Scottish Parliament, 5 December 2002

332 contributions from 72 members. The official report.

Introduction

Building (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3410, in the name of Margaret Curran, on the general principles of the Building (Scotland) Bill.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am pleased to open the debate on the Building (Scotland) Bill. The bill is an important piece of legislation that will establish the new building standards system that will be our means of protecting the health, safety, welfare and convenience of anyone in Scotland who uses a building—that is quite a few of us. As an indication of building standards' pervasiveness, new building in Scotland is estimated to be worth about £5 billion each year. As a whole, the built environment in Scotland is valued at approximately £600 billion. All of us who use buildings have an interest in ensuring that a robust building standards system is in place for the future.

The bill's purpose is to bring up to date the building control system that has done a good job of delivering the requirements of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959. The bill will replace the 1959 act and it will also facilitate the implementation of the construction products directive, which is a European single market provision.

Much of the bill and the administrative systems and processes that will flow from it are technical. I repeat our thanks to all those involved in the construction sector who contributed to our various consultations in the past three years. Their advice was invaluable in ensuring that we were able present to the Parliament proposals that have broad support throughout the sector. I am grateful to the Transport and the Environment Committee for commending the inclusive approach that the Executive took during the development of the proposals. I am pleased to welcome Des McNulty, who will close the debate. As a former member of that committee, he is very knowledgeable about the bill.

The bill establishes the framework for a reformed building standards system. Many of its features, such as the core process of building warrants and completion certificates, are similar to the features of the existing structure. We seek evolution rather than revolution. We are building on what works and making changes to meet existing and future needs.

Part 1 establishes a framework for ministers to make building regulations. It will include for the first time a power for ministers to make building regulations to further the achievement of sustainable development. It will continue to ensure that building regulations will be able to cover the usability of buildings and their accessibility by all.

The system that part 1 will introduce will be more flexible than the existing system and will allow owners to adopt more innovative approaches to building. However, it will ensure that current standards are maintained and that, as regulations are updated, standards are improved. Part 1 will introduce the building standards assessment, which will be a useful tool in identifying whether a building complies with regulations and the extent of any unauthorised works.

Part 2 describes the warrant and completion certificate process and introduces the concept of a verifier. Verifiers will work in the public interest to scrutinise work that has been done. As people know, that is a local authority function, but the bill provides that ministers may appoint other organisations, including those from the private sector, to undertake that role.

That matter was of particular concern to the Transport and the Environment Committee and was the subject of detailed discussions with many stakeholders. We agree with the position that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Association of Chief Building Control Officers took when they gave evidence to the committee. Like them, we want any organisation that may undertake the verification role to satisfy the criteria of impartiality, transparency, accountability and consistency.

The Scottish Association of Chief Building Control Officers accepted that there was no reason why private sector verifiers should not be introduced at some stage, provided that there was a level playing field and that the private sector was required to meet the same criteria as local authorities were. The association said that the difficulty would lie in making guidelines and monitoring rigid enough. The Transport and the Environment Committee recommended that the Executive make a firm commitment not to introduce private sector verifiers until a full study had been undertaken into their potential impact. I am happy to give the committee that undertaking and to agree that the study will involve consultation with local authorities.

In its evidence to the Transport and the Environment Committee, the association accepted that, subject to those safeguards, the introduction of private sector verifiers might offer advantages for the public, in particular in turnaround times for applications and the flexibility of service delivery to the applicant.

The committee made a significant point about the accessibility of information on building standards registers. We are happy to undertake to make all reasonable efforts to ensure that building standards registers are accessible to all users, which includes having relevant parts of the register translated on request within a reasonable time scale. However, as the committee said in its report, we are keen that the requirements imposed on local authorities should not be overly burdensome.

Part 3 deals with enforcement powers. In particular, it introduces a provision on building regulations compliance, which offers ministers the power to require the compliance of existing buildings with building regulations. That provision is made in expectation of the need to meet another European directive on the use of energy in buildings. The directive will insist that the energy efficiency of large existing buildings is upgraded whenever other substantial works are planned.

Part 4 deals with defective and dangerous buildings and is similar to existing legislation on those matters. However, it provides that a local authority will be able to enter and inspect a building to see whether it is dangerous. That is an extension of the existing power that allows a local authority to enter a building only if it has reasonable cause to believe that the building is dangerous. That policy was developed following the outcome of the fatal accident inquiry into the tragic death of Christine Foster at Ryan's Bar in Edinburgh.

Part 5 deals with general issues. Of note is the provision that gives ministers the power to undertake any of the functions of a local authority. Ministers may direct local authorities on how they exercise their functions; a similar power in relation to verifiers will be introduced by part 2. Those powers will assist the Executive to ensure consistency of application throughout Scotland, meeting one of the wishes of many key stakeholders from the public and the private sectors. The bill will also bind the Crown.

The bill is important. It will help to underpin cross-cutting issues, such as sustainable development and the reduction of fuel poverty, and will be an important tool in ensuring the continuing health and safety of the people of Scotland. We look forward to detailed consideration at stage 2.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Building (Scotland) Bill.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I call Linda Fabiani.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

You caught me on the hop, Presiding Officer. The minister's speech was incredibly short; she did not even speak quickly.

The SNP welcomes the bill's general policy objectives, many of which are long overdue, such as the objectives of providing greater reassurance for people who use tradespeople and of providing more information to house buyers. The consensus is that local authority powers to identify dangerous buildings should be strengthened, that designers thrive on flexibility and innovation and that the system should be more responsive to the needs of the public and industry. The SNP is always up for providing excellence in public services, encouraging sustainable development and being constructive in helping the Executive to meet its obligations under European directives.

The main purpose of the bill is to modernise Scotland's building control system. That modernisation must have a robust base, with credible enforcement powers to reflect a basic need for accountability and competence. I am concerned that the policy objectives to which I referred, as outlined in the policy memorandum, have not been reflected in the bill's long title, which is

"to make further provision with respect to buildings, building standards, work in relation to buildings and related matters; and for connected purposes."

Many others share those concerns and I ask the minister to consider them further as the bill progresses, so that it can be strengthened to ensure that it is objective driven rather than process driven.

I do not have time to dissect every element of the bill, but I will raise some particular points. As I said, the provisions on dangerous buildings are welcome, but we should note the evidence of the Fire Protection Association, whose representative said that the bill would not give fire authorities a statutory right to be consulted. Their expertise would be brought into play only if there were variations from technical standards. That is a potential amendment for the Executive to consider.

I am reminded of the licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation, on which the Social Justice Committee has taken much evidence. I suspect that that scheme was introduced under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 almost as a panic measure after the tragic death of young men in a fire in accommodation in Glasgow that had bars on the window. However, the scheme does not give local authorities further powers to prevent such an incident from happening again. That situation needs to be addressed. I ask the minister to consider lodging an appropriate amendment at stage 2.

One of my colleagues will concentrate on the functional standards versus technical standards aspect of the bill. I want to register my concern that, if technical standards are no longer to be mandatory, we could be in danger of reducing our standards to a lower common denominator. In light of the European directive, the Executive might feel that it has devised the best way to proceed, but how will the Parliament scrutinise and influence if the enabling legislation allows ministers a free hand with guidance and regulation? The accountability to ministers of the new, or reformed, central building standards body is noted in the policy memorandum but, again, that issue is not addressed in the bill.

A number of the provisions might have significant cost implications; evidence was taken about the potential costs to local authorities. The City of Edinburgh Council highlighted the potential for an "enormous burden" and the Scottish Association of Chief Building Control Officers warned that the aims could not be achieved without "adequate funding". Paragraph 148 of the financial memorandum would seem to suggest that fee income and savings gained will result in cost neutrality. I am not convinced, and I ask the Deputy Minister for Social Justice to expand on that when he sums up the debate.

A particularly contentious issue is that of independent verifiers. It is understandable that strong views were expressed for and against by the private and public sectors. I was a bit puzzled by the evidence that was given by the former Deputy Minister for Social Justice, Hugh Henry. He contended that the Executive had no plans to extend the verification role to the private sector but that the possibility of doing so should not be excluded. I thank the minister for expanding on that point today, but did the former Deputy Minister for Social Justice's evidence indicate that the Executive does not yet know what the additional costs to local authorities are likely to be and that, rather than fund local authorities to do the work, the work will be privatised?

I was particularly impressed by the Disability Rights Commission's evidence on behalf of the country's 800,000 disabled people. The commission also raised the question of replacing mandatory standards with guidance as a cause for concern. Requests for relaxations have long been contentious for disabled people.

The duties in part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 come into force in October 2004. Bearing that in mind, no building currently in use by the public should be granted relaxations for any aspect of any regulation that would have a direct or indirect negative impact the accessibility or usability of the building by disabled people. I say to the minister that I assume that no relaxations whatever will be allowed in the case of new buildings.

The explicit inclusion of access and usability in the functional standards would ensure clarity in determinations after a breach is reported. It is also vital that accredited verifiers include professionals who are competent and qualified to certify that a design is accessible and usable by disabled people.

The Disability Rights Commission asked that the definition on convenience be expanded to include explicit reference to accessibility and usability for the disabled, rather than the implicit references in the policy memorandum and the explanatory notes. The word convenience does not adequately cover, or might not be understood to cover, the requirements of disabled people. A building that is not accessible or usable is considerably more than an inconvenience; it is discriminatory, exclusive and may hinder someone from accessing services and facilities. I am sure that a solution to that issue is not beyond the scope of the many resources that the Executive has to hand. I ask the minister to consider the matter further.

I also ask for an assurance that the bill is only one part of the continuing modernisation of building construction and repair. Are issues such as tenement law and rethinking construction practices to incorporate the Eagan principles still on the agenda? Who is driving the agenda?

I could say much more. Fine intentions have been laid before the chamber today and stage 2 will be interesting. I reiterate that the Scottish National Party supports the general principles of the bill.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I declare an interest: at one time, I was a student member of the Institution of Civil Engineers, but that does not appear in my entry in the register of members' interests. I welcome Des McNulty to the front bench. This is the first time that he has appeared in his ministerial role in a debate in which I have been involved.

The Building (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced on 18 September 2002, is welcome legislation. It updates the 1959 act and, in addition to making our legislation EU compliant, should simplify and modernise existing legislation. However, some issues need to be addressed in the debate, including verification, certification, costs to local authorities, functional design, building warrants and late applications.

The Conservatives welcome the Executive's proposal that verification should continue to be carried out by local authorities. We also welcome the opportunity for private sector verification to be introduced at a later date if required. I am content for us to wait to see how private sector verification works in England and Wales.

We heard conflicting evidence about whether private sector verification could deliver impartial, accountable and accessible enforcement powers. In my view, the jury is still out on the matter in England and Wales. However, if the private sector model works in the long term, there is no reason why we should not welcome it in Scotland.

I quote the ultra-cautious Institution of Civil Engineers:

"The approved inspector system in England has offered the opportunity to provide tailored services on a commercial basis. Competition has delivered service improvements in both the public and the private sector in line with best-value policies."

If that view is still held in another three or five years, I can see no reason why our Government in Scotland should not introduce similar private sector verification. Indeed, to an extent, that is happening already in small local authorities that buy in verification services from larger and better equipped neighbouring authorities.

Certification is a vital part of the process. There is a need for certifiers to take a narrow role but to be aware of the overall design concept. Contracts above a certain size, which would be defined by ministers, should not be subject only to self-certification. Although I accept totally that a verifier must take the overview, it would also be important to encourage certifiers to be aware and to think holistically about the design concept. As buildings become more sophisticated and complex, there is a greater risk that fragmentation of design could lead to structural failure. Quite simply, the greater the number of people involved in considering the potential risks of a design concept, the more likely we are to avoid structural failures such as the Ronan Point disaster and accidents such as the Summerland fire.

In practice, a dialogue might take place between verifiers and certifiers, but the minister might wish to consider asking certifiers to consider during the certification process whether, in their view, the part of the design that they are certifying creates any risk to the design concept as a whole.

I welcome the minister's conclusions that fees must be set to recover costs. It is worth noting that those costs could be significant for the property sector if local authorities are to be obliged to inspect existing buildings regularly to ensure that they are not dangerous.

The Executive must be aware that the financial cost to local authorities, as well as lack of funding, could delay the introduction of the new building standards system. It must ensure that adequate funding is provided. It would be unacceptable if delays in the verification process caused contractors and clients time and money as a result of deficiencies in and underfunding of local authority departments.

It is essential that functional standards be maintained and improved upon. Although I accept the Executive's intention to reduce prescription in functional design, I share the concern of the Disability Rights Commission that

"technical standards may no longer be mandatory."—[Official Report, Transport and the Environment Committee, 6 November 2002; c 3615.]

