistics are encouraging, we can—and will—do better. Although we have achieved much, we have also learned much, and those lessons will inform our policies for the future. We know that we cannot defeat poverty overnight, just as we understand that a single indicator cannot tell the whole story.

Poverty is not just about income measurement, important though that is. In order to tackle poverty, we must ensure that our schools deliver for all our children; that the health service delivers; and that people have the skills to earn a decent wage. We want everyone to live in a decent home in a safe neighbourhood and we want all Scots to enjoy a rich cultural life.

We have already made a real and lasting difference to people's lives. Since April 2001, more than 10,000 pensioners have received free central heating. That is not a myth—that is a fact. Over the next 10 years, £1.6 billion will be spent on Glasgow's housing to ensure that 80,000 tenants have the warm, dry homes that they deserve. Again, that is not a myth—that is a fact. Furthermore, we have provided £10 million for refuges to ensure that women and children fleeing domestic abuse have safe havens. That is not a myth—that is a fact.

We have learned that the challenge presented by the relative poverty figures is to narrow the gap so that everyone can have a fair share of Scotland's prosperity. The Scottish budget that we published recently concentrates our resources on closing the opportunity gap. Let me tell the chamber what the Executive is doing. Cathy Jamieson will invest an additional £31 million to ensure that sure start Scotland continues its excellent record in supporting the most vulnerable families. Malcolm Chisholm has committed an extra £40 million over the next three years to improve treatment for heart disease and strokes, which are the diseases that stalk our disadvantaged communities. Moreover, I recently announced £20 million of new money to help people into work. That money will provide more and better child care. Too many people are poor because they have no job, no skills for jobs, or no affordable child care to keep jobs.

We have done much to change that situation. In the mid-1980s, there were more than 70,000 unemployed people in Glasgow; now there are 17,000. However, there are more than 30,000 employment vacancies in the city and we need to address the opportunity gap for communities right across Scotland. The chamber should believe me when I say that we will do so, because we believe in hard facts and policies that deliver, not in myths that offer people nothing, not even hope.

On Monday I will publish our third social justice annual report, which will outline our progress on our 29 social justice milestones and which, as I promised in the chamber last month, will also contain robust poverty figures for children and for pensioners.

Although we have made a lot of progress since devolution in our fight against poverty, we have still got a long way to go. There are no easy or simple solutions to tackling poverty, and anyone who colludes with that sentiment is being dishonest with the people of Scotland.

Defeating poverty is the hardest job that faces any Government, but we have had the courage to take on the challenge. I am confident that we have the policies in place to achieve our ambition of a better Scotland for all, and the Administration is united in its determination to ensure that social justice is at the heart of all that we deliver.

I do not underestimate the challenges that we have set ourselves and we can never be complacent about our efforts to tackle poverty. Sometimes we will miss a target, and sometimes an approach will have to change; however, such setbacks will not stop me or this Administration making the real and lasting changes that are needed to build a better Scotland for all. We must never forget that practical action and realistic policies, not nationalist myths, change people's lives for good and for ever.

I move amendment S1M-3570.2, to leave out from "deplores" to end and insert:

"supports the Scottish Executive's plans to tackle poverty as set out in Closing the Opportunity Gap: Scottish Budget 2003-2006; agrees that the definition of poverty extends beyond low income to include lack of opportunity in aspects of people's lives such as jobs, health, education, transport and housing, and welcomes the progress that the Executive is making in tackling poverty in the broadest sense, in order to close the opportunity gap for the most disadvantaged people and communities, both urban and rural, across Scotland."

Lyndsay McIntosh (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thank Kenny Gibson and the SNP for choosing to debate such an extremely important subject. However, after seeing the motion, I had to pity them. Once again, the SNP has turned a debate on an important issue into yet another constitutional question. The motion is less to do with alleviating poverty than with the SNP's endless attempts to split up the UK and the fact that its approach is identical to that of Scottish Labour. It is the same old song from the SNP.

The debate should be not about the constitution, but about Parliament finding the best way of helping vulnerable people in Scotland.

It is true that much material poverty has been alleviated, but as a matter of urgency, we must tackle 21st century forms of poverty caused by the fragility of families and communities, poor public order and failing public services. I do not doubt for a second the commitment of the Scottish Government to find an end to poverty in Scotland and Margaret Curran's enthusiasm on the subject was obvious for all to see. However, I question the policies that the Government chooses to deal with the problem. The policies treat the problem as though it can be solved simply by throwing money at it. It is far more complex than that.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Last week, in common with her current theme, the member said that the old tax and spend approach has not worked and will never work. Will she please explain which spending she would cut?

Lyndsay McIntosh (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It is not a question of cutting spending; it is a question of targeting—one of the minister's favourite words.

The solution to poverty must start with the need to create wealth. That is the best means of raising people out of poverty.

The Scottish dependency culture is serious and worrying—more than one in five Scots of working age receive some form—

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Lyndsay McIntosh (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I have just taken one and my time is limited, but I am feeling generous.

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

I have listened carefully to the member's comments about poverty not being solved by throwing money at the problem. Do I take it, therefore, that the member agrees with the UK Labour Government, which reduces lone parent and invalidity benefits and offers 75p a week to pensioners?

Lyndsay McIntosh (Conservative, Central Scotland)

No, I agree that targeting would be more effective. If we targeted benefits more effectively, we would be doing something to assist people.

Far from taking pride in the figures—as many people on the left want to do—we should be ashamed that one in five Scots of working age receive benefit, and we should instigate policies to bring down the figures. That involves policies focused on wealth creation to provide economic opportunity and security for everyone. We need bottom-up solutions to improve everyone's economic situation and a total rejection of the top-down policies advocated by other parties in the chamber, which do nothing to help the economic plight of the poor—they simply pull less vulnerable people in society backwards.

Scots do not want Government hand-outs; they want to be able to lift themselves out of the poverty trap. They will be able to do that if we concentrate on reducing the burdens of ever-increasing taxes and red tape and if we concentrate on spending more on infrastructure to help all businesses. As a consequence, we will increase levels of employment.

I am not saying that investment in our public services is not needed—of course it is. However, if it is not accompanied by reform of those public services, an opportunity will be lost.

Let us take education as an example. Improving standards in our schools is crucial in providing opportunity for all, yet education is in desperate need of reform. It desperately needs a rejection of the comprehensive, one-size-fits-all policy that has failed too many of our school pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds whom the policy was designed to help. Even Tony Blair has recognised that.

The Scottish Government can throw millions into education and come up with as many initiatives, strategies and gimmicks as it likes, but we must realise that, if we do not promote choice and diversity, vulnerable children will never be able to grasp the opportunity that a good education offers them and rid themselves and their families of ball-and-chain dependency on the state.

Free-market economic policies succeed in a framework of public order and in a society where people have the safety net of stable families, strong communities and high-quality public services—such as education and health, of which we will speak more later. As my colleague Bill Aitken will attest, social justice can take place only in the broader framework of civil justice. We must recapture the confidence of the nation by putting community policemen back on the beat and punishing criminals more adequately for their crimes.

With wealth-creating policies, educational opportunities, strong law and order, first-class public services and stronger families and communities, people will have the ability to lift themselves out of the dependency culture that currently smothers them. If all those interdependent reforms are not carried out, the problems will not go away.

I move amendment S1M-3570.1, to leave out from deplores to end and insert:

"recognises that poverty and vulnerability are still too widespread in 21st century Scotland, despite the fact that much material poverty has been alleviated, and believes that tackling modern forms of vulnerability requires policies that create wealth and provide economic opportunity and security for all, which can only happen within a framework of public order in which people have the security of strong families, communities and high quality public services."

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

We heard from Kenny Gibson a reasonable academic analysis, with lots of figures, of some of the issues that he was considering. I welcome Linda Fabiani back after her absence through illness yesterday.

The issue of poverty, and child poverty in particular, is one of huge importance to the lives of individuals and to the health of society in general. The success of public policy in tackling poverty is not measured in terms of the moral fervour of the individual politicians who rant about it, and I have to say that the main ranter is absent from our ranks today.

This morning's SNP motion is, I would suggest, ill timed, unambitious and extremely narrow in focus. It is ill timed because, as the minister said, the social justice annual report is due out on Monday and will give some definition and up-to-date figures on the debate. The main SNP contention is that poverty in Scotland exists because we have, to use a phrase trumpeted all over the papers today, an English legislative programme for an English Parliament. The magic answer—or, in policy terms, the meagre answer—is, as always, independence.

Winnie Ewing (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Given that Scotland is richer in natural resources than most of its neighbours, including Ireland, Denmark and Finland, will the minister explain why we beat them all hands down on poverty? Does not that suggest UK mismanagement over quite a long period?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I thank Dr Ewing for promoting me to the ranks of the ministerial body, but I do not think that her point is well made. If we examine the figures for poverty in Scotland—I shall come to the details in due course—we see that Scotland benefits from the union. There are arguments about the policies that we should be pursuing, but the detailed issues are not answered by independence.

There is obviously a case to be made for independence. There is a case for it making sense to have benefit issues and other Government spending dealt with in a unified way. In fairness, Kenny Gibson touched on that. However, there is not much of a case to be made for granting all tax powers to this Parliament. Even Andrew Wilson cannot disguise the reality that, as a third of Scottish households claim benefit, compared with a quarter of households in England, Scotland requires more resources from the UK Treasury to deal with the results of poverty.

The argument that control in Scotland of all the levers of power would help to fight poverty can be made only if we are going to do something substantially better and different with that control. The SNP does not have any concrete proposals for different policies to tackle poverty. Its only concrete tax proposal is to cut the rate of fuel tax, which would cost money and obviously would not help pensioners, single parents or children in poverty.

No, I am wrong. In fact, Scotland's party—the champions of Scotland—does have another proposal: it would review the benefits system. Well, gee whiz. How excited can we get about that sort of thing? Is that really what will make the difference?

I am not a great fan of targets, many of which are difficult to pin down in real terms or are affected by extraneous factors that are largely outwith the control of government, but it is clear on any measure that the Executive is making significant progress. The central heating scheme and the energy conservation measures that we have put in place increasingly are helping low-income families. Free personal care and the concessionary travel scheme will make a big difference to older people. Other measures, from the student finance settlement to the important provision of nursery places for three and four-year-olds, are also vital.

The central requirement—and the one that makes the biggest difference—is giving more people, particularly young people, the opportunity of income-creating employment. Liberal Democrats also argue and campaign for a more progressive use of the tax and benefits system—for a higher rate of tax on incomes over £100,000 a year and the abolition of taxation on incomes under £10,000 a year, for example. We argue for substantial real-terms pension rises, the restoration of benefits for 16 and 17-year-olds and the restoration of a proper level of benefits for under-25s.

On such measures, Liberal Democrats have many differences with the Labour Government—and, from time to time, with our Executive—but those differences pale into relative insignificance beside our differences with the Conservatives. Even yet, I am not sure that the Conservatives realise just how much their party is distrusted and hated for the way in which the Major and Thatcher Governments destroyed the employment and life prospects of a generation. My own city, Glasgow, and much of west central Scotland are still paying the price of chronic underinvestment in public services and the blighting of whole communities that Conservative Governments presided over. Chronicled in detail in all the newspapers today are the low rates of house ownership, the high benefit—

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will Mr Brown give way?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

No. I am in the final minute of my speech.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

He does not want to hear the truth.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The newspapers chronicle high benefit dependence, poor health, high unemployment and all the other stigmata of an underperforming society.

We in the Parliament are trying to clear up the resultant mess. The whole chamber knows in its heart of hearts that enormous strides have been taken throughout the public sector, the voluntary and independent sector and the private sector to increase opportunities, build skills and job readiness, provide child care and tackle underlying problems relating to health and insecurity, which undermine and sabotage opportunity. There is much more to do, but the Executive has made considerable steps along the road and I have considerable pleasure in supporting the Executive's amendment.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We now move to open debate. Colin Campbell will be followed by Trish Godman. Members have four minutes.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I hope that no representatives from any independent nations are present or likely to read tomorrow the Official Report of today's meeting. Apparently, their nations are a myth—they will find that a difficult concept to understand, given their success with social security.

I have said previously that I joined the SNP in 1976, when I was in full employment. I joined because Britain was not working for many people in Scotland; it is still not working for many people in Scotland. Is it not politics for the Executive to sit in the chamber and propose brilliant solutions to problems that have been derived from the British disease?

I will address the problem of pensioner poverty. Among the anomalies of the pensioners' situation is the fact that women are entitled to pensions at 60, whereas men are entitled to pensions at 65. The age of entitlement is likely to be made uniform, but in an upwards direction.

Unfortunately, pensions in Europe are often paid at an older age than they are in the UK, but Europe presents the UK with other interesting comparisons. In France and Germany, pensions represent 11 per cent of gross domestic product. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's estimates, the average for the richest 21 nations is 7.4 per cent of GDP; if Scotland were independent, it would be in the top ten of those nations. In the UK, the figure is a shameful 4.3 per cent of GDP, rising to 5.5 per cent if we include tax credits. That is a disgrace for a nation that was among the first in the world to introduce old-age pensions for its senior citizens. One would hope that the inevitability of progress would push the UK above the OECD average at some point in future. Unfortunately, predictions in the June 2001 "OECD Economic Outlook" suggested that by 2050—when I shall be 112, if I am very lucky, and some members will be in their 80s and 90s—the proportion of GDP, including tax credits, will still be only 6.5 per cent. That is the future and it does not look good.

I will now deal with the present. Some 20 per cent of pensioners in Scotland are below the 60 per cent median income threshold, which defines poverty. If we use the European definition of poverty, which is 50 per cent of the median, 25 per cent of our pensioners live in poverty. Some 41 per cent of single pensioners receive a net income that is less than £6,000 a year—that is not a good amount—whereas only 26 per cent of other single people have an income of less than £6,000 a year. Some 13 per cent of single pensioner households have an income of less than £4,000. The publication, "Scottish Economic Statistics 2002", says that the average household income in the UK is £296 a week. Pensioners' incomes are 17 per cent of that amount and could fall as low as 7 per cent by 2050 if policies are not changed.

What are the solutions? A longer working life or inducing people to contribute to private pension schemes are options that seem inevitable. Help the Aged, which has issued a document on the matter, makes the point that pensions should the subject of intelligent, long-term planning rather than expedient, quick political fixes to get parties through elections. No one can argue with that.

We can discuss poverty in the Parliament as often as we like, but it has been said that pensions are a reserved issue. If we want to produce a complete package for our elderly people, fundamental decisions on all social security matters should be taken in Scotland. The unionist British parties may be afraid of that, but the SNP is not.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No. The member's time is almost up.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Irrespective of where decisions are made, poverty is a blight that discourages the young, who still have the youthful optimism and resilience that will enable some of them to rise above it. To the old and frail, poverty is a last punishment for a life lived. We all have a duty to eradicate it. The Executive is not doing well enough.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We should all be committed to fighting poverty at all levels and to ending child poverty within a generation. No one would disagree with that premise.

The nationalist dream fantasy of an independent Scotland in which everyone is prosperous and lives happily ever after is as remote as it is fantastical and does little to help those living in poverty. As for the Tories, throughout the lifetime of their party, and even now in their twilight years, they have taken the disgusting view that the deserving and the undeserving poor will always be with us.

We recognise that there is a long way to go before we can achieve the aim of ending child poverty, but what have we achieved so far? As the minister said, between 1996-97 and 2000-01 the proportion of children living in low-income households fell from 34 per cent to 21 per cent. To maintain that downward trend, we must continue to examine social exclusion more widely. Factors such as access to jobs, transport, local services and good-quality housing all have a major impact on people's lives, particularly those of children.

I agree with the sentiments that were expressed by Danny Philips, who is head of the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland:

"we must all support the pledge to end child poverty by the Scottish Executive. It is simply unacceptable that in a rich nation such as Scotland so many children go without and enter the cycle of poverty into adulthood."

Labour's partnership with the Westminster Government has allowed real benefits to be delivered to the poorest in our society through increases in child benefit, the working families tax credit, the minimum wage and the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. In Scotland, our programmes that are aimed at tackling fuel poverty, such as the central heating programme and the warm deal, are producing real results and warmer, more energy-efficient homes that are better places in which to live and grow up. That is another prime example of social justice in action.

Education is one of the most effective ways out of poverty. By 2006, we will reduce by 10 per cent the gap in average attendance levels between schools that serve areas of high deprivation and those that serve areas of low deprivation. By 2008, we will reduce that gap by a further 10 per cent.

Three of the 30 children in Port Glasgow High School who have 100 per cent attendance are visiting me in the Parliament today. When I first spoke to those children, some of them told me that they were having difficulties attending daily. After an innovative programme in the school and with the commitment of the staff and the kids themselves, they have turned things round and are keen to participate in all levels of school activities.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

No, I will not.

We are using our devolved powers to address the root causes of poverty. We can see that clearly in the continuing downward trend. As the minister and I have said, the proportion of children living in low-income households has fallen from 34 per cent to 21 per cent since 1996. We must continue to invest in education and child care and to work towards employment for all, but poverty must be considered as an issue that is wider than income. Labour's improvements to housing, health care and transport services are all designed to benefit the poor.

It will be a long, hard slog to diminish poverty, but people in poverty are being misled badly by those who offer the panacea of constitutional change as the means of combating that evil. We need policies of redistribution both at Westminster and in the Scottish Parliament to tackle the evil of poverty in honest, practical ways.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We have heard some definitions of poverty today, but we have also heard about the poverty of ambition and of practical ideas in the SNP and in the combined ranks of the Labour party. In simple terms, we must consider not the independence that the SNP talks about but the independence and respect that individuals in Scotland should have. Such independence is concerned with the choice and opportunity that people should have in their lives.

For example, after five and a half years of a Labour Government, ability in the three Rs among children who leave school is still declining, but we have not heard about that from the minister this morning, or from anyone else on the Executive benches.

Lots of jobs are being created on the consumer side in service industries, but those jobs are not long term or sustainable. We must have long-term jobs in manufacturing, in the oil and gas industries and in the fishing industry. Some members were in Fraserburgh this week and in Peterhead last night. Hundreds of people in those towns are desperately worried about the decline in, and possible collapse of, the fishing industry. However, for every pound that is raised by fishermen landing something on the quayside, another £10 is raised in the support industries—and that does not include what people spend in the shops, the cinemas and the pubs.

I also want to talk about rural poverty, such as we have seen in agriculture. Contrary to Mr Rumbles's intervention in a previous debate, farmers do not make a reasonable living. The sum of £6,000 was mentioned in relation to pensioners' income, but many farmers do not have that much money to feed their families. They have had to pay off labour and those people are looking for work. We need a long-term solution that will ensure that people have choice and opportunity.

Ministers talk a lot about health. They have thrown millions of pounds of health spending into a black hole, because that funding has no focus, no format and no meaningful infrastructure. Rather than throw all that money at health in general terms, they should put the money into earlier intervention so that, for example, children who are deaf are identified before they go to school and can be given opportunities to listen and learn. We are talking about money that comes from the same pot.