Linda Fabiani also highlighted that concern.

There is an absolute need for ministers to reassure us that existing standards of accessibility will be built on rather than reduced. After the bill has been passed, I believe that the Scottish ministers will need to keep that matter under review.

I also want to refer in passing to the likelihood that the costs of indemnity insurance will escalate. We must be reassured that appropriate insurance will be available under the new regime. The minister must spell out how such arrangements would work before we proceed. Finally, the definition of "owner of a building" must be clarified, and I look forward to the Executive lodging suitable stage 2 amendments in that respect. The Conservative party welcomes the bill and looks forward to lodging our own stage 2 amendments.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

In a previous existence, I had contact with a group of professionals, the leader of which used to shrug off any unnecessary detail with the phrase "That's too technical". As a result, every time I say, "That's too technical", I have a wry smile on my face. That explains why I am smiling when I say that the Building (Scotland) Bill is quite technical.

The bill deals with the framework that ensures that buildings are safe and fit for purpose. Moreover, it moves away from the highly prescriptive nature of the current building control system by recognising that there can be more than one solution to a problem—an approach that has been widely welcomed. I tried years ago to secure official acceptance for construction of an innovative reed-bed system to deal with domestic sewage in a private dwelling. The bill's proposed system's flexibility and ability to deal with matters that are outside the box is therefore very welcome and will lead to good things. Furthermore, from the evidence that the Transport and the Environment Committee took, the industry seems to feel that the bill will accomplish its aim of facilitating innovation.

At this point, I should express my appreciation to the experts who submitted evidence to the committee and helped us to get our lay minds around concepts such as functional standards, technical standards and so on.

The bill will create two new kinds of officer—certifiers and verifiers—whose complementary roles will help safely to deliver the desired flexibility and innovation. However, there is a question about whether verification should be available from private sector providers. Although that happens south of the border, the benefits of such a system have not been universally agreed and, as private verification will not be immediately introduced in Scotland, there is still time to evaluate more fully the experience in England and Wales.

The committee also discussed the financial implications of such a system for local authorities, and it was suggested that the introduction of private verification might affect the recovery of costs through fees. Furthermore, concerns were expressed about erosion of the public sector skills base if much of the work is moved to the private sector. Although such questions will require consideration in future, they should be borne in mind now.

Although I welcome the measures that will strengthen local authorities' ability to identify dangerous buildings, I feel that they will not be effective if authorities cannot afford to implement them.

For many years, it has seemed that building standards are the obvious way of attaining proper energy efficiency and accessibility to buildings. However, the bill will establish only the mechanisms; the regulations that follow will actually deliver those objectives. As a result, the regulations will be more exciting than the bill itself. However, the bill is the necessary prerequisite and it is important that we get it right.

The witnesses who gave evidence to the committee clearly appreciated the lengthy pre-legislative consultation that fed into the bill and they felt strongly that such an approach has paid dividends and that the bill now meets its objectives. When we deal with such technical measures, it is important that we listen to professionals and make the best use of their expertise. I am happy to say that that has happened with this bill. Perhaps in our stage 2 consideration we will now be able to clear up some of the problems that have been highlighted during stage 1.

The Liberal Democrats are very happy to support the bill's principles and look forward to stage 2.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Before I address the bill, I want to welcome the new Deputy Minister for Social Justice, Des McNulty, and to wish him well in his new role. Des comes to his position with some advantages and disadvantages. As a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee, he was part of the bill's stage 1 consideration. However, that might well prove to be a disadvantage, because he might now have to accept many of his own recommendations. [ Interruption. ] I see that Margaret Curran has overruled that.

We must recognise that, although the bill is very technical, its provisions will be important to people in Scotland because they will affect so many aspects of their lives. The bill has real practical benefits; for example, it proposes to give to ministers powers to make regulations for a range of different purposes, including health, safety, welfare and convenience. As Linda Fabiani pointed out, the issue of convenience is important because it can improve the accessibility of buildings for many people. My colleague Ken Macintosh will discuss such issues later.

The bill also gives powers to ministers to make regulations about the conservation of power and the promotion of sustainable development. I hope that Mr McNulty will, when he sums up, expand on the way in which such powers might be used. For example, on health and safety, I ask him to say how the powers could be used to promote safer designs. When he was a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee, he asked whether the legislation could be used to reduce the incidence of injuries suffered by children who crush their fingers in doors.

As for the conservation of power and sustainable development, the Social Justice Committee invited the Executive to explain how it intends to use the powers in the bill as a tool to meet its overall policy aims of reducing fuel poverty and promoting sustainable development. Again, I ask the minister to provide further explanation of how such powers will be used.

I will now, having identified some of the bill's positive aspects, raise some areas of concern that the Executive should take on board. I will not be able to mention all the concerns this morning, so I ask the Executive to consider in detail the Transport and the Environment Committee's report. I want to focus on verifiers and certifiers, which other members have mentioned. Public sector organisations in particular have expressed concerns about the introduction of private verifiers, although I note that at the moment the Executive has no intention to use that power. In its written evidence, the City of Edinburgh Council stated:

"No private verifier could ever meet the criteria of being independent and accountable to the local electorate when they are appointed and paid for by a client directly. The DETR in England has as a result created a private building control system ... the essential elements of which are no refusals, no problem and no enforcement!"

I acknowledge the minister's commitment that, before any such system is introduced, there will be full consultation with local government and a full analysis made of the impact of any such changes. Although I welcome that response to one of the committee's recommendations, I ask ministers to consider whether there is any need at all to include the power in the bill.

I will touch briefly on certifiers, because I realise that I am at the end of my time.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We can be a bit more relaxed—I do not mind if you go a bit beyond five minutes.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

So we have loads of time this morning.

Concerns were raised about certifiers; in particular, the Institute of Civil Engineers in Scotland was concerned about having an overall holistic approach to verification of safe design. I know that the Deputy Minister for Social Justice was himself concerned about the issue when he was a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee, and I hope that the Executive will examine the matter closely before the bill is passed. The committee recommended that the Executive should consider giving a single individual responsibility for managing the certification process, and I ask it to take that suggestion on board.

In conclusion, the bill is an important measure that introduces new powers that can be used to promote better and safer buildings in Scotland. I ask the Executive to consider carefully the role of verifiers and certifiers. It recognises that local government has performed the role well in the past, so I ask that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water when reviewing the building control system. I welcome the powers on dangerous buildings and recommend that the Parliament support the bill at stage 1.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Nora Radcliffe began by saying that the bill is technical and by implying that it is boring. The bill is not exciting, but it is important, and it will be instructive to watch how a former committee member who knows the Transport and the Environment Committee's concerns translates them into amendments to the bill.

A stage 1 debate is about a committee's being able to highlight its areas of concern and, on reading the Transport and the Environment Committee's report, we see five areas of concern. One of those concerns stems from the Social Justice Committee's report, which I commend to the ministers, on fuel poverty and sustainable development. Members of that committee were also concerned about costs to local authorities, the role of private verifiers and, more important, the introduction of monitoring and auditing of those private verifiers. We also had concerns about the definition of an owner.

In my few minutes, I want to concentrate on the potential problem of the mandatory status of our new standards. The problem relates to the functional standards that we are about to introduce versus the technical standards that we have at the moment. Why is there a problem? For example, new functional standards for fire safety might say that building materials "shall not spread fire", which is a wonderful intention. However, the old technical standard would have set, for example, minimum times for fire doors to hold back fire and a minimum width for corridors, fire exits and stairways. That is the difference. The functional standard says, "shall not spread fire" but the technical standard ensures that fire cannot be spread. Similarly, the new functional standard will say that access to buildings should be convenient, but the previous technical standard would have set, for example, a maximum gradient for ramps. It is clear that there are issues that we must consider.

I am particularly concerned by the transfer from technical to functional standards. That transfer has happened in England and Wales and the Transport and the Environment Committee heard from people who experienced the transfer that they have reservations about it and how it is working in practice. In particular, the committee heard from the Disability Rights Commission and the Fire Protection Association about their concerns on the transfer and the mandatory level of the standards.

Before I go on to that, I return to the word "convenient", which the minister used and to which Linda Fabiani referred in her speech. The DRC said that using the term "convenient" to describe access to a building is outmoded. In evidence to the committee, the then minister Hugh Henry said that it was okay to continue to use that term in the new standards because it was used in the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 and was understood as a technical term. I refer ministers to the DRC's evidence that said that if we are updating the standards, we should update the language as well in order to ensure that the terms that we use show fully what they are meant to achieve.

I want confirmation that the technical standards that we have at the moment will not be reduced when they become functional standards and that the mandatory nature of the standards will be enforceable in law. One of the minister's civil servants said in committee:

"The expanded functional standards will still set a minimum that must be met and that the courts will be able to enforce. That minimum will be no lower than that which we set at present through regulation."—[Official Report, Transport and the Environment Committee, 13 November 2002; c 3690.]

I want, as do many others, to hear on record from the ministers that that will be the case, because it is important. As both the Disability Rights Commission and Fire Protection Association pointed out, it is much more difficult to remedy accessibility or fire-proofing defects once a building is built than it is to ensure that it is built appropriately by meeting standards as it is built.

Mention has been made of standards that buildings have to meet in other legislation. That includes part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which will come into force in October 2004 and, in relation to fire safety, the European directive on construction products. If the functional standards in the bill do not meet those minimum standards, the buildings will not meet other legislation.

I also want assurance that the Building Standards Advisory Committee will include representation from fire authorities and disability groups to ensure that such organisations' concerns are considered.

In conclusion, I am concerned that much of the legislation's substance will come through regulation and guidance rather than be included in the bill. That presents Parliament with a difficulty in scrutinising and influencing legislation. Again, will the minister assure us that Parliament will be involved in the production of the regulations and guidance? Hugh Henry said that there would be many issues for ministers to deal with, including the appointment of verifiers. Will the minister assure us that Parliament will be part of that process to ensure that when the bill is passed, it works for everybody?

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

The Building (Scotland) Bill is a welcome bill that I am pleased to see has to date attracted cross-party support. More important, it has gained the general support of public agencies that are currently responsible for, and have the remit to approve and oversee, building standards for all buildings and structures in Scotland.

Members will no doubt be aware that responsibility for building warrants for new and renovated buildings rests with local authorities. Under their control, the system has been regulated consistently and has been applied professionally and fairly. The system has generally been accepted and, which is important, complied with by all sections of the building trade. I question some of the bill's proposals in that I do not consider it to be practical or appropriate to remove that function from local authorities, as some suggest should happen. It would be a foolish and retrograde step to appoint private sector inspectors or verifiers to manage the building control system and we should resist any such move with the utmost vigour.

The bill goes a long way towards addressing the problems of substandard housing in Scotland—we all know how much of that exists in the private and public sectors. Much has been achieved, but much more is required. Our citizens have a justifiable right and expectation to occupy warm, dry and affordable homes. I do not agree entirely with everything in the bill and would like to see an amendment lodged to include insistence that all commercial buildings to which the public have access will be required to secure and display an electrical compliance certificate. That certificate could be renewed annually in the same way as with the existing requirement to display a current insurance or fire certificate. Such a change would ensure that all electrical appliances and, more important, the main power supply were installed and maintained to an approved and safe standard. The sort of inspection and testing that is required is quick and easily undertaken and would not impose a new burden on the property owners or occupiers.

There is much merit in the bill and it deserves the unanimous support of the Scottish Parliament. Accordingly, I am pleased to indicate my support for the Building (Scotland) Bill, with minor amendments.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

It might help if I say to the remaining speakers that there is scope for them to have up to six minutes each.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I want to deal with one matter that does not appear to be referred to in the bill but which I believe is touched on in the policy memorandum, which says that the bill should

"make the system more responsive to the needs of the general public and industry ... create more flexibility for designers to promote new and innovative design"

and

"support Scottish Executive aims of providing excellence in public services and encouraging sustainable development".

I believe that the matter that is missing in relation to those aims is broadband roll-out. If we do not address that in the Building (Scotland) Bill, we will miss an opportunity. If the Executive says that we will address the matter in future years, it will be merely postponing work that should be done now.

Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive recognise the importance of rolling out broadband. However, it can be argued that, in the 21st century, broadband is as important a public utility as sanitation, electricity, lighting and so on were in previous centuries. I appreciate that the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning has recently made pronouncements on and provided cash for supporting broadband roll-out, and I recognise that the Deputy Minister for Social Justice—whom I congratulate on his promotion—has a family interest in the matter, but it seems to me that we have an opportunity not only to address the minutiae that are clearly important, but to take a new step forward and consider how we can take the initiative in rolling out broadband rather than dealing with it from behind.