The SNP has lots of theories, which we hear regularly, but SNP members brought nothing new to the debate; instead, we hear the old grind about how the system would be fine if they ran it. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, Robert Brown made only one valid comment, which concerned increasing opportunities for employment.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

It is a bit rich for the Conservatives to expect us to take lessons from them. Does Mr Davidson acknowledge the fact that, when the Tories came to power in 1979, 9 per cent of the population was in poverty—that is, in households with an income below 50 per cent of the average income—and that, by the time that the Tories left power, a quarter of the entire population was living in poverty?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Mr Rumbles takes us back to the issue of definitions. That is not forward looking. For the past three and a half years, the Liberal Democrats have been responsible for everything that Labour has pushed through because, without Liberal Democrat votes, Labour could not do a thing. As far as I am concerned, Mike Rumbles is an apologist for the Executive.

What about benefits advice? We do not want a dependency culture in which the state does everything. Why not release the voluntary sector and empower our communities to help themselves? They could do it better, cheaper and in a more focused way without all the overriding—

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Will the member take an intervention?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Am I allowed to do so, Presiding Officer?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No. There is a long queue of members who want to participate in the debate.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am awfully sorry. I would have allowed the minister to intervene earlier.

Today, we have heard nothing about giving people choice and opportunity, especially in the rural areas, on the coastal strips and in the vast estates on the fringes of towns where all that people have left is their dependency. That leads to health problems and despair, and despair leads to abuse, addiction and God knows what else. I have heard nothing from the minister that proves that the Executive has got its act together.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I call Lloyd Quinan, to be followed by Wendy Alexander.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

That will be interesting.

I begin by quoting some figures from Capability Scotland, which refer specifically to people with disabilities and families who live with people who have disabilities. More than 80 per cent of those who were polled in Capability Scotland's 1 in 4 poll are caring for a disabled child and are unemployed. One in five families with a disabled child lives on less than £200 a week, and state benefits are the main source of income for more than 40 per cent of those families.

It is important that, in any debate, we recognise the fact that certain cluster areas and certain sections of our society appear to have been overlooked in the so-called drive against poverty. I therefore hope that the Scottish Executive will accept the recommendations that

"the Scottish Executive undertakes an economic analysis of the investment required to ensure that programmes aimed at lifting children out of poverty also reach disabled children and children living with a disabled parent";

that

"more is done to eradicate poverty and provide security for families living with disability where employment is not an option",

which is the case in many instances; that

"all mainstream programmes and targeted initiatives have a specific focus on disabled children and young people, with clear targets";

and that

"the distribution of funding for government initiatives should be based on need and on family circumstance and not simply on geographical location"

as it unfortunately is at the moment.

I hope that the minister can give us a positive reply on those issues.

Another issue is the hidden poverty of opportunity that affects many families with disabled children and many families with someone who is autistic. Deprivation exists not just in such families' right to opportunity, but in our opportunity to benefit from their input to society. The average lifetime cost for someone with autism is approximately £1.7 million, in addition to standard life costs. Whatever the reasons, there has been a large increase in the identification at least of people with autism. It is essential that we understand clearly that the £1.7 million per autistic child and adult must be found from Scotland's budget.

I was at a meeting last night with 11 pensioners who have adult children with autism. Those pensioners have to live on the standard pension. They are being driven into poverty in their twilight years, having contributed to and made possible us being here. To be frank, their poverty situation is unacceptable and must be addressed.

The Parliament had a great opportunity to tackle poverty and promote early intervention, but, unfortunately, certain members chose not to support the School Meals (Scotland) Bill, which would have made a significant intervention in poverty. Mr McMahon may smile, but I do not think that too many people in his constituency smiled at his behaviour on the day that the School Meals (Scotland) Bill fell.

We are about to enter a war. Britain loves wars, but wars cost money. We cannot tackle poverty unless we have the money to do so. If Labour members believe that dropping ordinance on poor people in other parts of the world is a way to eradicate poverty, they are sadly mistaken. We should be providing for our own people instead of playing imperial games. If Labour members could waken up to that simple fact, people in Scotland would not be living in poverty.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I will start my speech where Kenny Gibson started his, by saying that if one is a decent person at all, one knows that both absolute poverty and relative poverty matter. Absolute poverty means being denied the right to buy the basic necessities of life. As Jackie Baillie said, there has been a 13 per cent fall in absolute child poverty in the past four years; the rate is down by a third, which is a real achievement.

Relative poverty also matters, of course. The definition of the basic necessities of life changes over time, and our view of those necessities is different from the view in our parents' and grandparents' eras. On relative poverty, probably the biggest challenge for progressive Governments all over the world is how we, with the levers at our hands, narrow the income differentials in a world where employers want to pay the rich more and more and pay the poorest less and less.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

No. I do not have time for interventions.

As politicians with tax powers in our hands, what is our responsibility for narrowing the growing wage differentials? After 20 years of Tory rule, we know where the Tories stand. Year after year, they cut taxes for the rich and cut benefits for the poor, reinforcing the income differentials.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

No. I do not have time for interventions.

Labour has done the opposite, thereby undermining global forces. For example, Labour has provided lower taxes for the poorest, the national minimum wage, the child tax credit, the working families tax credit, and the national minimum income guarantee. All those measures are about narrowing the differentials between the rich and the poor.

The real question is: where does Scotland's principal Opposition party—which called today's debate—stand? Would the SNP, with the powers at its disposal, widen the differentials, as the Tories did, or narrow them, as Labour is doing? A clue is provided by the fact that not many of the SNP's economics spokespeople are present today. A second clue is provided by the colour of Linda Fabiani's jumper and Nicola Sturgeon's outfit. Today we have on display the red faction of the SNP—the people who are fulsome in their support for the poverty lobby. However, the people with their hands on the policy levers are the blue faction, which has a totally different agenda.

At the saltire debate in the summer, Jim Mather, the SNP's finance spokesperson, said that as a point of principle he wanted the total tax take in Scotland to be lower than the tax take in the rest of the United Kingdom. We heard Winnie Ewing say how rich Scotland is. Whatever inequalities exist in Scotland, the SNP wants the rich in Scotland to pay less. That is at the heart of the SNP's stance.

Across the world, Governments must choose. It is a mistake to say that lower taxes drive growth. Lower taxes mean greater inequality. A reduction in total tax does not guarantee growth—it guarantees greater inequality for the poorest. That is the dishonesty at the heart of the SNP. There are red and blue factions in the SNP. Before devolution, the party thought that no one would notice that, but in this Parliament it is increasingly being found out.

Poor John Swinney, who is not present, spends his entire life trying to be a member of the blue faction and the red faction at the same time. In the Tories' famous phrase, that is not working. In the coalition, we know where we stand. I want for Scotland an American spirit of enterprise, but I do not that want to be bought at the price of European solidarity. I ask SNP members to do Scotland's poor the credit of saying that their finance spokesman, Jim Mather, was wrong. Enterprise and growth matter, but they do not need to be bought at the price of Scotland's poor.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As other members have said, there is a direct relationship between this debate on poverty and the previous debate on crime. Where people survive on low incomes—"survive" is the appropriate word—with a poor diet, bad housing, depressing neighbourhoods, failing schools, inadequate public transport, few jobs, and little or no community support—in other words, where people live without hope—there are more likely to be social problems such as alcohol and drug misuse, truancy, and petty and violent crime.

In a memorable phrase, Margaret Curran said:

"No one wants to live in a Scotland where a family's potential is determined, not by their abilities, but by their postcode."

I hope that those were the minister's own words. She will remember as well as I do that when the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, of which she was then convener, undertook its inquiry into drug misuse in deprived communities, one of the most powerful statistics that it uncovered was that the highest rates of admissions for drug misuse were in the most deprived postcode areas. The data are set out in an annexe to the committee's report.

A similar point could be made about truancy. Today's truants are invariably to be found among tomorrow's young offenders and problematic drug users.

David Davidson touched on the fact that deprivation is a national issue. It is a rural as well as an urban problem. In many ways, Ferguson Park in Blairgowrie suffers from as much deprivation as Ferguslie Park in Paisley.

Poverty is the ultimate cross-cutting issue. One of the keys to tackling poverty is improving housing. That is why I have great respect for the Executive's policy on stock transfer, which will release massive resources for improving housing. Of course, the SNP opposed that policy. It is interesting that Mr Gibson, who was rather more ambivalent about stock transfer than some of his colleagues, slipped down the SNP parliamentary candidates list for Glasgow as a result, with Sandra White topping the list—a bizarre result by any reckoning. That is evidence of the SNP's divisions and splits. The SNP opposed stock transfer, which is a key to addressing poverty in Scotland, although some members, such as Mr Gibson, who listens occasionally to his constituents, were more ambivalent.

On the environment and improving neighbourhoods, there is room for improving and widening social inclusion partnerships, which have not been mentioned today. I have seen how effective they can be in my region, for example in the south-east of Alloa.

On education, there has been a range of Executive initiatives, such as local management of schools, the McCrone settlement and homework clubs. Of course more has to be done and we have to find ways of getting the best teachers into schools in the most deprived areas.

Health has not yet been covered in the debate. I have seen the effectiveness of health and well-being centres to improve nutrition and diet in the most deprived parts of Stirling, Inverkeithing and Cowdenbeath. Executive policy in support of those centres is addressing an issue that has been little touched on in the debate, but which is very important.

Further education colleges should be far closer to the communities that they are there to serve and should be sensitive to the needs of those communities, particularly in relation to training and jobs. We need to see drop-in youth facilities like the Corner in Dundee and Off-the-Record in Stirling, in far more of our communities.

Pensioners have rightly been mentioned in the context of national concessionary travel, the warm deal and pensioners forums. We have to listen far more to pensioners forums and to their voice.

The SNP today was long on statistics, but short on solutions. As for fresh ideas—forget it, there were not even stale ones. As for new policies—forget it, there were not even recycled ones. For every diagnosis, the only SNP cure is independence. If the SNP thinks that it will make any inroads at the next Scottish Parliament elections as the party of independence—and lazy thinking—it can think again.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

How will I follow cyclone Wendy and ranting Raffan? I will do my very best.

I shall be honest and say that I think that everyone will agree that, as we have often said before, Scotland is a rich country. It is rich in resources, it has wealth in its people and it is a wealthy country. We should all agree that not everyone shares in that wealth; that is what the SNP is most concerned about.

The so-called Labour Executive sits and pontificates, but the Labour Government in the past five years has put forward more of Thatcher's policies than the Tories ever did. Labour is an absolute disgrace to the people of Scotland and it tries to lecture the SNP on what we should be doing. Scotland needs independence and I shall go on to explain why.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Will the member give way?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Sorry, but Ms Alexander has had her turn and she did not take any interventions.

Pensioner poverty has been mentioned in the debate. As the convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on older people, age and ageing, I feel that it is right that I bring the issue to the attention of the Parliament. We have all heard about poverty throughout Scotland, but I would like to concentrate on pensioner poverty.

Research shows that older people are more likely to live in poverty. We must make the point that, unlike many others, pensioners have few opportunities to increase their income without state help. Members have said that we are in a marvellous position in the union. I ask members, and urge them to ask their constituents, whether they could live on £75 a week—I very much doubt that they could. Some members say that the union is a marvellous place, but do they know that 17,200 pensioners are forced to claim income support? I do not call that a good price to pay for the union and members should acknowledge that.

Hugh Henry mentioned fuel poverty last week at question time. Some 58 per cent of Scottish pensioners have to spend 10 per cent of their income on ensuring that their house is heated adequately. When Hugh Henry answered a question on the central heating installation scheme, he said:

"Some 7,000 households are waiting for heating systems ... However, there is a limit to the number of available heating engineers and to the number of heating systems that we can install."—[Official Report, 7 Nov 2002; c 15094.]

That demonstrates some ambition from the Labour party.

I think that Margaret Curran was a member of the Social Justice Committee at the same time as me, when we took evidence about the situation in Europe. When I asked one of the witnesses whether people in other European countries ever died of hypothermia, they said that they did, but not in their own homes. It is terrible to admit that, in Scotland, people die of hypothermia in their own homes. We should examine that situation carefully. We should be ashamed of the fact that members are claiming that poverty does not exist. The Executive is trying to mix the figures.

I remind the Labour party that it was dragged, kicking and screaming, into supporting free personal care. The Executive bowed to Westminster when it was asked to give back £40 million in attendance allowances. It is a terrible indictment that the Executive bowed to Westminster and gave back the money.

Doubts are emerging about how the Executive will meet its commitment to implement its proposals on free personal care. In parts of Scotland, some councils are even talking about introducing means testing, because they do not have the necessary funding.

The free travel scheme has been described as a shambles. Why did the Executive not take on board the SNP's proposal for a national travel scheme such as the scheme that has been implemented in Wales? If the Executive had done that, it would not be in the mess that it is in now.

The Executive is supposed to be a Government. It must show real commitment by providing the resources that the older people in Scotland need to take them out of poverty. The Executive must stop spinning. Let us have some substance instead.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I will take it as a given that all members of the Parliament, irrespective of their political allegiance, are committed to reducing and eventually eliminating child poverty. Having listened to the speeches of the Conservatives, I realise that I am taking charitable interpretation to its extreme.

When we deal with difficult problems, we need to develop complicated solutions. We need solutions that stretch across every aspect of the Executive's work. We must also be honest with ourselves and with those who suffer disadvantage about time scales and about the complexity of the issues that are involved. There will be no quick fixes to child poverty.

No responsible political party should raise expectations by offering short-term money showers that miss the fundamental, underlying causes of poverty, which can pass from generation to generation.

It is simply not good enough to claim that independence is the magic wand that can cure all ailments. Although the SNP offers independence as a cure-all, it never provides any specifics; milk and honey are all that is ever forthcoming. That is a distortion at the best of times. In relation to child poverty, it is a cynical distortion. Children in Scotland need our help, not our slogans.

The cycle of poverty and despair will be broken when opportunity and genuine choices are a reality, rather than the subject of rhetoric. Let us take the opportunity to discuss a vital issue in a way that provides hope and in a way that defines the determination of the Parliament and the nation to address the long-term needs of disadvantaged children. We must not indulge in short-term sloganising to obtain some perceived political advantage.

The best way to do that is to analyse where we are now. As has been said, in absolute terms, there has been a marked decline in the proportion of children who live in low-income households. The proportion fell from 34 per cent in 1996-97 to 21 per cent in 2000-01—a 40 per cent decrease.

That is a fact. If it does not suit some people to recognise that fact, they should think long and hard about their objectivity. Five years is a short time in which to assess properly initiatives that, by their very nature, will impact in the medium to long term.

Although there are more people from disadvantaged backgrounds in work than ever before, we must acknowledge that not enough of those people are from families that have been without work in the long term.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Not at the moment. There is still insufficient progression for those who enter the labour market on low wages. However, it cannot be denied that opportunities to break the cycle of poverty and despair are being created.

Sure start Scotland has been provided with £31 million of additional resources, more than 125,000 parents benefit from tax credits and 18,000 lone parents are in work as a result of the new deal. An additional £24 million will be provided for the child care strategy over the next three years. Seventy-seven thousand lone parents are in receipt of the working families tax credit. In a three-year period, social inclusion partnerships have benefited from an investment of more than £250 million, which is helping to enable and empower communities throughout Scotland.

More than 50 per cent of Scottish students are in further or higher education. Critically, we have introduced education maintenance allowances that allow even more disadvantaged young Scots to grasp educational opportunity. Those are the beacons that can lead to the breaking of the cycle of poverty and despair, the creation of opportunity and the nurturing of aspiration among more confident young Scots. It is wrong to dismiss or diminish them by demonstrating the lack of vision that typifies the blinkered pursuit of independence.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

This has been an important debate on an issue of great importance to the people of Scotland. However, I found it somewhat disappointing. Did we get from the Opposition parties, especially the SNP, policies that we could contrast with the Executive's policies and against which we could measure them? No. Kenny Gibson talked about the "valiant efforts" of the Scottish Executive. The impression that I got from Kenny Gibson was that the solution to improving poverty levels in Scotland was independence. However, he had no idea what he would do if he ever got independence.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

If Mr Rumbles had listened to the speech—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am not giving way to Mr Gibson, as he would not give way to me.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

If Mr Rumbles had listened, he would have heard that—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Order. Mr Gibson, sit down, please.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

To listen to Kenny Gibson, one would think that we were living in some sort of colony or satrapy. We are an independent nation in the United Kingdom and we have MPs fighting our corner in Westminster.

Margaret Curran gave us good statistics, which were emphasised by Jackie Baillie and Wendy Alexander. We heard that absolute poverty levels have fallen from 34 per cent to 21 per cent and that 10,000 pensioners now receive free central heating. That is evidence of practical action on the part of the Scottish Executive on the sort of issues that we need to address.

Lyndsay McIntosh made an abysmal speech on behalf of the Tories. I mean no personal slight against her, but I must say that I found what she was saying outrageous. She gave me the impression that the Tories' message is, "You're on your own—don't expect any help from us." David Davidson's speech was amusing. I have never been called an apologist for the Executive before and that was an interesting accusation. At any rate, it is a bit rich of the Conservatives to attack other people on the issue of poverty. I know that these figures relate only to relative poverty but, when the Tories came into power, 9 per cent of households had less than 50 per cent of the average income and, when they left power, a quarter of the population was at that level.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Mr Rumbles fails to recognise the fact that we turned the economy around, which gave the Labour party many opportunities when it came to power. In doing so, we created schemes that gave people access to education. Most of us in this room got state support for our education.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I rarely agree with David Davidson, but I will do so today: the Conservatives turned the economy around, but not in the way that he has in mind. They caused devastation in the economy, which is why they were kicked out after 18 long years. The statistic that I quoted tells me everything about the Tory attitude, which is, "I'm all right, Jack, don't bother us." Having dealt with the Tories' abysmal record, I want to be more positive. For the Liberal Democrats, taxation is one of the most important factors in achieving social justice. For example, Liberal Democrats are committed to reforming the national taxation system to make it more progressive by introducing an income tax rate of 50p in the pound for those who earn more than £100,000 a year. More important, we would abolish taxation on earnings below £10,000. We would lift a lot of people out of the poverty trap by not taxing them.

There is a lot more that I would have said, but I am running out of time. For example, I wanted to talk about how we would give pensioners a much better deal by ending the misery of means testing.

A lot of positive ideas on how we tackle poverty—especially child poverty—could have come out of the debate. The Opposition has realised that what the Executive is doing is good. The main carping criticism from the SNP is, "If we wave the magic wand of independence, we will do everything better." The Tories have nothing better to offer.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The debate is the second that I have summed up this morning. The last one was a good debate, but this one was, frankly, appalling. Although I do not doubt the intentions of those who have contributed, it is seriously disturbing that so many people think that the answer to the problem is to throw money at it. In the one good non-Conservative speech, Tom McCabe acknowledged that. He was correct to say that there are no quick fixes. If we are to improve matters effectively and permanently, we must realise that short-term expedients are not the answer.

We must begin to see the big picture. As Lyndsay McIntosh said eloquently, our priorities must be wealth creation and the injection of entrepreneurial thinking into policy formulation. In progressive, go-ahead economies, all policies are drawn up on the basis of what will create jobs and increase job prospects. Under the Scottish Executive, all policies are equality proofed. That says it all.

With all due respect to Kenny Gibson, the motion in his name will not provide any solution. An independent Scotland may be the answer for him and his SNP colleagues. However, as I have listened over the past three years, I have lost count of their megamillion spending commitments. I can only conclude that their policies would have dire economic consequences. Those policies would not reduce poverty; they would increase it. In time, they would make Scotland a country fit only for social workers and their clients. That is what we would be reduced to.