At present, there is public support for rolling out broadband and BT has embarked on a major advertising campaign, but all of us will be aware of difficulties that friends or constituents have had in getting broadband. Those difficulties happen not only in rural Scotland but in cities and major conurbations in central Scotland. Throughout the country, people either cannot obtain broadband or can obtain it only at an unaffordable price. The bill gives us an opportunity to say to building companies that, if they are building a housing or business estate, the provision of fibre optic cables—or an appropriate alternative—is as important a requirement as are provision of power cables, water and sanitation.

We must acknowledge, however, that that cannot be done in all areas. It might be unreasonable to compel someone who is building two new houses in Achiltibuie to provide fibre optic cabling. There must be made available an opt-out on the basis of cost. That flexibility could be provided for in regulations, which are dealt with early in the bill. However, there should be a standard for any construction project that involves, say, more than 25 houses or whatever we decide on. At present, the Executive is trying to aggregate resources for industrial estates that are already in commission. Why do not we ensure that any new industrial or housing estate is required to provide broadband access?

We should not require builders to pipe broadband directly into every house, but we should require that there be a fibre optic cable or an ADSL connection within a reasonable distance. The difficulty that we face is that anyone who wants to get broadband in their new house can be quoted ridiculous prices—for example £3,000—to get it. If all that a telecommunications company had to do was connect the house to the pipe at the end of the road, the cost would be much less. It would perhaps be as little as £250 or less, which would be an insignificant amount, given the sorts of prices that people pay for houses today.

We have a golden opportunity for the Executive and the Scottish Parliament to put Scotland at the forefront of the roll-out of broadband. It is important that we continue the efforts that are being made by Scottish Executive, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, but we have an opportunity to make the situation better at the outset. Of course, it is not within the sphere of responsibility of a building company to ensure that broadband is rolled out to the area in which it is building houses, but it can work in partnership with telecommunications companies to do so. The only caveat that should be added is that, if only one telecommunications company is involved in the provision of the fibre optic cables and so on, it must ensure that there is enough capacity to allow its competitors also to provide the service. That is not beyond the capabilities of modern technology and would allow, for example, people in an estate in which BT had provided broadband connections to choose instead to subscribe to Telewest Broadband.

I do not know whether the Executive is already considering what I propose, but if we do not do what I propose, we will miss a golden opportunity to put Scotland at the forefront of broadband provision. I see many heads nodding in agreement and I assume that everyone is aware of the importance of the issue. I have discussed matters with the telecommunications companies and I know that they are prepared to support the Executive in relation to the proposal. If the Executive has not considered the matter, I urge it to do so. I know that the minister is interested in the matter.

I repeat that we have an opportunity to ensure that a utility that is essential in the 21st century is given the same priority that was given in previous centuries to other important public utilities. We forsake this golden opportunity at our peril.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I am sure that members will not mind if I keep my contribution short. Perhaps I should speak extremely slowly.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

There is no compulsion to occupy all the time that you have been allowed.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I welcome the Building (Scotland) Bill. It is not a headline grabber, but it is nonetheless necessary. It will improve the regulation of building in Scotland and make the system more responsive to owners and the public. I hope in particular that the system in practice will be simpler, fairer and more transparent. There is no doubt that the approved certifiers of construction and the public building standards register are steps in the right direction towards access to information and the availability of a list of suitable and approved installers and tradespeople. That will clarify the system for all of us and give us more confidence in the decisions that are made.

However, I am concerned that some issues will not be fully addressed. I know of one case involving a constituent who was worried that the original work that had been done on his building was not done to a high enough standard. In particular, his roof tiles were not nailed down, despite that being in the manufacturer's specification. Not only is there a danger of the tiles' being blown off in high winds despite their weight, but they leak and have damaged my constituent's flat as a result. As usual, the matter is not clear-cut. Although my constituent has had a surveyor confirm his opinion, the local authority and the property factor have made a different judgment. One of the difficulties could lie in asking the local authority to question its own judgment in approving a building warrant and completion certificate, despite the safety risk that might exist. The other difficulty lies in the grey area between what is a matter of quality and consumer protection and what should be treated as a building standards and safety issue. I am not sure that I have any solutions to that problem, but I urge the Executive to keep an eye on any on-going difficulties that might arise.

Concerns about disabled access and usability will be familiar to everyone in the chamber and I welcome the work that the Executive has done in consulting disabled people and addressing their worries. However, there is no doubt that there is anxiety, which Linda Fabiani highlighted, that moving away from prescribed technical standards might remove the protections that disabled people have fought for long and hard. I welcome the opportunity for builders, architects and designers to come up with more innovative solutions to problems of access and usability, but I want the minister to give us further assurance that the bill will not mark a step backward rather than a step forward.

There is a problem with currently prescriptive technical standards, which is that they are inadequate and do not reflect actual need. For example, I believe that the technical standard for doors in respect of wheelchair access to disabled toilets is 800mm, but that is barely enough to get a wheelchair through a door. Some of my constituents have called 800mm "a knuckle scraper"—that is not a reference to any neanderthal constituents I have. The existing standards do not, for example, allow for the practicalities of motorised wheelchairs, which require a slightly larger turning circle. Many examples have been reported to me of toilets where wheelchair users can hardly get in and, when they do, have great difficulty in turning round or even closing the door behind them. The most embarrassing such toilet is located in the building at the Southern general hospital from which wheelchairs are prescribed in south Glasgow. The toilets, rather than the users, are disabled in such cases.

If the bill allows and encourages builders and designers properly to take the views of disabled people into account, it will mark an improvement. If we can move to an approach in which facilities for disabled people are made to work, rather than being considered a problem to be worked around, the bill will be very welcome. I look forward to hearing more reassurance from the ministers on that point, but I welcome the bill.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am glad that Ken Macintosh got into specifics anecdotally, because I am going to rely on that.

I purchased a building in 1970 and spent a large amount of my spare time renewing and repairing parts of it. Because I was a teacher, much of that was do-it-yourself work. My experience has encompassed amateur efforts in every trade except plumbing and electricity, both of which I regard as potentially far more hazardous than the dangers that are inherent in falling off the roof.

I assisted a friend in the conversion of an old beaming shed in Kilbarchan into a home. At the time, I could speak authoritatively about dwangs and noggings—and knew what they were. I still know, and if the minister can tell me what they are in his closing speech, I will be impressed. I have also worked on flats that belong to my sons, because two of them are teachers too and cannot afford tradesmen.

I have no problem with the principle that Scottish building standards must comply with the European Community's construction products Council directive 90/106/EEC. I assume—because I have not read that document at all, let alone in detail—that the directive introduces sensible and safe standards that will be universal in Europe and that the standards are uniform only on those basics. I assume that there is ample scope for Scotland to have different and higher standards. I would not want tiles to be laid on laths as a norm in Scotland when they are currently laid on sarking. I presume that diversity to reflect climatic peculiarities will be permitted.

I welcome the commitment to sustainable development. Anyone who passes houses or shops that are in the course of alteration invariably finds skips filled with walls that are not necessarily old but have recently been torn out and are being replaced because somebody wants the building altered or wants a different style. Kenny MacAskill's suggestion of installing broadband in advance would be a way of preventing the tearing up of roads and landscape at some future date. Advance design, advance planning and better town planning are all part of that. Equally, I welcome the bill's commitment to further the conservation of fuel and power.

Cowboy builders exist. I can think of an example where developers refurbished and developed an historic building, sold it off as flats and refused to take any responsibility for subsequent failures in the building that were caused by defective workmanship. In that context, the suggested register of approved certifiers of design is to be welcomed. Obviously, in new build, that is particularly important, because such people can design buildings that are flexible for future use and alteration, without the need for extensive use of building materials in making the alterations.

I welcome the idea of certifiers of construction. They will have a vital role in supervising the kind of jobs for which we all call in tradespeople. Recently, I considered installing a gas stove at home. One firm that I phoned said, "No we don't install them, but we know a gas fitter." I gave that firm a distinct body swerve and moved to the firm that said "Yes, we are registered by all the following organisations and can guarantee"—as far as such things can be guaranteed—"that we will do a good job." The rapid and well-monitored identification of a well-qualified body of certifiers of construction is essential to provide citizens with the necessary safeguards against cowboy builders and cowboy installers. Apart from the big builders, who are obviously more aware and more conscious of the demands of regulations, the certifiers of construction will have an important role to play among ordinary people who often get caught out by the cowboys.

The Scottish National Party supports the bill.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Like other members, I welcome the bill, which seeks to modernise the Scottish building control system, which is currently based on an act that dates way back to 1959—the Building (Scotland) Act 1959. In the relatively brief time that I have, I will cover some of the issues that architects have raised through the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland. First, I declare that I am an honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects.

Overall, architects have welcomed the proposals in the bill, because there are clear inadequacies in the existing building control system. There are inconsistencies in interpretation between local authorities and inconsistencies in performance. Sometimes, clients are naturally reluctant to challenge the building control departments in cases of dispute over interpretation, because that would require referral to the sheriff, which is time consuming and costly.

On the other hand, architects believe that the existing system is well managed in many parts of the country. The system requires a warrant approval prior to commencement of works. That is important: it is vital to prevent rash and potentially abortive actions. The new arrangements in the bill will address the main problems and provide enabling powers that will make the new system more efficient and more effective.

Architects support the distinction in the bill between functional standards and performance requirements, because they believe that that will allow for innovation, which is increasingly important in a fast-changing world and will recognise the undoubted talent of Scotland's creative architects. The distinction should also assist in addressing sustainable development objectives and allow maximum architectural value with minimum environmental harm.

I draw the minister's attention to two areas on which I ask for reassurance. Under the new system, the owner will issue a certificate of completion. Although that should bring clarity to the system, some arrangements will require to be put in place to ensure that it does not slow down the process. Absentee or overseas owners might be difficult to contact, and tenants and leaseholders who wish to make internal alterations should not be inhibited from doing so.

I welcome the proposed arrangements for strengthening local authority powers to inspect buildings regularly and prevent danger and accidents. Those powers are particularly important in multi-owned older stock—the minister made reference to Christine Foster's tragic death at Ryan's Bar. However, for those powers to be most effective, property owners and lessees should have their buildings regularly surveyed and assessed by approved certifiers who have a duty to register defects with the local authority. The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland assisted in the publication of "The Tenement Handbook" more than a decade ago because it wanted to ensure that proper maintenance of older stock took place. Such maintenance is a continuing concern.

Overall, the bill's provisions are to be welcomed. The bill shows that our agenda is to encourage enterprise and innovation, to empower and protect consumers and to create sustainable developments. The bill will provide a modernised building standards system in Scotland and will create a more flexible system for business and encourage innovation in building. It will provide more information for the general public on buildings, which will assist in improving the house-buying process and encourage greater consistency of standards throughout Scotland.

I urge members to support the bill.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Rhona Brankin did not quite manage to fill the 13 minutes that were available. I make that point for the sake of the next debate, in order to advise whoever keeps an eye on these things that we are running slightly ahead of schedule.

We come now to closing speeches. Robert Brown, for the Liberal Democrats, officially has four minutes, but I will allow latitude for up to six minutes for closing speakers.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I apologise for arriving at the chamber late. The train that I was taking this morning was cancelled, and I have not had the advantage of hearing the Minister for Social Justice or Linda Fabiani.

That said, this has been a good and interesting debate, particularly for members who, like me, fall into the non-technical category, to which Nora Radcliffe alluded. I listened with considerable awe to the experiences of hands-on, technical, practical people such as Colin Campbell. I do not fall into that category in any shape or form.

In common with the other parties, the Liberal Democrats generally welcome the bill. Members will forgive me if I am slightly more remote from the bill than some speakers have been. The Social Justice Committee, of which I am a member, has had some involvement on the fringes of the bill, but we have not, of course, taken the same amount of evidence as the Transport and the Environment Committee has.

Section 21 provides for building standards registers. I am not a conveyancing solicitor, but I recall, from deep in the bowels of my memory, things called letters of comfort. Letters of comfort arise when people are buying and selling houses and there is some deficiency from a while back relating to the question whether completion certificates exist. I wonder whether letters of comfort are still part of the system and, if they are, whether there might be any merit in allowing them to be included among the things that are registered. As I said, letters of comfort relate to situations involving some deficiency but in which it is not necessary to go back to square 1; rather, they are issued when there is satisfaction on the part of the local authority that standards have been kept to.