What does the Executive bring to the process? Everyone knows that the best way to help people is to help them to help themselves. How does the Executive's education policy, for example, achieve that? In the Labour party down south, the penny has dropped that a comprehensive education system that does not work and which denies opportunity to some of our poorest youngsters to better themselves is simply not adequate. The United Kingdom Labour party has realised that that system is not working, but Scottish Labour remains in a time warp. Emerging from her own personal TARDIS, Trish Godman's only solution was that we should consider the redistribution of wealth. That is the application of 1960s solutions to 21st century problems.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Does Bill Aitken acknowledge the independent research that Professor Lindsay Paterson of the University of Edinburgh carried out, which indicates that the attainment levels of comprehensively educated children and those educated in the private sector are the same? Will he recommend that children should be in the comprehensive sector?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I suggest to Jackie Baillie that her argument is not with me. It is more relevant when she addresses it to Tony Blair and the Department for Education and Skills. Clearly, those down south are not at all satisfied with the comprehensive system. They appear to be imposing and introducing solutions that Jackie Baillie and her colleagues do not have the political courage to impose.

I will move on. Failures in the national health service impact most devastatingly on the poorer sections of the community. No matter how the Executive arranges or doctors the figures, the inescapable fact is that the situation is worse now than it was when the Conservatives left power. On whom does that impact most? The poor.

Liberal law and order policies have the effect of reducing significantly the quality of life of those in our peripheral schemes. However, the Liberal Democrats pander to Labour and support those policies.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

rose—

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am sorry. I am in my last minute.

The solutions to poverty are complex and there are no quick fixes. The poor were once defined by someone even more cynical than I as likely to be with us always. It need not be so, but it will continue to be so until a more positive approach is taken to improving our economy and the prospects of the poor.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That was actually from the Bible.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I am wondering how to respond to much of the debate. It is hardly worth commenting on the Tories; how can we take seriously a party that impoverished so many so quickly in so much of the country? We should charitably recognise, however, that the Conservatives now have their own poverty problems to deal with: a poverty of ideas, a poverty of principles and a poverty of leadership. Iain Duncan Smith and the Tories seem to be more intent on preparation for the pantomime season than on being a serious political party.

Today's speeches from the Conservatives reflected their complete detachment from the real world. They have failed to recognise what happened during their years in power, and they have failed to see some of the things that have been done since they were removed from power.

It is a bit rich for David Davidson to sneer about benefits advice and call for an end to the dependency culture. In fact, the biggest increase in the number of welfare rights and advice staff took place during the Tory years, when hard-pressed Labour councils had to use scarce resources to give advice to the poorest people in our country because of the neglect on the part of the Conservatives.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We have had a lot of briefings over the past week on the subject of poverty. Why is it that report after report and briefing after briefing discuss the vast number of people who do not know how to claim the benefits that are there? Labour has now been in power for a third of the time that we were in power.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The evidence shows that, during the years of Conservative government and since then, the local authorities that have invested in advice staff have successfully generated millions of pounds for people in their communities. That is something that I commend. Clearly, we have nothing to learn from the Tories and they have nothing to offer.

SNP members sounded as if they were discussing a submission to the political equivalent of a fantasy football league, rather than a serious welfare plan for a modern state. Let us consider the SNP's priorities. Rather than lift the people of Scotland out of poverty, it wants to spend money on an ambassador to Afghanistan and a consul for Cameroon. It wants to pay for separation and divorce before moving on to tackle poverty. It wants to dismantle the UK benefits system, although it will not tell us what it will introduce in its place and how much that will cost.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The minister has mentioned the benefits system. Does he think that the money that pensioners get—£75.50 a week—is adequate? Would he not like to change that, as the SNP would?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Sandra White says that the SNP wants to change that, but we keep waiting to hear what measures the SNP will introduce. Its members tell us nothing. We know that the SNP will dismantle the working families tax credit, which is delivering £2,400 a year to the poorest families and helping 125,000 families in Scotland. It would dismantle the UK housing benefit system, but we do not know what it would replace it with. The SNP will abolish UK disability benefits, but it does not tell us what it will replace them with.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way on that point?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No, thanks. The SNP does not tell us what the minimum wage in Scotland will be, and that probably explains why not one nationalist MP turned up to the vote on that in the House of Commons. We just hear whinge, whinge, moan, moan—no details of the financial support that would be available to help Scotland's poor or of how money would be spent.

Unlike the political fantasists, we are delivering progress. We heard today that the proportion of children in low-income households, according to an absolute measure, has fallen from 34 per cent in 1996-97 to 21 per cent in 2000-01, which is a 40 per cent fall. That is real progress for real people.

In contrast with Sandra White's cheap, mean moan about central heating, we have delivered for 10,000 people and we will deliver for the rest; we have introduced free local bus travel and people are benefiting from that; we have introduced nursery places for three and four-year-olds; we have helped the poorest students; we have introduced educational maintenance allowances to help pupils from the poorest families to stay on at school; we have expanded child care; we have the minimum income guarantee; we have a child tax credit; we have the working families tax credit—and that is before we go on to talk about what we are doing in health, education and enterprise and lifelong learning to target poverty. Unlike SNP members, who want divorce, separation and disaster, by ripping us out of the UK, we are delivering real progress for Scotland's poor.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I will try hard to stick to the truth and not to myth, which we have heard so much of in the debate. Kenneth Gibson began his speech by giving some facts about poverty, which are worth repeating. Around a quarter of individuals in Scotland live in low-income households, which is higher than the average for Great Britain. In November 2001, the total number of people in Scotland on income support was 668,000 which, as a percentage, is above the Great British average. The proportion of the Scottish population aged 16 or over claiming income support is above the Great British average. Around a third of Scottish households claim income-related benefits, in contrast to just over a quarter of Great British households. In 1999-2000, Scottish lone-parent households had the lowest income, at £204 a week, which is again below the Great British average.

The Labour party tells us that being part of the union is best for Scotland. I want to know how it works that out, because I cannot do so. The minister talked about the myth of independence, but it ain't no myth. Belgium, Norway, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Finland are not myths and they have less child poverty than Scotland has. The minister did not answer Lloyd Quinan's question on that issue. Lloyd was right to say that those independent countries—which are not myths or dream fantasies—have less child poverty than Scotland has.

The real myth is that the unionist Labour party is committed to poverty eradication. The Labour party came to power in the UK in 1997. It is claimed that Labour was committed to poverty eradication, but how did sticking to Tory spending plans and cutting single-parent and disability benefit amount to poverty eradication? The Liberal Democrats at UK level now say that there is a move to reduce the lone-parent working tax credit by 19 per cent. If that is true, how will that contribute to eradicating poverty levels?

Robert Brown outlined various initiatives that the Parliament has agreed to. Some of them have been good and have received cross-party support although, as Sandra White said, some Labour members had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support those initiatives. However, those measures will not make substantial inroads into the eradication of poverty because they are no more than tinkering around the edges; they treat the symptoms, not the disease. The only way in which we can treat the disease of poverty is by taking responsibility for it.

It is sad that some Conservative members think so little of the people of this country that they believe that, without England to shore us up, we would be a nation of social workers and their clients, which was Bill Aitken's comment. It is disgraceful that Bill Aitken has that view of the Scottish people whom he was elected to support.

Different kinds of poverty have been mentioned. The Executive used to measure poverty in relative terms, but it suddenly decided to change to an absolute measure. Wendy Alexander described absolute poverty as not having the ability to get

"the basic necessities of life."

It is pathetic that in the third millennium we measure poverty against the ability to get the absolute necessities of life. I want more than that for the people in this country, as do the other SNP members. We want honesty in the measurements. We should not change from a relative to an absolute mark of poverty. If the absolute mark remains the same, inflation alone will mean that the Executive is beating poverty. The concept of absolute poverty is a ridiculous concept—to use it is cheating and it is not on.

We then got havering Hugh Henry, who is terrified of the people of Scotland taking matters into their own hands and going for independence. One thing, however, that fascinates me about Hugh Henry—indeed, it fascinates me about the rest of the Labour members—is their assumption that, when this country gets independence, which it will, it is the SNP that will be in power. It never crosses the minds of the Labour members that Labour would be in power in an independent Scotland. All that we get is a repeat of the question, "What would you do when Scotland is independent?" It seems that the Labour members have accepted that there will be no place for them in an independent Scotland.

I will tell the chamber what the SNP will do when Scotland becomes independent. We will take on board that the people of Scotland are capable and willing to take their own decisions. The Scottish National Party is the only party in Scotland that has faith in people taking their own decisions. It is the SNP that will be in power, working towards a fairer solution for Scotland.

I have noticed that the coalition partners have been using a bit of a slogan today—"Much done, much more to do," which seems to be an admission of failure. I ask myself whether that is to be their slogan for the next election. I say to the coalition parties that if that is their slogan, I much prefer ours. Let us release our potential.

Business Motion

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-3573, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I was just trying to think of where I had heard that last slogan before. I think that it was at the last election, but never mind.

Before I formally move the business motion, I indicate to members that the business for next week requires to be adjusted. It is proposed that the United Kingdom Government will publish an extradition bill today, some aspects of which will relate to devolved matters. It is the Executive's intention to lodge a motion seeking the Parliament's agreement for the UK Government to legislate on the devolved aspects of the bill.

Next week, I will propose to the Parliamentary Bureau that the motion be debated on Thursday 21 November, immediately after the stage 1 debate on the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill. I understand that the Justice 1 Committee considers that the three hours that has been allocated to the bill is more than generous. It should not a problem therefore to reduce the length of the debate to accommodate the addition of a debate on the extradition bill.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following programme of business— Wednesday 20 November 2002 2:30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 1 Debate on Protection of Children (Scotland) Bill followed by Financial Resolution in respect of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-3486 Duncan McNeil: Mis-selling of Utilities Thursday 21 November 2002 9:30 am Stage 1 Debate on Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill followed by Financial Resolution in respect of Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill followed by Business Motion 2:30 pm Question Time 3:10 pm First Minister's Question Time 3:30 pm Executive Debate on Scottish Executive Response to Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiries followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-3538 John Farquhar Munro: Affordable Rural Housing Wednesday 27 November 2002 2:30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee Debate on its 9th Report 2002 on Lifelong Learning followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-3565 John Swinney: A9 - Perth to Inverness Thursday 28 November 2002 9:30 am Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Business followed by Business Motion 2:30 pm Question Time 3:10 pm First Minister's Question Time 3:30 pm Executive Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business and (b) that Stage 1 of the Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill be completed by 21 February 2003 and that Stage 2 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill be completed by 17 January 2003.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

This is difficult for me. I agree that we do not need three hours for the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill—indeed, I suggested previously that we should cut the length to one and a half hours. However, yet again, we face a Sewel motion on a measure that is of serious importance to the Scottish justice system.

My colleague Neil McCormick MEP has already spoken on record about the consequences of European arrestment orders and their implications for the justice system of Scotland. Rather than have Westminster legislate for us, we should use our time on this important issue to make our own laws. It is with some regret that I see our time being used on a Sewel motion.

I will not use up time to press the motion to a vote at this stage because we have the opportunity to do so next Thursday. I appeal to all members to examine the matter carefully. This is an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to say that it does not want a Sewel motion on our justice system. We want to decide such issues ourselves as there are major implications in the extradition bill. We must give the legislation enough time and we should do so by means of our own bill, not a Sewel motion.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Does the minister wish to respond?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I suspect that I will have more than ample opportunity to do so next week when I bring the amendment to the chamber.

Motion agreed to.

Private Security Firms (Regulation)

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is the first members' business debate of the day on motion S1M-3522, in the name of Johann Lamont, on the regulation of private security firms. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite those members wishing to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible. I say at the outset that there will be no possibility of extending the time for this debate.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes with concern the lack of regulation of private security firms and the potential impact of unscrupulous activity by these firms on the safety and peace of mind of local communities within Glasgow Pollok constituency, across Glasgow and throughout Scotland; further notes the serious danger posed by any activity that undermines the confidence of the public in the police's capacity to deal with criminal behaviour within communities, and considers that the Scottish Executive, along with local authorities, the police and other relevant agencies, should develop as a matter of urgency means by which private security firms can be regulated and their activities scrutinised.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I welcome the opportunity to debate the important issue of the regulation of private security firms. I am grateful to all those who signed the motion and recognise that there is significant cross-party support for action. I understand that we are under pressure for time. This is a unique timing for a member's debate, and I am grateful that despite pressure on parliamentary time, members' debates have secured the time that they deserve. I will try to keep my comments brief, although it is tempting to go on longer because I am leading off the debate, which is unusual for a back bencher.

The role and activities of private security firms is a serious matter in my constituency, but I am aware that it is also a concern throughout Scotland. The lodging of the motion was prompted by particular events in my constituency, although I am sure that members will understand my caution in discussing the specifics of those events given that a police investigation is continuing. However, I would like to put on record my gratitude to the local police for the way in which they responded when the events occurred.

A series of incidents, including graffiti and wilful damage to cars, caused some distress on a housing estate in my constituency. That distress was compounded when the disorder was followed by the delivery of leaflets throughout the area, offering the services of private security wardens for a payment of £3 a week per household. There must be anxiety about such a conjunction of events—the malicious disruption of a community and the offer of help by private security firms. It is understandable that we should be anxious that private security firms might seek to play on the fears of households about disorder in their communities. Indeed, it might be argued that it is only a small step from playing on people's fears, to generating disorder to create a demand for such services. It must be unacceptable that we may create circumstances in which private security firms might promote a service that could effectively be viewed as a protection racket.

Broader issues are highlighted by the experience of my constituents. What kind of security and peace of mind can be offered by private security firms? How will private security wardens enforce their promise of security? What training will be offered and, crucially, who would do the work? The case for regulation is evident and compelling if we are to have confidence in the process. Private security firms need to be open and transparent. We need to know how the businesses are run and who runs them.

There must be a serious fear that some of the private security firms, unregulated, could be run and owned by people with criminal convictions and operated as a sideline to their criminal activities. Regulation poses no threat to those who operate legitimate businesses, and I trust that legitimate private security firms will embrace any proposals for regulation. Crucially, regulations should provide protection for communities vulnerable to predatory business tactics.

I do not believe that it is overstating the case to say that the problem has the potential to pose a serious threat to our society. Much of the activity of private security firms is generated by and thrives on a lack of confidence in the police. If our communities feel under siege and believe that the police cannot take effective action to stop disorder, the market for the unscrupulous activity of private security firms will grow. We must redouble our efforts to ensure that the police and the justice system can act effectively in response to the anxieties of local communities. As I have said before, the first step is for us to acknowledge that such anxieties are real.

I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Social Justice, Margaret Curran, of £20 million towards neighbourhood community wardens. I am now seeking a meeting with the minister to explore how that approach might help my constituents. It is important that that work, with that of the Justice Department, reinforces our commitment to peace and security in our communities. I am aware that there has been a consultation on the regulation of private security firms, and I urge the minister to act on that consultation as a matter of urgency. I look forward to hearing what plans are in place.

As I said, the debate was prompted by a particular problem, but one that illustrates issues of general concern. The challenge for the minister, the Scottish Executive and the Parliament is to find solutions that, in particular and in general, will make our communities safer, more secure and free from those who would seek to exploit them. I urge action on the minister and welcome the opportunity to hear his response.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I offer warm congratulations to Johann Lamont on securing the debate. I also warmly welcome the Scottish Executive's consultation document on proposals to regulate the private security industry in Scotland. Indeed, the document's first sentence sums up the matter. It says:

"There is a clear need for regulation in the private security industry in Scotland."

Johann Lamont's motion was prompted by incidents in Pollok. As members will appreciate, it was no coincidence that, following certain events, certain parties made offers of help. However, as Johann pointed out, we cannot say too much more about the matter as it is sub judice.

The consultation document touches on the question of what private security firms actually are. Concerns have been raised about everything from private investigators to bouncers who stand outside some of Glasgow's nightclubs. I have gone round clubs with the police and it is interesting to note the difference in the quality of stewardship at the doors of some of those places. Indeed, on that night, I saw via the TV cameras at police headquarters someone being severely beaten.

As a result of such incidents, regulation is important. However, we must also take on board the views of legitimate companies, which welcome the Executive's consultation document. It will do everyone good if we can get rid of the cowboys in the industry and ensure that those who provide a legitimate service are allowed to go about their business.

We must ascertain how many companies there are, what they do and how we define the term "private security". Is it some form of community vigilantism or a protection racket in which communities are told that if they pay £3 a week they will have no problems with graffiti or broken windows? Is private security a bit more refined than that? Does it include wheel clamping or the stewardship of nightclubs? The consultation document opens the door to examining the matter in depth and ensuring that we have proper regulation. I look forward to the minister's comments.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I am glad to speak in favour of Johann Lamont's motion, all the more so since carefully scrutinised English legislation has been passed with considerable support.

The British Security Industry Association has stated:

"If security officers are going to assist limited police by moving into areas with more public contact and greater responsibility, it is important that they have the trust and respect of the public—that is why regulation is so crucial."

Following the publication of the Private Security Industry Bill, the chairman of the BSIA said:

"Regulation will isolate the less responsible elements of the industry and make them accountable for any breaches of the new laws. It will give credibility to an industry that has long fought to protect its image from the actions of a minority group of disreputable operators."

There have been concerns in the past about the lack of mandatory inspection of security companies and the absence of licensing for in-house officers. Indeed, David Dickinson, the director of Group 4, said in support of legislation that:

"Self regulation has failed. There are too many horror stories around and too many people who are engaging in criminality under the cloak of the private security industry."

As a result, I ask the minister whether we can expect a Government bill on this issue or whether he prefers a committee bill. Also, given the experience of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, will he carefully consider whether the new security industry authority, which will regulate private security firms south of the border, should have its jurisdiction extended to Scotland or whether Scotland should have a separate authority? Which option would make for value for money? It might make sense for the body to extend its jurisdiction to Scotland if the same principles and experience are present both north and south of the border.

Similarly, under the terms of the 2001 act, every private security operative will require a licence to be issued by the authority, which would have the duty to establish a register of approved contractors. Indeed, those contractors must meet certain conditions laid down by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the local authority. It would be extremely helpful to members if the minister outlined his policy arising from the consultation and said to what extent the English legislation should be followed and whether particular Scottish circumstances will require a different approach—either in principle or in detail.

Johann Lamont's concern that the private security industry should command the confidence of the public is an admirable aim and I hope that the minister will give a sympathetic response that will result in either a Government or a committee bill that will eventually command the confidence of Parliament.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I congratulate Johann Lamont on raising issues that face not only her constituents, but people throughout Scotland.

We must ensure that the security industry does not have the problem of the poacher-turned-gamekeeper; we must have the poacher and the gamekeeper. Certain security companies create crime so that they can run protection rackets and we must regulate to deal with that problem. The Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Government face the challenge of dealing with the associates of those security companies, many of which are legitimate, but are associated with the criminal underworld. I do not know the answer to that problem; that is a question for the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee.

Kenny Gibson talked about the police postcode lottery and ensuring that resources are found in our local communities to deal with crime and to fund the work of the legitimate security industry—our police officers. We must deal with the resourcing of police officers in Glasgow.