The Transport and the Environment Committee's report raises the important subject of indemnity insurance. I am reminded of an old case in which comparison was made between the standards of care that apply to a solicitor and those that apply to a building engineer. The main point was that solicitors are not expected to guarantee the result of the case—although they do their best to achieve success—whereas a different standard applies to engineers and to builders of bridges and houses, because people do not expect the bridges or houses to fall down. There is an important element of guarantee in that, and indemnity insurance operates against that background.

I endorse what Kenny MacAskill said about broadband. People who live in the Cambuslang area of my constituency have made representations on broadband because it is currently not provided there. It is important to make that facility available at the start of developments.

The Social Justice Committee touched on fuel poverty in connection with energy efficiency. In thinking about the provision of renewable energy, particularly from solar power, I wondered whether there might be the facility under the regulations that will be introduced through the bill, and under codes of guidance, to deal with the issue in more depth. It seems that we are roughly at the point that Germany, Japan and other countries have now gone through. Solar energy and wind energy—I am referring not to big windmills, but to little windmills, for example in cities such as Rotterdam—have reached the stage at which there is the potential to include in new developments a more dynamic public-policy driver to make available those contributions to the available energy basket, as it were. The bill offers a good opportunity to include such provision with the building of new properties.

In that context, I note that section 1(2) deals with consultation on codes of guidance and with regulations, and I wonder whether it would be appropriate to think specifically about Energy Action Scotland with regard to such consultation and to codes of guidance or regulations. Such groups, as well as builders and architects, have relevant expertise.

In conclusion—I have been speaking for just over four minutes, and am now using a little bit of the leeway that the Presiding Officer allowed—I revert to the idea that I have mooted once or twice before about a homeowner's log, or MOT register, as it were, of the things that have taken place in a house. The proposals for building standards might present an opportunity to encourage house owners to keep official records of the things that happen to their houses. That might cover, for example, building warrants, completion certificates and electrical certificates. It is important that the history of a house is known. If that idea were implemented properly and if the long-term maintenance matters were covered, it could enhance houses' values. I hope that that idea might be considered.

I hope that I have made some helpful suggestions and comments on what is generally a very good bill, which is supported throughout the chamber. I finish by adding my thanks to those that have already been expressed to ministers for having introduced the bill. I look forward to its passing into legislation.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is my pleasure to wind up the debate for the Conservatives. As my colleague John Scott said at the beginning of the debate, we support the general principles of the bill.

I have three points to make in relation both to the bill and to wider aspects of building control. A number of members referred to my first point, which is verification, particularly the opportunity to have private sector verifiers, which the Conservatives welcome. I can speak from personal experience on this. In a previous life, as a commercial lawyer practising in Edinburgh, much of my day-to-day work was taken up with building projects. Many developers experienced frustration at delays in the various stages of building contracts because of the time that it took to get the appropriate official from the relevant building control department out to visit the development in question.

If we are to provide other avenues for that exercise, which do not depend on a local government monopoly in verification, that will be very much welcomed by the construction industry, especially in a fast-moving commercial environment such as that of property development in Edinburgh, where buildings are going up all over the place, and where it can sometimes be difficult for the building control department to keep up. If building control departments had the opportunity to contract out some of the services that they provide, that would be very useful. I note that the proposals on verifiers were welcomed by the Institution of Civil Engineers in Scotland, as well as by other bodies, including the Scottish Consumer Council, a representative of which said:

"It does not matter whether the verifiers are from the private or the public sector as long as they are transparent and accountable."—[Official Report, Transport and the Environment Committee, 6 November 2002; c 3620.]

Of course there must be adequate safeguards for the protection of the public, but I think that that issue can be overcome, and I welcome the consultation that the Executive will undertake on that point.

My second point was mentioned by Robert Brown: letters of comfort. Conveyancing solicitor colleagues of mine came up against the issue time and again. A letter of comfort is produced by a local authority building inspector to say that works that have been carried out, although they have not been properly certified, nevertheless meet the appropriate regulations. We would like to think that we live in an ideal world in which, when people get work done to their house, they always get a building warrant first or a completion certificate, but many people do not bother. They might not even realise that, if they are taking down a wall here and there or installing an en suite bathroom , they need to get those certificates.

It might only be when the house is surveyed and an offer to purchase is received that the poor solicitor—[Interruption.]—I realise that "poor solicitor" is something of a paradox—who is acting for the seller realises that there is a problem, and that the work has been done without authorisation. Although there is a mechanism to apply retrospectively for a building warrant and completion certificate, there is usually no time practically to make that application, because the date of entry tends to be set at between four and eight weeks from purchase.

In that situation, people approach their local authority and ask for what is called a letter of comfort. The local authority will send out an inspector to examine the work and, if the work is all right, issue a letter to say that, although no certification is available, the works will pass regulations. Letters of comfort are therefore extremely useful, but the problem is that there is a patchwork approach to them throughout Scotland, with no uniformity. It would have been useful if the bill had introduced a uniform approach for letters of comfort, so that local authorities throughout Scotland would adopt a similar approach. Perhaps the Executive could address that matter, under either the Building (Scotland) Bill or a future bill.

My third point relates to historic buildings; I have raised this issue in the chamber before. Balthayock House is an historic listed building just outside Perth, which has fallen into disrepair. Scotland is littered with historic buildings—most of which date from the late 19th century—that are now of little practical use. They are far too large to be used as family homes and it would cost too much to modernise them. Although they could be used as hotels or institutions, that market is limited. There are far too many such buildings.

Earlier this year there was a desperate tragedy at Baldovie House, just outside Dundee—a young lad who had broken into the house was killed. Large, derelict, empty houses are magnets for young children. Regardless of whether the owners erect fences or signs that state "Dangerous building—do not enter", kids will enter such houses to play inside them.

We need to strike a balance on this issue. Of course we must protect our historic buildings and built heritage. However, it is time to take a more reasoned approach to the future of listed buildings that are of limited historical or architectural merit, are falling into disrepair and have no practical use in the modern world. The cost of repairing such a building might far exceed the economic value of the house if repaired. The estimated cost of repairing Balthayock House is £2.3 million. It has also been estimated that, once the house had been fully restored, its market value would be about £750,000. Given those figures, only an ignoramus would spend money to repair the house and restore it to modern standards.

We must examine the way in which Historic Scotland approaches the question of listing and of giving consent to the demolition of listed buildings. I understand that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee proposes to conduct an inquiry into Historic Scotland and the way in which it operates. I hope that the committee will cover the issue that I have raised.

I conclude by welcoming the bill—as other members have done—and reaffirming that the Scottish Conservatives are pleased to support its general principles.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The SNP warmly welcomes the bill. This unsung piece of legislation shows the Parliament working at its best, both in committee and in the chamber, on a constructive and cross-party basis. I doubt that the outside world will ever hear about that, but we should commend the work that the Transport and the Environment Committee and the ministerial team have done on the bill.

The SNP believes that any new system must have a robust basis and credible enforcement powers, and reflect the need for basic accountability and competence—from both the design professional and those who are charged with verifying compliance. The new system must be reactive to the needs of developers and proactive in addressing innovation and sustainability. It must build on the experiences of practising building standards professionals.

We believe that the bill will both promote the aim of establishing a safe, efficient and sustainable built environment and protect local government's ability to ensure the delivery of such an environment. However, change or clarification will be required in some parts of the bill.

The SNP's own Bob the Builder, Colin Campbell, talked about cowboy builders. The bill presents us with an opportunity to eliminate the problem of cowboy builders and to increase consumer protection through a national approach to the regulation of building standards and the accreditation of builders. If the minister does not know what dwangs and noggings are, he should not feel bad about that—I do not know what they are either.

As Linda Fabiani said, the bill must be strengthened to ensure that it is objective driven, rather than process driven. We can do that by amending the preamble to reflect the bill's objectives more clearly. Section 7 must also be strengthened to require Scottish ministers not only to make lists available, but to ensure that they are accessible, widely publicised and effectively promoted. Ministers should be required to issue guidance on how those functions are carried out and to consult widely on the content of that guidance.

As Linda Fabiani and Ken Macintosh indicated, because of the changes that it makes to the hierarchy and the new roles and responsibilities that it introduces to advance building standards in Scotland, the bill has implications for access for disabled people to the built environment. Most concern has arisen from the resetting of the mandatory status of technical standards to guidance level. It would be helpful if access for and usability by disabled people were covered explicitly in the functional standards. The standards should be clear enough for the courts to determine whether the design and construction of a building perform that function.

Technical standards for disabled people, which will form the basis for the early versions of the forthcoming guidance, have often been criticised for setting minimal requirements. Ken Macintosh dealt with that issue in detail. Building control has failed to deliver those standards, such as they were, consistently and satisfactorily. Murdo Fraser expressed concerns about that. We are disappointed that the response to the criticisms that have been levelled at the building control system has been to issue guidance documents to replace mandatory technical standards. We need guidance that is clear, articulate, accessible and written in plain English. That will benefit all involved, including designers, building owners, builders and verifiers. It will also help to engage disabled building owners and users in the process.

The language of the bill mirrors that of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959. Both the policy memorandum and the explanatory notes imply that it covers the issues of access and usability.

My colleague Linda Fabiani raised the issue of relaxations. Class relaxations and relaxations that are granted on application have long been contentious issues for disabled people. The Disability Rights Commission recommended strongly that no building in public use should be granted relaxation of a regulation if that would have a direct or indirect negative impact on accessibility and usability. The commission also recommended that consideration of all applications for relaxation should take full account of potential and prospective users of buildings, as well as current users. Potential users of a building could include disabled people who wish to buy it or to use the services that it contains, or who are required to work in it.

Ministers could take account of the fact that buildings that are built for a specific purpose may in future be subject to a change of use. In such cases, the relaxation that allowed for the original use may no longer apply. Achieving accessibility and usability in a building that is complete and occupied is more expensive and time consuming than doing so at the design stage.

The Transport and the Environment Committee noted that a number of the bill's provisions could have significant cost implications for local authorities. Written evidence from the City of Edinburgh Council highlighted the "enormous burden" that regular use of the expanded powers to inspect buildings to ascertain whether they are dangerous could place on local authorities. More general concerns relating to local authority resources were expressed in written evidence from the Scottish Association of Chief Building Control Officers, which stated:

"The Association is concerned that in the short term at least a reduction in resource potentially available to local authorities will seriously affect the roll out and implementation of the building standards system. Much is made in the explanatory notes and policy memorandum of the need for local authorities to be more professional and reactive to those seeking building standards approval. The Association agrees wholeheartedly with this but would warn that such aims cannot be achieved without adequate funding."

The policy memorandum states that the current system for setting standards for buildings is very prescriptive. At present, complying with building regulations involves complying with technical standards that have full statutory force. According to the Executive, that creates a barrier to the use of innovative approaches to design and makes it more difficult to comply with harmonised European construction product standards, the first of which have already been produced. Many more such standards will be rolled out over the next few years.

The Disability Rights Commission raised concerns about the revised status of the technical standards. It stated:

"Our main bone of contention is the fact that the technical standards may no longer be mandatory. We feel that the impact of that could be negative, unless, through other facets of the bill, we can strengthen the application and observance of equalities and so strengthen accessibility and usability."—[Official Report, Transport and the Environment Committee, 6 November 2002; c 3615.]

The aspect of the bill that has attracted most comment, and some criticism—although not from the Conservatives—is the provision to allow the appointment of private sector verifiers, who would operate alongside the current system of local authority verifiers. This morning, the minister pointed out that the Executive has said that it has no plans to introduce such verifiers at present. In evidence to the Transport and the Environment Committee, the City of Edinburgh Council stated:

"No private verifier could ever meet the criteria of being independent and accountable to the local electorate when they are appointed and paid for by a client directly. The DETR in England has as a result created a private building control system which exists at present, therefore, the essential elements of which are no refusals, no problems and no enforcement!"

Nora Radcliffe was right to say that, before moving forward on this issue, we should wait to see how the English legislation beds down. The SNP has an open mind on the subject. Providing that the system is well monitored and regulated, it may be a possibility for the future.

I wanted to mention other issues, but because I am running out of time I will finish there.

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

I call Des McNulty to wind up the debate. You have eight minutes on paper, minister, but you can have 10 minutes if you wish.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

It is a paradox that in my maiden speech as a minister I end up talking about buildings, because not only am I Rhona Brankin's predecessor as convener of the cross-party architecture and the built environment group of the Scottish Parliament, but I spent much of my childhood on building sites. My father was a bricklayer and was obsessively interested in different kinds of buildings. My early years were spent looking at buildings and my teenage years were spent often holding the bottom of ladders or mixing mortar, so I have a particular interest in building issues. I can reveal, in response to Colin Campbell's point—this might be a point of interest to members, given that we were all invited to adopt a Scottish word a couple of weeks ago—that a dwang is the same as a nogging. Dwang is the Scots word and nogging is the English word for the cross-pieces in a stud partition wall. If members want the information, that is the background—sad, is it not?