Kenny Gibson will remember my call for a top-to-bottom review of policing in May 2000. I suggested that we should consider relocating police officers from the leafy suburbs to areas of high crime in Glasgow. We must take tough decisions about police resources and ensure that they have an impact in constituencies such as Pollok and Glasgow Springburn.

The message to security companies is, keep out of our communities unless you are legitimate.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Johann Lamont raises an important question and what she says is concerning. The business of protection rackets was the basis of the power of Al Capone and his rivals and successors. It is important that we nip that in the bud before it happens in Scotland.

My interest in the subject arose when I was researching the possibility of a member's bill on alcohol abuse. One of the unanimous points of agreement from people I spoke to was on stewards on the doors of pubs and clubs. Many of them are not trained and do not know how to handle people; many have rather dubious backgrounds. I heard allegations of widespread corruption, even from a highly placed police source—not in Glasgow—who said that some door stewards ran a good scam. When one group of people came to the pub, they were frisked and the drugs they were carrying were confiscated. The door stewards then sold those drugs to the next group of people who came along. That is only one example of the way in which door stewards can impact badly on our society. We should certainly do something about that, and I welcome the Executive's consultation.

On Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's point, I would prefer that we had a Scottish system that operated in close liaison with the English system, but the whole thing must certainly cover the UK, one way or the other.

The problem of pubs and clubs can be dealt with reasonably simply if it is written into the licensing rules that a pub will not get its alcohol licence unless it has properly-licensed door stewards and that, if the door stewards misbehave, the pub will lose its licence. That way, we would have a licensing system for the individuals as well as for the companies.

Also, the individuals need training. At the moment, door security is not a very attractive career. However, if people could get Scottish vocational qualifications in how to manage people, first aid and how the licensing laws work, that could be the first stage in working in and managing a pub. Such a system would have to take effect in due course and it could not be done instantly, but pubs would not get a licence unless they had done the proper training. That would put the whole issue of pub and club security on a much better basis. I do not claim to have knowledge of the deeper problem of protection rackets, but I share the concern of other members.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I congratulate Johann Lamont on raising not only this issue, but on raising over the course of this session of the Parliament a whole series of issues that really matter to people in her constituency and all over Scotland. I am glad to see that two members of the press are covering the debate, and I hope that they will note that there are members who consistently raise issues that directly affect people's lives. Perhaps they will take the opportunity to note that there is a lot more than trivia going on in the chamber.

The private security industry plays an important role in protecting property and people, especially in the night-time entertainment market. It plays a vital role at many of our sporting occasions, although we often fail to notice that it is even there. Perhaps that demonstrates how effective well-trained and well-resourced companies can be.

The private security industry must complement the role of the police but, more important, it must hold the confidence of the Scottish public. There should be no question of voluntary regulation. If the industry is to hold people's confidence, there must be mandatory parameters. To bring that about, we must establish a base line. What is the scale and scope of the industry in Scotland? As we speak, there are no independently compiled figures.

There are far too many examples of bad practice, which tarnish the good work of the majority of the industry. It is high time that a new Scottish authority for the regulation of the private security industry was established, with powers to oversee every aspect of that industry. There should be no place for dissecting different parts of the industry and giving responsibility to a disparate range of bodies. That one authority should have the resources to monitor the industry properly, otherwise it will be pointless and will fail to gain the confidence of the Scottish people.

It is time for the talking to stop and for positive action to start. We must eliminate the cowboys and allow the professionals, trained to proper standards, to flourish and to provide a service in Scotland.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Not for the first time in recent days, Johann Lamont is speaking a lot of sense, and she is to be congratulated on bringing this matter to the Parliament. There can be no doubt whatever that the lack of regulation in the private security industry is a cause for growing concern.

Our experience is not unique. There was a problem down south, which has been answered, to some extent, by regulating. The experience down south indicated, just as we saw in Pollok the other week, that some of the activities that were going on were more akin to a Chicago operation of the 1930s than to contemporary Scotland. Action is clearly necessary.

Under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, there is a requirement to license people such as taxi drivers and window cleaners. They have to demonstrate that they are fit and proper people to hold those licences. The thinking behind that is quite simple. If a taxi driver is out late at night in some area of the city, he has the excuse that he is there because he is driving a taxi. If a window cleaner is carrying out window cleaning operations, that is clearly his raison d'être. It is essential that we can prove and be satisfied that such people are not criminals, but are fit and proper people to be carrying out such activities. Yet we do not apply any restriction to or seek to monitor the type of person who is involved in private security. I think that the minister will agree that there is a clear inconsistency in that respect.

Kenneth Gibson was right to refer to other activities of private security firms, experience of which has not been particularly happy. It is clear that bouncers—or club stewards, as they are euphemistically called—often cause more trouble than they prevent. Many incidents are caused by the inappropriate way in which they deal with people. They can be more concerned about getting into a rough-house than about diffusing any problem that arises.

Such matters must be examined in depth. The Conservatives are not greatly in favour of regulation simply for the sake of regulation, but it is clear that there is a real need for some type of regulation. If we seek to regulate and inquire into who is driving a taxi or cleaning windows, we should look much more closely at those who operate security firms. Several members have mentioned that there is evidence that there are organisations that are run by the gangster tendency.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I, too, congratulate Johann Lamont on bringing this important issue to the attention of the chamber. I hope that there will be serious and worthwhile legislation on it.

I do not want to make the issue political, but I will refer to what Bill Aitken said about regulation. The Conservatives must shoulder much blame as a result of the deregulation that took place throughout the 1980s, particularly in connection with local authorities and compulsory competitive tendering. Unfortunately, the problem is that many businesses that thrived in Glasgow did so because they received copious amounts of public money. There needed to be security around developments and demolition projects in local authority areas. There was a difficulty in that, when local authorities were presented with tenders for security jobs, they were told to take the cheapest tender. Often, such tenders came from the most unscrupulous firms and acceptance would be based not necessarily on the ability of firms to do the job best, but on their ability to muscle in and ensure that nobody else could do the job within the price. That was down to deregulation. Local authorities were not allowed to consider matters relating to wages and conditions and whether there was a proper licensing regime.

It is important that, in considering the security industry, we wage war on the lack of regulation. There was a difficulty in the Local Government in Scotland Bill in that there was not enough in it to allow local authorities to choose the best for their areas rather than simply the cheapest. I hope that that will be corrected as it progresses and also that the taxi industry—and the private taxi industry in particular—will have more regulation, as that is needed, particularly in the city of Glasgow.

Recently, Johann Lamont and I have shared platforms to debate the issue. It is vital that we get to grips with it. I hope that Johann Lamont will agree with points that Paul Martin made—I am sure that she will. Part of the reason for the insecurity in many schemes and estates in Glasgow is the lack of police numbers on the ground. In addition, I hope that the minister will address the points that Paul Martin made. There needs to be an overhaul of policing in the Glasgow area. I do not think that community wardens will satisfy in any way, shape or form the gulf between what people perceive to have been on the beat in the streets in the past, compared to what is on the beat now. We must address that. I hope that the minister will do that in his winding-up, as well as addressing the other issues that have been raised.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I join other members in congratulating Johann Lamont on securing the debate. Its timing is excellent, as we had a debate on crime in general this morning. Yesterday, I spent a considerable amount of time on the first stages of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. The issue is high on the agenda.

Johann Lamont's first point is absolutely valid, as there are real problems in some of our communities. I have visited Inverclyde, in Duncan McNeil's constituency. I have been to Kirkcaldy with Marilyn Livingstone and to Springburn with Paul Martin. I know that my colleague, Jim Wallace, went in my stead to Cardonald. I intend to visit the constituencies of Patricia Ferguson and Elaine Thomson, both of whom have invited me to look at the problems on the ground. Most of the points that members made today were valid.

I want to join Johann Lamont in expressing support for the residents of Darnley in Paisley, who were victims of the vandalism that she described. We could speculate about the linkages, but as three arrests have been made, further comment would not be appropriate in the circumstances.

There are two strands to the issue: the statutory bodies and the private industry. We need to look at both. Regulating the private security industry is one way in which public confidence in the criminal justice system can be maintained and enhanced. However, it is by no means the only way forward.

We must continue to take the steps that we have already initiated to try to make our communities generally feel safer. Although we have put a record amount of funding into the police and although we now have record police numbers—they are up by 200 on a year ago—we recognise that how policing is undertaken is also important.

Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland is about to publish a thematic review that will consider visibility and the public's confidence in policing. I have not yet received the details of that review, but I suspect that it will show us that the numbers of police who are engaged in specialist and backroom activities, such as serving citations, court work and many of the things that were mentioned in this morning's debate, are such that they detract from the visibility that we all agree is necessary. We need to address that. We will work with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and with the police boards to try to improve that situation.

The distribution of resources was raised this morning and ACPOS has been looking at that. Some forces are underfunded, and I think that people will not be that happy about that report, although it has been agreed with ACPOS. However, I do not want to anticipate the outcome except to say that there will be losers and winners, as there always are in redistribution.

What else are we doing? In association with the justice department, Margaret Curran, who spoke in this morning's debate on poverty, is working on the neighbourhood warden schemes, to which Johann Lamont alluded. We are allocating £20 million to those schemes over the next two or three years. There is no doubt that that gives confidence to communities, as the initial responses from those communities have been excellent. We will look at how those schemes work and how much they cost.

In Clackmannanshire, which is in my constituency, the nationalist council has chosen to introduce what it calls "community improvement zones". The council is spending almost £1 million in two wards to achieve the effect, so I slightly wonder about the cost-effectiveness of those zones. However, I welcome the initiative as it is attempting to deal with these problems.

There are other areas that we can address and that we should improve. I am particularly keen to promote special policing, not as a substitute for the full-time police but as an adjunct that can reconnect police to their communities. If we look back to the 1920s, there were something like 13,000 or 14,000 special police and only a small number of full-timers. It is quite appropriate that we now have over 15,000 full-timers, but the number of specials is now down to 1,000. We are looking at that and will continue to look at whether special policing might help in terms of connecting policing to communities.

Let me now turn to the private security industry, which has experienced massive growth over the past 20 years. The industry has expanded and adapted to fill increasing demands. As members have said, the industry is diverse and includes door stewards, alarm and monitoring companies, protection for sporting and other activities, and companies that transport cash and valuables and much else. The industry covers a huge range of activities.

I am sure that the vast majority of those companies are honest and law-abiding. They do an important job and they do it well. They serve our communities effectively. However, there is undoubtedly also an unscrupulous element, which uses the industry as a cover for extortion or other illegal activities. Although that element may not be widespread in Scotland, that does not mean that we should ignore it. The police take all such allegations seriously and investigate them thoroughly. We have given a firm commitment to regulate the industry. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, that has been welcomed by the industry, which wants the cowboys to be eliminated. We should congratulate the industry on the progress that it has made over the years through self-regulation.

When it comes down to discussing the detail, in an otherwise almost unanimous chamber we will debate how much and what form of regulation is best. Our nationalist colleagues may decide that they want a separate body for regulating the industry in Scotland. Others, represented by the Conservatives and Donald Gorrie, would prefer the regulation to be part of the UK set-up. The Executive is considering the matter, although it tends to favour the UK set-up, as Kenneth Gibson will not be surprised to hear.

We are consulting on the issues. Members alluded to the fact that we issued a consultation document on the question of statutory regulation. The intention of that was to reassure the public, to exclude unsuitable people from gaining employment in the industry and to raise the standards in the industry, thereby enhancing its status and reputation among the general public, the police, local authorities and the commercial sector. I can tell members that we will regulate, although the timetable for that is a matter for discussion. I will raise with colleagues the suggestion that a committee bill might be appropriate. Donald Gorrie questioned whether door stewarding should be regulated locally: consideration must be given to how we balance regulation.

The debate reflects an excellent aspect of the Parliament: almost total unity in the belief that we should unite in ensuring more visibility for our police. However, we must have effective and intelligent policing. One matter that was not raised in this debate—although it was raised during the criminal justice debate this morning and I did not have the chance to respond—is the fact that part of our problem is the cross-correlation of information. The housing department knows something, the community council knows something, the neighbours know something and the police know something, but we do not draw all those things together. We must not use the Data Protection Act 1998 as a means of failing to share information; we must find ways to share information.

I welcome the debate and I hope that, in my response, I have been able to indicate how seriously we take the matter.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I see that question 5, which was lodged by Mike Rumbles, has been withdrawn. There might well be a good reason for that, but many of us will be disappointed. Given this morning's announcement on the Cairngorms national park, we were looking forward to questioning the minister on the matter this afternoon. Is it possible for any other member to ask that question?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The member will not be surprised to hear that the answer is no, because the question has been withdrawn.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will meet representatives of local community groups campaigning for the upgrading to dual carriageway status of the A9 trunk road between Perth and Inverness. (S1O-5856)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We will continue to discuss priorities for improving road safety on the A9 with the local councils, the police and other interested parties.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for his answer, although I am not quite sure whether it was a yes or a no. I dare say that we can pursue the matter.

My colleague Mary Scanlon and I have both been victims of car accidents on the A9 trunk road. Does the minister accept that the high level of accidents and, indeed, fatalities on the A9 constitutes an unanswerable case for upgrading the road to dual carriageway status?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

No, I do not accept that, although I will consider carefully and in the usual way Murdo Fraser's request for a meeting. Our priority on the A9 is not to dual the entire stretch from Perth to Inverness because the volume of road traffic simply falls far short of the levels that would justify doing so. Instead, our priority on the A9 between Inverness and Perth is to identify areas where investment can address road safety issues, to make that investment and to improve the safety of the road for all those who use it.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I acknowledge the minister's comments about the volume of traffic on the A9. However, does he agree that the accident rate on the road is absolutely unacceptable? Furthermore, does he agree that part of the problem is the fact that, in my constituency alone, the road changes between single and dual carriageway six times within a distance of 50 miles? Given that, will the minister listen more sympathetically to many local organisations' pleas to improve dramatically that stretch of the road by upgrading it to dual carriageway status?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

If Mr Swinney were to check the accident rates on the A9, he would find that they were very far from the extreme end of the range. In fact, the rates are very close to the average for trunk roads of its type in Scotland. Instead, what we need to do on the A9 is precisely what I set out in an announcement in Mr Swinney's constituency only a few months ago, which he was delighted to welcome. We made proposals to tackle a specific problem at a specific junction and put it to rights. At the Ballinluig junction, which Mr Swinney agreed had the most pressing case for investment on the A9, the road is dual carriageway.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister propose to tackle safety issues on parts of the A9 that cause most concern? Moreover, as drivers feel a great deal of frustration when they are stuck behind slow lorries, what are the minister's plans for encouraging more freight to travel by rail?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

On the A9 and, indeed, throughout the Highlands we have already made significant investment in moving freight from road to rail. In fact, 1.5 million lorry miles a year have been removed from the Highlands through measures such as the freight facilities grant and the track access grant. We will continue to do that and to identify particular cases. For example, I mentioned Ballinluig just a moment ago; there is a clear need for investing in that stretch of dual carriageway, which includes a junction at Aberfeldy just before the settlement of Ballinluig itself. As I said, we will continue to identify where we should make such investments. However, we will do so in the context of the whole trunk road network.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is the minister aware that there is cross-party concern about the A9? It is completely unacceptable that there continues to be such a high level of very serious accidents and fatalities on that road. If the same is true on other roads, then my goodness, we have a major problem.

Does the minister accept that it is not enough to concentrate on the Ballinluig junction? There have been serious accidents at other junctions such as at Kindallachan, south of Ballinluig, where there was recently a fatality. We must take action, so will the minister consider at least the possibility of a review of the road and the costs of dualling the road to Inverness?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

It is precisely because we recognise that there are road safety issues on the A9 that in April, when I visited Ballinluig, I chaired the first meeting of the A9 road safety group. That group has continued to meet since then and brings together the local authorities, the police and other interested parties to identify places on that route where further investment will make a difference.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will assist secondary school pupils in fifth and sixth year to strike the correct balance between work and school. (S1O-5857)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

It is clear that it is important to get the balance right between young peoples' work experience, the financial benefit they gain from working and their school achievement. The Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 currently allows young people under the age of 15 years to work for a maximum of 17 hours a week during term time and it allows those aged at least 15 years, but below the school-leaving age, to work up to 20 hours.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Is the minister aware of the recent study by Jim McKechnie of the University of Paisley that indicates that although a small amount of work can boost academic achievement, working more than 10 hours a week can bring down exam results? How will the Executive help students in the crucial fifth and sixth years to gain valuable experience of the world of work, while protecting them against overwork and exploitation?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

That situation has been considered in the education and enterprise review that I chaired. It is an important area and we must get right the quality of work experience as well as the number of hours that can be worked.

As the member said, Jim McKechnie's important review suggests that up to 10 hours per week could be beneficial to pupils. He also said that children are not working because of poverty, but because they want to work. However, he suggested that pupils and parents need to strike a balance between work and study. I agree with that and it is an area in which the Scottish Executive can influence the way ahead, as can local authorities and schools. We might need to consider further action, but parents and pupils must play an important role in finding the right solution.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to ensure that local authorities involve service users in the setting up and maintenance of their direct payment services. (S1O-5855)

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Revised guidance for direct payments issued to local authorities on 10 July 2002 makes clear the need to consult local users and representative organisations in establishing local schemes. We place particular importance on taking into account the views of 16 and 17-year-olds and older people who have previously been unable to access schemes. Many other aspects of disability are not fully covered, but we will take those into account. A copy of that guidance has been placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

It is intended that direct payments will give a choice of services to individuals who are in receipt of community care. Currently, local authorities have the power to make payments for community care services and from June 2003 that power will become a duty. However, current statistics show clearly that local authorities are not making the necessary changes to their services, which is resulting in service users not being given the opportunity to make and receive direct payments. Therefore, does the Scottish Executive have any plans to pilot in any local authority direct payment schemes to parents of disabled children before June 2003?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

We prefer to work in partnership with local authorities to address deficiencies such as those the member has mentioned. I am happy to address those concerns and to report back to Parliament. However, we are facilitating the change from a local authority power to a duty to make payments from 2003. We want to work in partnership with local authorities and users to ensure the most effective use of resources.

I agree that not enough people are allowed to take up direct payments, so we must encourage people in as many ways as possible. The member suggests one way to do it, but perhaps there are two or three other ways to encourage people. I am happy to listen to members' views.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will report on the progress of drugs courts. (S1O-5897)

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

The evaluation of the first six months of the pilot Glasgow drugs court was published on Monday 11 November. A further report is planned for early 2004, with a final report in 2005. A similar evaluation of the new drugs court in Fife will also be conducted.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

As the minister knows, I have long been a supporter of halfway houses. Will he explain how the drugs courts will link with the new time-out centre?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

The new time-out centre, which we hope will be ready by June 2003, will be a unit to which drugs courts can send women as part of the imposition of probation orders that include a condition of attendance. The hope is that the new time-out centre will divert from short-term sentences at Cornton Vale up to 530 receptions a year. The combination of day and residential facilities at the time-out centre will be highly beneficial to those who have drug problems.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the minister accept that drugs courts play a crucial role in reducing drug misuse? Will he explain why there is not therefore one in Grampian, where drug misuse has gone through the roof, as has drug-related crime. Only last night, an elderly couple in their nineties were robbed in their home for a small quantity of money. That was, no doubt, another drug-related crime. What measures is the minister taking over and above drugs courts, which Grampian does not have, to reduce such crime?