Having sat on the Transport and the Environment Committee and taken evidence from my predecessor Hugh Henry, I hope that my erstwhile colleagues on the committee do not see me too much as poacher turned gamekeeper. One of the great things about our Parliament is that we can engage constructively in developing legislation that is in the best interests of the people of Scotland. The bill is an example of a technical piece of work that the Parliament can carry out in a non-party-political way. We are engaging with a wide variety of interests and the extensive consultation in the parliamentary process in the lead up to stage 1 has thrown up a number of new ideas.

I have my first intervention as a minister.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I welcome the minister to his new post. I am conscious that the Presiding Officer has already invited the minister to take an extra two minutes, so I offer an intervention to assist in the process. The minister just talked about the technical nature of the bill, which several members in the chamber also mentioned. Although the bill is essential and desperately needed, I ask the minister to focus, in stage 2 and thereafter, on the core issue of informing members of the public how the bill will affect them as owners, tenants and residents. That key issue forms the backdrop to many of the comments that members have made.

Will the minister, either today or at stage 2, talk about the relationship between the bill, the forthcoming bill on the law of the tenement and other legislation that looks technical and boring but is critical to constituents such as mine? Margaret Curran mentioned in her opening remarks a tragic incident in my constituency. We have such problems, particularly in city-centre areas where there are issues with multiple ownership and we cannot find out who the owners are.

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

That was helpful.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I ask the minister to think about strengthening the local authority powers in the bill, how discretion might be exercised and how we can have best practice that creates good standards throughout Scotland.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I thank Sarah Boyack for that intervention.

It is very important that we should have a process that seeks to identify good practice. We have a system that is less prescriptive than it has been in the past, which allows greater innovation. Rhona Brankin made that point. People in the building industry welcome the increased flexibility that the bill will allow, because it will encourage a developing process that will allow us to adapt to higher standards more quickly than was possible under the previous system. Sarah Boyack is right to say that we have to take the public with us. The bill is perhaps seen as technical, but it affects people's lives directly and we have to take that point on board.

A number of excellent points were made throughout the debate and I know that we will return to a lot of them at stage 2. I will address a few issues that members have raised today and which the Transport and the Environment Committee raised. Members might wish to be aware of our thinking.

Margaret Curran gave an undertaking that we would not introduce private verifiers without proper study and consultation. It is only sensible to proceed in that way. There might be opportunities for private verifiers to add something to the system that is not there at present. There are situations in which local authorities might not have relevant expertise, for example in building new stadiums or other complex, innovative or different kinds of buildings. A private verifier system might add to competence in that way.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

An alternative way of dealing with situations in which a small local authority does not have the relevant expertise is for larger neighbouring authorities with larger building control departments to provide the expertise. Does the minister see that as an option?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

That is an option. We want expertise to be shared and pooled, which is why we have set up the new building standards authority as we have.

Another issue regarding private verifiers is worth noting here. Questions have been raised about the performance monitoring of private verifiers and verifiers in general. The Executive has already commissioned research into the performance monitoring of verifiers. Members will be interested to know that the Scottish Association of Chief Building Control Officers was involved at the specification stage and we will continue to consult the professional bodies as the work develops. The work that comes out of the research will form the basis for any subsequent system of monitoring and auditing of verifiers, whether private sector or public sector. We do not believe that there is a need to establish in the bill a commitment to introducing such a system. Work is already in progress and we have given an undertaking, which I am happy to repeat now, that the Executive will establish such a system and fully consult local authorities before doing so.

Linda Fabiani and John Scott raised the issue of fees and charges. We have taken note of the concerns that local authorities have expressed regarding the level of costs that they believe will arise from the proposals. A particular concern of the Scottish Association of Chief Building Control Officers is that the Executive must keep to its intention of setting fees to cover costs. The Transport and the Environment Committee recommended that our research into fees and charges fully take into account local authorities' concerns. Members will be pleased to hear that as part of the current research into fees, the researchers and officials had a valuable meeting with seven chief building control officers on 21 November. That is just one illustration of the continuing dialogue that we want to maintain with stakeholders.

Robert Brown and Murdo Fraser raised points about letters of comfort. It is likely that the building standards assessment will be used where a letter of comfort is sought. It is possible that the assessment will include a form of words that is similar to those contained in some letters of comfort, but that is a matter of detail that will need to be considered in consultation with stakeholders.

The move to expanded functional standards is constructed in a way that will not lead to any reduction in minimum standards. That point needs to be reinforced, because it is important. We want to provide detailed guidance on how building standards can be met. The guidance will be based on existing mandatory technical standards. It is anticipated that the vast majority of owners will rely on the guidance. Where owners choose to use alternative methods, local authorities will remain responsible for ensuring that building standards are met. Where local authorities fail to enforce appropriate standards, Scottish ministers can direct them to do so.

Concerns were raised about disability. I want to make it clear that the Executive's intention is that accessibility to buildings will be mandatory in the building regulations that are established in the new system. Indeed, the new hierarchy of standards and guidance will give designers the freedom to produce innovative solutions to issues of disabled access. The new system will continue to provide the basis for ensuring that existing high standards are maintained and we will have the power to direct authorities to ensure that the current standards are enforced appropriately.

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

The minister is in his last minute and a half.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the minister have a view on how the guidance will set out how local authorities deal with relaxations of buildings standards when they relate to access for disabled people?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Our expectation is that there will be far fewer relaxations. We are moving the power to relax regulations from local authorities to the central body. That will lead to fewer relaxations.

I have not had time to address a number of other points, such as the issue of how we can improve safety standards in the way in which we develop the regulations, which Bristow Muldoon mentioned. The fact that the bill allows us to do interesting and innovative things is an important attribute. I will consider Kenny MacAskill's suggestion about broadband, because that is part of the range of issues that we should examine. We will need to explore whether it will be possible to achieve that within the framework of the bill or whether other mechanisms will be needed. The new, more flexible framework will give us opportunities to consider how we might proceed with the development of standards, with the aim of getting better-quality buildings and a better system of regulation.

In conclusion, I am grateful that there is complete consensus that the bill is a good thing. I ask members to support its general principles.

Building (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution

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

The next item of business is consideration of motion S1M-3456, on the financial resolution in respect of the Building (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Parliament resulting from the Building (Scotland) Bill, agrees to—

(a) any increase in expenditure payable out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund in consequence of the Act, and

(b) any charge imposed, and any payment required to be made, by or under the Act.—[Peter Peacock.]

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

The question on the motion will be put at decision time.

Criminal Justice Bill

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3671, in the name of Mr Jim Wallace, on the Criminal Justice Bill, which is proposed United Kingdom legislation. I invite those members who wish to contribute to the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. It would be helpful if members who are leaving the chamber would do so quickly and quietly.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The Criminal Justice Bill, which was introduced at Westminster on 21 November, represents the UK Government's proposals to bring about change across a range of provision in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. It is inevitable that such a bill raises many issues.

However, in the context of today's debate and the motion before the Parliament, most of those matters need not concern us. The motion seeks to permit the UK Parliament to legislate on matters in the bill that are within devolved competence and which it is proposed to extend to Scotland. The fact that those matters are limited to a few areas is not surprising, given that the bill is essentially about proposed changes in England and Wales rather than in Scotland. At this stage, it would be useful to highlight those areas, for the sake of clarity.

Part 1 of the bill makes provision to amend section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987, so that an appropriate person who carries out a search where serious criminal activity related to fraud is suspected, and who is accompanied by police officers, has the same powers as the police in relation to executing the warrant and seizing anything to which the warrant relates. Although the provision relates to fraud investigations that have a locus in England and Wales, section 2 already applies to Scotland. That is to enable effective action to be taken quickly in a situation in which it becomes clear that there might be valuable information in Scotland that is relevant to the case.

The purpose of the amendment of the 1987 act is to enable someone who might have a particular expertise—in computing or finance, for example—to contribute effectively to the search. A police officer might not have the specialist expertise that is required to identify criminal material that might be held on a computer hard drive. A financial expert would be much more able than a police officer to assess the significance of financial documents. It is therefore proposed that the amended provisions should apply in Scotland. I should point out that fraud investigations that have a locus in Scotland are carried out under Scottish legislation—the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995—and that there are reciprocal arrangements that allow our authorities to initiate searches south of the border.

In parts 9, 10 and 13, the bill makes provision in relation to reporting restrictions. The proposed provision relates to proposals in England and Wales for a prosecution right of appeal against judicial rulings that terminate a case early and for the ability to bring fresh prosecutions in serious cases, where there is new evidence that might cast doubt on an acquittal. There is also provision in connection with the holding of preparatory hearings in certain fraud cases. That provision already extends to Scotland. The purpose of the re-enactment of those provisions in the bill is to extend them to Northern Ireland. The aim of the provisions is to ensure that fair judicial process takes place, for example, by ensuring that potential juries will not be influenced by the media and that they will be time limited.

Part 12 makes extensive provision on sentencing. I must mention two matters in that regard, although the amendments and re-enactments concerned maintain the status quo as far as Scotland is concerned. The first relates to situations in which a suspended sentence that has been given out in England or Wales is breached in Scotland. The bill seeks to re-enact provisions that impose a duty on the court in Scotland to intimate the breach to the court in England or Wales that gave out the original sentence, provided that the court in Scotland is aware of the suspended sentence. The second relates to situations in which it is proposed that a sentencing provision within the European Communities Act 1972, which applies to Scotland, is to be changed, but only with regard to England and Wales.

The Executive believes that it makes good sense for the provisions in the bill that are within devolved competence, and which it is proposed should extend to Scotland, to be legislated for in the UK Parliament.

In relation to some of the bill's provisions, although there is what might be described as a rearrangement of the furniture within existing statutory provision in England and Wales, arrangements in Scotland are left unchanged. That is the case with the provisions that relate to sentencing and reporting restrictions in certain preparatory hearings. The Executive believes that it makes sense for those provisions within devolved competence to be re-included in the bill, where no change in relation to Scotland is proposed and where there are no other issues at hand.

In the interests of combating serious financial crime, it makes sense for the proposed changes for search operations in connection with serious fraud to extend to Scotland.

Although the provisions on reporting restrictions in relation to prosecution appeals and the proposal to allow fresh trials in England and Wales are new proposals, it is already accepted that—in the overall interests of justice—it is correct, in certain circumstances, that the media should not report certain things at certain times. Such matters are dealt with generally under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, but there are other specific provisions that relate to criminal proceedings in which children are involved, for example.

Members will have personal views on the merits or demerits of the proposals on prosecution appeals and fresh trials.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I seek clarification on part 9. I am reading the Executive's memorandum on the bill, which says:

"Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal will have power to vary the restriction"—

on reporting—

"after taking into account any objections from the defendant."

Is it the Court of Appeal in England that is being referred to?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I will clarify that point in my summing up.

I doubt that anyone could argue with the proposition that, if such reporting restrictions are agreed to in England and Wales, in the interests of justice, they should apply throughout the UK, according to the same timetable. If that is agreed, the only realistic means of achieving that goal is by including the provisions in relation to Scotland in the bill.

It can fairly be said that the matters that fall within devolved competence in the bill are straightforward and limited and do not have any significant implications for Scots law. They are a good example of why the Sewel convention exists. Therefore, I hope that the Parliament will support the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill that relate to devolved matters should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The minister will be well aware of the Scottish National Party's concerns about the use of Sewel motions. Although it was intended that the mechanism would be used on the odd occasion, the Executive now appears to use it frequently. Four Sewel motions have been moved in three weeks.

Today's Sewel motion seeks to obtain the Parliament's agreement that Westminster should legislate on devolved matters. It is interesting to note that the second reading of the Criminal Justice Bill has already taken place in Westminster—it was voted on last night. Before the Scottish Parliament has had an opportunity to debate the issue, Westminster is proceeding with its consideration of the bill.

Another matter for concern is that the issues pertaining to the Criminal Justice Bill have never been discussed in the four meetings that Scottish Executive ministers have had with Home Office ministers over the past couple of years. I wonder why that is the case.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

As the bill has received only its second reading south of the border, is it not the case that there will be plenty of time for ministers and members to table amendments at the committee stage, which means that there is no insult to the Scottish Parliament?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It may be true that there is still an opportunity to amend the bill, but this Parliament should at least be allowed the courtesy of coming to an agreement on the issue before Westminster decides to move ahead with it. Ministers seem to have decided to leave the matter to Westminster.

The Executive's memorandum on the bill states:

"The Bill itself is concerned with changes to the criminal justice system in England and Wales, and there are no substantive changes to Scots law."

That may be true, but that is not to say that the bill will not have a substantial impact on Scots law. I will pick up on a couple of the issues, which I hope that the minister will be able to clarify.

Schedule 20 to the bill contains provisions to increase the sentence for a number of offences in connection with category C drugs from five years to 14 years. All members would recognise the need to take a tough stance in tackling drug dealing within our communities, but will the minister clarify how section 1(3)(d) is to be applied? The bill will make it an offence for property owners knowingly to permit or suffer the use of controlled drugs within their properties. Does that mean that someone who runs a hostel for the homeless and suffers the use of cannabis on their premises could face a 14-year jail sentence? Might parents face a similar jail term if they suffer the use of cannabis by their 19-year-old in their room upstairs? Some prison governors have said to me off the record that drugs are a necessary evil within our prison system. Will the bill mean that some prison governors could face a jail sentence? I hope that the minister will clarify exactly how that provision will be implemented.

The bill will also introduce reporting restrictions that have drawn considerable concern from a number of parties. The restrictions that the bill proposes are draconian and go well beyond those that have previously been imposed in Scotland. The National Union of Journalists in Scotland has expressed concern that the proposals lack clarity and could cause uncertainty. The bill suggests that the procedure for the reporting restrictions on prosecution appeals and retrials will apply to England and Wales but not to Scotland, although the reporting restrictions for a case in England and Wales would also apply in Scotland. How will that work? A national Scottish paper that has an office in England will be under the jurisdiction of the English courts. However, if a Scottish paper or magazine that does not have a base anywhere in England were to choose to report the case, it would be outwith the jurisdiction of the English courts. Would it therefore be for the Scottish courts to implement such an order if it were granted by an English court? I hope that the minister will take the opportunity to explain exactly how that provision will apply.

The provisions on reporting restrictions need to be read in conjunction with section 60(10), which states that the proceedings can be instituted, in England and Wales, only by or with the consent of the Attorney General or, in Northern Ireland, by or with the consent of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland. What provision is there for the Solicitor General for Scotland or the Lord Advocate to be involved in deciding whether a case should be instituted? There appears to be no suggestion that any such safeguard will be provided for in Scotland.

The minister will be aware that the Contempt of Court Act 1981 already provides a number of measures that provide restrictions on reporting where that is necessary. We should listen to Scotland's leading judge, Lord Rodger, who is the Lord Justice General and President of the Court of Session. He has stated that such orders under the 1981 act should be "no wider than necessary". However, the bill appears to intend that a blanket ban will be applied through the reporting restrictions that it will introduce. I hope that the minister will clarify how the restrictions on the media are to be applied.

In conclusion, if ministers or other members are under any illusion that Scots MPs in Westminster are dealing with the issue effectively, they should know that, during the bill's second reading yesterday, only two such Labour MPs attended the debate for half an hour. No Scots Lib Dem MPs bothered to turn up for the debate, nor did the Scots Tory MP. The only Scots MP to contribute to the debate on the Criminal Justice Bill was an SNP member, Annabel Ewing. As we know, the only people who are interested in protecting the interests of the Scottish justice system are SNP members.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

As the minister rather humorously—and not without a touch of irony—conceded yesterday, the Conservatives will always back proposals that ensure that the voice of the victim is heard above that of the criminal. As such, we will certainly support today's motion on the Criminal Justice Bill. It is significant that our colleagues south of the border have generally welcomed the bill, although they have flagged up the difficulties that will potentially arise from the proposals on trial by jury, double jeopardy and the provision of information relating to previous convictions prior to a determination of guilt.

Some of the proposals, such as those relating to double jeopardy, are contentious, but the minister has correctly pointed out that those will not apply to Scotland. We welcome the Sewel motion for the very reason that the bill will not impinge greatly on Scots law. Scots law may have its little imperfections but, for all that, it is probably the best legal system in the world. It does not require much adjustment from other jurisdictions.

In the main, the bill's provisions do not relate to the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament, but a number of the measures that the bill will introduce are sensible and should be implemented here. The one spectacular omission is the bill's proposals on dealing with the collection of fines south of the border. I seem to recall that, when I suggested similar proposals in this Parliament, they received scant respect or agreement from the Labour-Liberal coalition. Perhaps for once, the coalition should listen to what is being said down south and learn from it.

The minister mentioned the Criminal Justice Act 1987, which already applies in Scotland, and how the proposed amendment to section 2 of that act will provide an enabling power. When the minister sums up, will he confirm that the term "document" in that section of that act includes computer records? The wording of the section is currently rather open, so I suggest that it would be advantageous if that could be looked at, as it was previously necessary to do so after yet another problem at the now infamous Linlithgow sheriff court, which heard a case that went to appeal.

I do not share Michael Matheson's foreboding about the operation of part 9 of the bill, which includes provisions on media restrictions. It is probably better that the Criminal Justice Bill deal with the issue rather than the Contempt of Court Act 1981 because the terms of the 1981 act are vague and have been open to varying interpretations. The bill undoubtedly tightens up those provisions.

We have heard Mr Matheson and his colleagues before on the subject of Sewel motions. On this side of the house, we have no difficulty with them and we believe that there is no dramatic requirement to revisit the operation of the Scotland Act 1998. However, in this instance, I concede to Mr Matheson that the timing of the debate down south was perhaps rather unfortunate.

In general, we welcome the bill and believe that it should be imposed. I point out to Mr Matheson that all prosecutions in Scotland are required to be carried out in the name of the Lord Advocate, so there would be a Scottish input into a prosecution that was carried out due to a breach of the media restrictions. Basically, there is no particular problem on that issue. The legislation, such as it is, is to be generally welcomed. It will impinge in a very limited manner on Scots law.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The Liberal Democrats, too, support the Sewel motion in Jim Wallace's name on the UK Criminal Justice Bill. I do not doubt that my colleague Simon Hughes would have been at the Westminster debate—the Liberal Democrats at Westminster support many of the proposals in the bill. In particular, they support custody-plus orders, which offer an opportunity for more effective sentencing, provided that the probation service is properly funded and that sentencers make better use of probation-based alternatives to custody.

However, my Westminster colleagues will be disputing the Government's basic assertion that the criminal justice system is skewed in favour of the offender. They believe that the Government is undermining essential judicial safeguards for populist reasons, as Bill Aitken suggested. My colleagues will accept the arguments in favour of non-retrospective abolition of double jeopardy but they will strongly oppose the proposals for the disclosure of previous convictions and the abolition of juries for complex cases.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the Liberal Democrat spokesperson be following his Westminster colleagues who voted against the bill last night?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

No. That was Westminster; this is the Scottish Parliament. Mr Matheson does not seem to be able to distinguish between the two. The motion before the chamber is a Sewel motion that will allow my Westminster colleagues to have input into the bill. Westminster is the right place to argue the points that I mentioned; we will make sure that we are judicious in arguing the points that we believe should be changed. My Westminster colleagues are likely to argue that the public's main concern is not trial procedure but local crime rates and effective policing.

With regard to matters of devolved competence, the proposals all appear to be sensible and should be implemented UK-wide. They deserve the Parliament's support. I restate the Liberal Democrats' support for the Sewel motion.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

In supporting the motion, I remind the chamber of some of the reforms of the criminal justice system that are making progress in the rest of the country. Labour members and, I suspect, others in the chamber will be looking for similar progress in Scotland, because those matters are of equal concern in Scotland, not least in relation to part 10 of the Criminal Justice Bill, which seeks to make provision for the retrial of serious offences where there is compelling new evidence and a fair trial can be secured.

It is important that reporting restrictions can be properly imposed in the rest of the United Kingdom. That should not be subverted by what takes place in Scotland. Those provisions relate to the securing of justice throughout the United Kingdom and we should be pleased to support them.

On the provisions for retrials, we should not just tut and move on. We should not just extend sympathy to the Lawrence family and others in similar situations and then do nothing. We have a highly adversarial criminal justice system, but it must not be reduced to a mere game. It is a justice system and justice has failed when the guilty walk free as well as when the innocent are wrongly convicted. I understand from a written answer that we will be keeping the proposals for the rest of the UK under consideration. I suggest to the minister that early consideration would be welcomed.

I also urge ministers to consider the proposals for the rest of the UK on presumption against bail for people who have tested positive for class A drugs and who refuse treatment.

Ministers should also consider part 9 of the bill, which provides for circumstances in which a criminal trial has been halted and a ruling is made that the trial should be terminated. Ministers will be aware of my concerns about the impact of the majority decision in R v (1) Her Majesty's Advocate and (2) the Advocate General for Scotland, a judgment that was delivered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on 28 November. Aside from the somewhat unusual comments by Lord Rodger—incidentally, he ceased being the Lord Justice General for Scotland some considerable time ago—and Lord Hope, Lord Steyn's comments made clear the potentially draconian effects of that decision for prosecutors. I hope that ministers will respond to that in early course.

All those matters might have been appropriate for discussion about the Criminal Justice Bill and what we are doing about it. When we come to the chamber, however, we know that all we will hear is an argument about Sewel motions—it is groundhog day again. The SNP does not want to talk about the substance or the principle—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Oh God.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Ms Grahame makes the usual sighing noises from a sedentary position.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Only when Brian Fitzpatrick is speaking.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Christine Grahame will not rise to the challenge. We do not hear a word about the SNP's position on the details of the bill. Does the SNP want to duplicate the provisions? Does it want different provisions? We heard from Michael Matheson that the provisions on class C drugs are too severe. Does the SNP want more lenient provisions and a more lenient regime in Scotland? Of course, it will not own up to any of that. All its members will do is come to the chamber, have their usual whinge and bleat and then move on. We are told that whingeing and moaning no longer feature on the nationalist agenda for the Parliament. Sadly, the evidence for that is lacking.

I am grateful to Bill Aitken for giving the view from St Andrew's Square and I am grateful for his pragmatic view that we should consider the efficacy of the provisions. If other members want to exercise their constitutional obsession and navel gaze, we should let them. Those of us who are interested in securing justice and playing our part in the United Kingdom in relation to serious crime, serious fraud and the like should support the motion.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

My contribution will be brief because I recognise that the effects on Scotland of the Criminal Justice Bill are minimal.

I ask the minister to comment on the interaction between the provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill on search warrants and provisions in the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, which we will be considering later.

Bill Aitken referred to the fact that my colleagues down south have some reservations about double jeopardy. However, I would have liked more in the Criminal Justice Bill to be carried over into Scotland in that respect. I have argued strongly over many years about double jeopardy. I will work with my colleagues down south and try to persuade them to change their view, although I realise that they will have the final word on the bill.

I recognise the necessity of reporting restrictions; it would be nonsense not to go along with those. However, although we are talking about the rights of the prosecution, I am led to think about whether the rights of the defence should also be protected. I refer to an abuse case in Ayrshire, in which the judge determined that he would end the trial early. That meant that the accused did not get the chance to prove their innocence. There was still a stain on their names because they had not gone through the whole judicial process.

However, I recognise that, in that case, the application of reporting restrictions might have worked to the disadvantage of the defendants. At the time, the Lord Advocate stated that all was well with the prosecution. I have since found out that the two individuals who made the allegations have been paid something in the region of £22,000 for the failure of the judicial system to give them justice. In my view, the situation should have been reversed. I suspect that that is not relevant to today's debate, Presiding Officer, but I thank you for allowing me to raise the issue.

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

We move to some brief final comments. I call George Lyon for the Liberal Democrats.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I pass.

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

: I call Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for the Conservatives

James (Conservative, Lothians)

First, I apologise to the minister for not being present at the beginning of the debate—I was in Glasgow at the launch by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of the report by the cross-party working group on religious hatred, of which I was a member.

I am glad to speak in support of the Sewel motion on the Criminal Justice Bill. On 14 November, I assured the then Deputy Minister for Justice that we would give a fair wind to measures that are designed to give greater protection to the public and to make the voices of victims louder than those of criminals. Some of the proposals, such as the one on double jeopardy, are contentious. I note that at this stage they do not relate to Scotland. If it is proposed to relate them to Scotland, it would be appropriate to put them forward in the context of Scottish Parliament legislation.

Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Bill relates to double jeopardy. Those provisions are not being applied to Scotland, but the proposal to introduce reporting restrictions, such that the media cannot report an application for a retrial or the details, will extend to Scotland. The aim of the Government is to avoid prejudicing future trials. I would be grateful if the minister could reassure me that such restrictions will be applied only before the application has been dismissed or before the retrial has been brought to an end.

If the minister has time, he might like to explain to us the technical difference between a deferred sentence in Scotland and a suspended sentence in England and Wales. It seems that in practice there is relatively little to choose between them. However, I understand that the relevant measure is a sensible one: it is a re-enactment and an enabling measure that will allow criminal measures to be kept up to date throughout Britain.

There are a number of drafting amendments—such as the one to take into account the new definition of community orders in England and Wales—to ensure that sentences will apply and be implemented effectively north and south of the border.

The key to the Sewel motion is that there are no fundamental changes to Scottish law. We will be content to let the Sewel motion go through.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Well, here we are again. We missed a birthday last week: it was happy 40 th birthday to Sewel motions. I have a list of Sewel motions from the Scottish Parliament information centre website; it comprises sheets and sheets. What Donald Dewar thought would be a trickle has become a veritable flood. The SPICe website says that a Sewel convention is

"A colloquial term sometimes used".

Well, it is used very frequently in this chamber.

There are problems with Sewel motions. First, I will tackle the jurisdictional and constitutional issues that arise. One issue arose from a question that I asked ministers about which court would deal with the appeal process. I was told that it would be the Court of Appeal. If that court is the final court of appeal for anything, that will be in breach of the treaty of union, because the final court of appeal in Scotland on criminal matters is the High Court, sitting as the court of appeal. That is the first issue that arises from the Criminal Justice Bill. The unionists say that the bill does not impact on Scots law, but it goes to the heart of the treaty of union. I would like some answers.

Secondly, on reporting restrictions, it seems that the law of the—I always forget the English word for it.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Thingummy.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Brian Fitzpatrick can call it that if he likes; my mum was English, and she was not my enemy.

The bill encroaches on the Scots law of the interdict by the back door. At the moment, injunctions—that is the word—in England do not apply to Scotland. That has been a problem for English jurisdiction in relation to Scottish newspapers based in Scotland. By extending the law to Scotland, the bill will encroach on the interdict procedure in Scotland. That is another jurisdictional issue.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Will the member give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, I have no time for Mr Fitzpatrick at any time. I do not want to hear from him.

We have problems with the scrutiny of the Criminal Justice Bill. I have hardly had an opportunity to look at the bill, because it has been rushed to this Parliament. It is being put through in England in a rush. There is no chance to look at it. Legislation in Scotland goes to a committee; it has a stage 1 procedure, a stage 2 procedure and a stage 3 procedure. There is also the opportunity to take written and oral evidence. What evidence have we had in this chamber about how our courts feel about the Criminal Justice Bill, how our sheriffs feel about it and how the Faculty of Advocates feels about it? We do not know how they feel. There are huge problems with scrutinising the bill.

We should not just sit here rubber-stamping Sewel motion after Sewel motion. Of course, I expect nothing else from Bill Aitken, who does not want us to do anything here. He wants us to pack up and go back to his home, which is Westminster. As for George Lyon, he speaks for the Janus-like Liberal Democrats, who have two faces: a face for Westminster and a face for here. They are in opposition down the road but they are going to get married up here. They can face both ways, but neither way is worth listening to. As for the Executive, it is letting the little independence that we have with devolution trickle through our fingers because of the flood of Sewel motions back to Westminster. Before the end of the debate, I want an answer to the question about the treaty of union.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I doubt that I will be the source of definitive arguments on the treaty of union. At least, I could not give an answer that Christine Grahame and others would accept. I will return to that matter shortly.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton asked about, among other things, the difference between a deferred sentence in Scotland and a suspended sentence in England. Far be it from me to give a legal tutorial or legal revision to someone of Lord James's expertise and experience, but I believe that, in Scotland, a deferred sentence means that no sentence is passed and the accused returns to court later for the court to determine whether they have been of good behaviour. In England, with a suspended sentence, the court imposes a sentence, which will bite if the accused behaves badly. If there is anything else that we can help with at a later stage, we surely will.

Phil Gallie and others referred to measures that they would like to see introduced in Scotland. It is interesting that the Conservatives had 18 years in which to enact some of the measures that he desperately wishes to be introduced. The Labour Government at Westminster is to be commended for moving on some of the measures that the Conservatives chose to ignore over the years.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Does the minister agree that there is some inconsistency with regard to the collection of fines? The Westminster Government is prepared to take the steps that I have proposed in this Parliament, yet the minister and his colleagues have steadfastly opposed doing so. Can he explain that inconsistency?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

It is easily explained: we have a different legal system and a different set of political responsibilities. The Westminster Government is doing what is appropriate for England and Wales. We are doing what is appropriate for Scotland. The Westminster Government will learn from some of the things that we do here and, equally, there will be times when we learn from what it does in England. If anything comes from the English experience that is of benefit to Scotland, we will reflect on that.

Bill Aitken probably misquoted me when he said that I gave him some faint praise for supporting the victim ahead of the criminal. I was probably referring more to his enthusiasm for draconian sentencing in all cases and at all times. However, I confirm for him that the Home Office proposes that the word "document" should include computer material; it covers anything that is listed in the warrant. If there are any other issues, I will investigate them.

I confirm for Christine Grahame—to whom I passed a note, but I will confirm it for the record—that the Court of Appeal that is referred to in the Criminal Justice Bill is the Court of Appeal in England, as she said.

There have been some useful, specific and technical comments from SNP members.

Inevitably, however, some of their comments were predictable political posturing—SNP members have not welcomed the opportunity to improve legislative operations in Scotland.

I was intrigued by Michael Matheson's conclusion that, because Annabel Ewing was the only Scottish member who spoke in the debate and because she is an SNP member, that means that the SNP is the only party interested in criminal justice. If we accept that, we must draw the conclusion that, because no SNP member participated in the debates on the minimum wage, the SNP has no interest in the minimum wage.

Michael Matheson raised a number of issues, which I will try to address. On reporting restrictions and clarity, the question is not about the jurisdiction of the court. The bill provides for reporting restrictions throughout the United Kingdom—for example, the Edinburgh and London editions of any newspaper would be affected.

In relation to comments on hostel owners and parents, it has been said that the provision in the bill increases the maximum penalty available to courts. However, the sentence passed in any specific case is a matter for the court, which will take into account the particular circumstances of the case.

Christine Grahame talked about the Court of Appeal. The equivalent reporting restrictions made, for example, by a Scottish court under section 47 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 will apply in England.

Generally, although there might be particular issues of concern—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I am just finishing.

What has been proposed has not only been largely welcomed, but is of benefit to us, despite the SNP's concerns about Sewel motions.

Crime (International Co-operation) Bill

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3670, in the name of Jim Wallace, on the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, which is UK legislation. Members who wish to contribute to the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, introduced in the House of Lords on 19 November, represents an important new step in the fight against international crime.

The measures in the bill will lead to better cross-party—I hope so, yes—I meant to say cross-border anti-crime co-operation. They will speed up the process of tackling international organised crime, and by improving the methods of co-operation that are in place to get the evidence needed to conduct cross-border investigations and prosecutions, they will enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to deal effectively with some of the most serious of criminal activity.

In particular, as far as Scotland is concerned, both outgoing and incoming requests for assistance will now be dealt with here, rather than having to be routed through London, thus speeding up and making more effective mutual co-operation as far as we are concerned.

The bill, in four parts, is a comprehensive package of measures that will improve and modernise international co-operation between law enforcement and other agencies.

Part 1 provides for a range of mutual assistance measures in criminal matters, including assistance in obtaining evidence and freezing it where there is a danger that it might disappear. New measures will help in the fight against financial crime—and money laundering in particular—by enhancing co-operation with European Union partners with regard to providing information about banking transactions where criminal activity is suspected.

Part 2 makes provision so that extra-territorial jurisdiction is taken over certain offences against British citizens and the premises and staff of UK diplomatic missions abroad in relation to terrorist acts and threats.

Part 3 reforms the law so that drivers who are banned in a country other than their own cannot continue to drive in another country.

Part 4 makes a variety of provisions. For example, it makes provision for the authorisation of urgent cross-border surveillance operations by overseas officers in tightly controlled circumstances, and it brings in new measures to combat fraud.

The bill consists of a mix of reserved and devolved provisions across a range of international obligations. The matters in the bill that would be within devolved competence have been detailed in the memorandum published by the Executive. However, at this point, it might be useful to summarise those as follows, in relation to the various international obligations.

Many of the provisions in chapter 2 of the Schengen agreement, the 2000 mutual legal assistance convention and its protocol, and the framework decision on the freezing of evidence, would be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, relating as they do to the practical details of giving mutual assistance between different jurisdictions. The legislative provisions necessary to meet these obligations are in part 1 of the bill.

Parts 2 and 3 of the bill deal with matters that are reserved to the UK Parliament, but part 4 contains two measures within devolved competence. They are the provisions needed to counter fraud, as required by the framework decision on non-cash means of payment, and the obligations of Schengen article 40 with respect to urgent cross-border surveillance by the police, where serious criminal activity is suspected.

The bill is a complicated mix of reserved and devolved provisions reaching across a multiplicity of agreements and the Executive believes that there are good reasons why those should be implemented in the UK in one piece of legislation. First, it is crucial that there is consistency of approach throughout the UK when dealing with organised crime. Big-time criminals are adept at operating across borders and seeking thus to escape detection. That is a highly significant consideration, for instance, in effective police surveillance operations. It is not difficult to imagine that an international criminal might seek to exploit different arrangements between Scotland and England to further his activities and escape detection. That is why it is necessary to ensure that the conditions attaching to urgent cross-border surveillance operations in the UK are the same north and south of the border. In practical and operational terms that position also recognises the potential that, although a foreign surveillance operation might start south of the border, it could feasibly end up in Scotland, and vice versa.

Secondly, the UK legislation would be more effective from the point of view of practitioners and the courts. The bill makes provision to implement the necessary measures in some seven mutual assistance agreements, ranging from the agreed UK participation in Schengen to the convention on driving disqualification. The main issue for practitioners and the courts in dealing with major cross-border criminal activity is having a clear set of implementing provisions across the UK. That is a practical matter essentially, but it is important nonetheless, so that a clear procedure is set out in one piece of legislation should a rapid response be required to international criminal activity that might have a locus in both jurisdictions.

There was extensive discussion of the general use of the Sewel convention during the debate on the Extradition Bill that was held in the chamber on 21 November and there has been further discussion in the preceding debate today on the UK Criminal Justice Bill. There is no need to repeat that general discussion here.

As was observed in those previous debates, it was anticipated from the outset that there would be circumstances where the Executive and the Parliament would want to ask the UK Parliament to legislate for Scotland on devolved matters. The key point is that there must be a UK-wide bill anyway to implement the measures that are reserved, and in my remarks, I hope that I have set out a good case for why it makes sense to include in the bill matters that are within devolved competence.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the need for the United Kingdom to ensure compliance with the international obligations for which the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill makes provision and agrees that those provisions in the bill that relate to devolved matters should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We have already been asked to pass a Sewel motion on a House of Commons bill, although Westminster is pressing ahead with it. Now we are being asked to pass a Sewel motion for a House of Lords bill. That great democratic institution is dealing with the bill that we debate today. At least the House of Commons, unlike the House of Lords, has democratic legitimacy and accountability to some extent.

The bill is a result of EU legislation and I turn to the issue of EU legislation in the area of justice and home affairs. Scotland's problem is that European legislation on international crime is decided in secret by the Council of Ministers with the European Parliament playing no more than a consultative role. As Scotland is not represented on the Council of Ministers, we have no opportunity to affect the development of the European law that we will subsequently be required to implement.

We would have that opportunity, however, if Scotland were a member of the Council of Ministers as an independent nation. Although we might not be able to affect the development of EU legislation, we have an important role to play in its implementation.

The Executive's memorandum on the bill states

"The purpose of this Bill is to implement binding international obligations. There would therefore be little or no scope for the Scottish Parliament to legislate in a way which was significantly different to the provisions contained in this Bill."

That is not entirely correct. Framework decisions are binding on member states in terms of what they should achieve, but they leave member states or national authorities to choose the means by which they pursue that objective. That is contained in article 34(2)(b) of the Maastricht treaty, which I am sure all members have brought with them today. The Parliament therefore has a role to play in the implementation of such international obligations.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Michael Matheson said in the earlier debate on the Criminal Justice Bill that his party's position is that an independent Scotland would be an individual member state. If he has his wish—I am sure that he will not—what provisions does he believe would be different from those that are set out in the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The important thing is that we are given the opportunity to decide how European decisions are implemented in Scotland. I shall give an example. The Home Office produced a document on the implementation of the protocol to the convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters. Hugh Henry referred to that protocol, and the bill will introduce that protocol. The Home Office document contained three different options as to how the protocol could be implemented. It chose an option that would, according to the Government, reduce the burden on banks, and the minister referred specifically to banking transactions.

We have a choice as to how we pursue EU legislation that has an effect on our jurisdiction and we should exercise that choice. It is an opportunity that we, as a Parliament, should recognise allows us to ensure that Scottish interests are properly served.

I wish that ministers would take a more active role in Europe, and I would like to spend a moment looking at their record on pursuing justice and home affairs matters in Europe. Over the first five months of the Danish presidency, the Scottish Executive has sent officials to seven meetings or working groups on justice and home affairs issues.

The Danish presidency's website shows that there have been 184 such meetings. The Executive has not sent officials to any working party on the Schengen agreement, on substantive criminal law, on criminal civil protection or on terrorism, or to the multi-disciplinary group on organised crime. It has missed most of the working parties on co-operation in criminal matters and on police co-operation.

Given the amount of EU legislation that the bill will introduce, I hope that the minister will explain exactly what role the Executive is playing in the framing of that legislation. He should also tell us whether the Executive is meeting officials and ministers at Westminster, to ensure that whatever decisions are reached at Westminster as to how that legislation is introduced are the best options for Scotland.

I would like the minister to clarify several points in the bill. In clause 7, why is it open to both the prosecuting authority and the judicial authority to request assistance from overseas authorities? What protection is there to ensure that evidence obtained under clause 6 is fairly obtained? Will Scottish courts be able to review the actions of foreign authorities when gathering such evidence?

I would also like him to clarify the role that the information commissioner in Scotland will have in accessing the Schengen information system database. I understand that that system will be used by the information commissioner in London, but it is not clear whether the commissioner here in Scotland will have the same opportunity.

Scotland is disadvantaged as a nation, not only by not being able to be at the top table in developing European legislation, but by the Executive's track record on being represented at meetings relating to justice and home affairs. That record makes it clear that the Executive either chooses to leave it to Westminster or does not even bother turning up to make its voice heard.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I warmly welcome Hugh Henry's speech. The Sewel motion relating to the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill implements European Union commitments in the area of police and judicial co-operation. The relevant scrutiny committees of both houses of the United Kingdom Parliament have examined the European directive that the bill thoroughly implements. The bill makes legislative changes that will implement those commitments.

We are perfectly happy that the United Kingdom Parliament should deal with the matter, as it is a subject that, in our view, needs to be dealt with on a United Kingdom basis. We must make it clear that the fight against terrorism is being dealt with effectively. That means that we must put in place arrangements for closer co-operation between police forces, customs and intelligence services throughout the European Union. We believe that it is right to aim for meaningful, effective and helpful co-operation.

Our colleagues at Westminster will no doubt distinguish between such co-operation on the one hand and harmonisation, which they could not support, on the other. They will also want to ensure that civil liberties are not undermined. For example, they will want to consider with the utmost caution the provisions to allow police and customs officers from other countries to carry out surveillance in the United Kingdom for five hours without first having had their activities cleared by British authorities. That provision could be amended at Westminster and is contentious.

The parts of the bill that are relevant to Scotland include the following subjects. First, there is the subject of mutual assistance in criminal matters, which relates to orders freezing property and to providing banking information relating to criminal investigations. Although matters relating to money laundering and financial services are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament, information on bank accounts is a devolved matter, and it makes sense to have a consistent policy to prevent international crime and fraud.

Secondly, with regard to terrorist acts, provision is made so that there is extra-territorial jurisdiction over certain offences against British citizens and the premises of embassies abroad. Similarly, provision is made for jurisdiction over attacks on premises and staff of European Union institutions that are based in the United Kingdom. That is not a devolved matter, but the provisions apply to Scotland and their implementation could well come under the remit of this Parliament.

Thirdly, with regard to driving disqualifications, it must surely be right that such disqualifications should be recognised throughout the European Union. It must be wrong that drivers who are banned in one country can drive in another, and part 3 sorts that out. Again, the implementation of that reserved subject would be dealt with by Scottish law enforcement agencies.

Fourthly, the bill sets out additional measures relating to police co-operation, data protection and the Schengen convention. For example, the information commissioner can obtain access to the Schengen information system and inspect without a warrant. There is also authorisation of cross-border surveillance, required by article 40 of the Schengen agreement. The minister will note the views of my colleagues at Westminster on that.

Many of those provisions will be the subject of considerable debate in the United Kingdom houses of Parliament. We think that that is the appropriate forum for that debate and we are content that that should happen. We recognise that the purpose of approaching international co-operation in tackling crime in the way set out in the bill is to make it harder for criminals and easier for international enforcement agencies. Having a single piece of legislation will assist in the fight against crime, and we support the motion.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I pledge the Liberal Democrats' support for the Sewel motion, in Jim Wallace's name, on the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill. The title says it all; it is about co-operation across the EU in tackling crime and terrorism.

As the minister said in his speech, the key provisions are the implementation of the mutual legal assistance provisions of the Schengen convention, the provisions to enable the execution in the EU of orders freezing property and evidence, and the provisions to combat a range of terrorist offences throughout the EU. Those measures reflect the need to tackle crime and terrorism on an EU-wide basis, and they reflect the fact that crime and terrorism neither know nor respect national boundaries. Countries must therefore work together to tackle criminals and terrorists.

The impact of the crimes committed by gangs on a transnational scale is often felt at a local level. That is especially true in the case of drug trafficking. It is therefore essential that there is close co-operation between EU countries to take on international criminal gangs.

Part 4 of the bill implements the Schengen convention in respect of police co-operation, extradition and data protection. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton rightly highlighted, the bill will give UK police forces access to the Schengen information system, which is a large computer database of criminals and suspected criminals throughout the EU. That is surely a step forward in combating international terrorism and international criminal gangs. Access to such information must strengthen the arm of UK police forces in tackling crime in the UK.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton raised concerns about hot-pursuit procedures, which would allow officers from a member state to conduct unaccompanied surveillance in another member state for up to five hours. He said that he was concerned about such surveillance on civil liberties grounds, but I think that his concerns were more to do with Euroscepticism. Given the nature of the international terrorism that we are trying to tackle, his concerns are misplaced.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I mentioned concerns that colleagues at Westminster must deal with; they are not necessarily my concerns. In emergencies, it is obvious that police forces must work quickly. I suspect that the issue will be the subject of debate at Westminster.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I was reflecting the views that the member mentioned.

John Wadham, who is the director of the human rights organisation, Liberty, has also expressed concerns. He criticised aspects of the bill and said that

"We have enough problems regulating our own authorities' use of surveillance in the UK"

without giving those powers to foreign police forces.

Those are genuine concerns, but provided that adequate safeguards are put in place, the measures deserve support.

In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats support the Sewel motion.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I welcome visitors in the gallery from Hillhead Primary School in my constituency. I must be on my best behaviour this morning.

I congratulate Hugh Henry on his appointment as Deputy Minister for Justice. He will already know that the justice remit means that within three days, he will have dealt with two stage 2 debates and two Sewel motions without stopping to think. He will know what I, Christine Grahame, Michael Matheson and other members feel about the remit, which I think we have dealt with reasonably in the past three and a half years or so.

The Crime (International Co-operation) Bill implements several of the UK's outstanding obligations in respect of EU agreements on police and judicial co-operation. The need to tackle serious crime internationally is a crucial aspect of our general approach to criminal justice, because organised crime is conducted across national borders.

The bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 19 November and will implement the UK's partial participation in the Schengen convention, which, as we have heard, facilitates the free movement of persons. The Sewel motion that we are considering is necessary to ensure that there is international co-operation and that respective obligations are the same in the UK and in each European member state.

The principle behind the bill is essentially to ensure that serious crime throughout Europe can be dealt with speedily as and when it happens and without there being barriers to tackling it. The intention is to ensure that such crime can be tackled with the urgency that is needed. Of course, that requires a degree of trust between nations, particularly in respect of allowing surveillance of criminals in order to detect acts of terrorism or similar threats to national security. However, the whole of Europe will benefit by signing up to the measures.

Part 1 of the bill concerns mutual assistance in criminal matters and the provision of information—for example on bank accounts and transactions—when a criminal investigation is on-going. That means that assets can be frozen and, crucially, that orders protecting evidence that might be needed to demonstrate criminal activity can be frozen if necessary. That is essential in international fraud or money-laundering cases.

Part 3 of the bill concerns the convention on driving disqualification, which is a reserved issue. A driver who is banned in one EU country will, in effect, be banned in every EU country. That is crucial for public safety. Perhaps the minister will clarify that the ban and the duration of the ban will be imposed by the relevant court and protected by every other member state.

Among other things, part 4 of the bill extends the list of instruments of payment that are covered by section 5 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 to include bills of exchange and credit and debit cards—in other words, non-cash means of payment.

There is a need to scrutinise constantly the effect of Sewel motions such as the motion under consideration. If EU matters are being considered, the Parliament and its committees should make an input where that is appropriate. However, to deny that international crime is best dealt with on a UK basis is to fail to understand the threats to our society and the extent of drug trafficking, human trafficking, terrorism and threats to national security. Many members understand that human trafficking is a real, live issue, particularly in the EU. Last night, there were raids on eight saunas in Glasgow city centre in my constituency. I am pleased to report that no person was being held in the saunas against their will, although 10 foreign nationals were found in them.

Each Sewel motion should be considered on its own merits and the merits of the motion before us are well established. EU co-operation on criminal justice matters is reaching new heights. Where possible, we should encourage treaties and protocols with countries worldwide, because it goes without saying that serious crime is not confined to European borders.

I support motion S1M-3670, in the name of Jim Wallace.

David (None, Lothians)

We now proceed to winding-up speeches.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

This is the third time in two days that I have risen to support the Labour-Liberal Government's proposals. I admit that I am beginning to worry, but I will correct things if I am called to speak on another motion this afternoon.

The minister referred to the complications that surround the Sewel motion. Michael Matheson complained about the number of Sewel motions that go through the Parliament, but that simply underlines the intertwining of the national interests of the Welsh, English, Scots and Northern Irish under the union. Such intertwining brings many benefits.

Hugh Henry suggested that the Conservatives had not achieved all that I would have wanted them to achieve in 18 years. I concede that. I would have been happier had the incoming Labour Government in 1997 implemented Michael Forsyth's proposed criminal justice legislation, which would have done much to alleviate some of the recent problems of rising crime.

I want to consider the Sewel motion and some reasons why support for it is necessary. Part 1 of the bill deals with the freezing of bank accounts. I have a little sympathy with what Michael Matheson said about the consultation process. When we foresee Sewel motions and consultation is to take place in England and Wales only, perhaps Scottish ministers could ensure that consultation is extended to Scotland. That would be fair and right and does not undermine the fact that, ultimately, in this case, a Sewel motion is relevant.

On part 2 of the bill and the movement of terrorists, it would be absolutely ridiculous if we went down one line and people south of the border went down another line so that somebody could move from Newcastle to Duns or vice versa and use legal technicalities to escape justice.

Part 3 of the bill covers a situation of which I was unaware, and that the bill addresses that situation is to its credit. Apparently, a person in Northern Ireland can come to the UK mainland and pick up a mainland driving licence. That is nonsense. Good legislation addresses nonsense, and the bill does so.

I am happy that Scots will derive benefits from a bill that will also affect England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The commonsense approach of a Sewel motion will progress a number of other issues, but I want to return to the Schengen aspect of the bill.

I would never sign up to any move at Westminster or elsewhere to reduce our border controls. Through the bill, the Government south of the border is trying to align the law with Schengen to a degree. I acknowledge that the matter is reserved, but I do not want to go beyond some of the Schengen provisions. Overall, I am happy that our elected representatives—the 72 members of Parliament from Scotland who go south of the border to voice Scotland's opinions on such issues—do their job.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Conservatives have only one MP in Scotland.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Sadly, we have only one Conservative MP in Scotland, and I concede that that is far too few. He cannot be everywhere all the time, and when he is not in the House of Commons, he has good reasons. Perhaps the situation can be rectified and we will be able to play a greater part in United Kingdom affairs, to Scotland's benefit.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Of course, I share fully Pauline McNeill's sentiments about tackling international crime. The Scottish National Party supports measures to tackle international crime, which knows no boundaries.

The problem with the Sewel motion is that Scotland will not have the opportunity to scrutinise the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill. My colleague Michael Matheson told members that the Minister for Justice has attended seven out of 184 meetings on justice matters in Europe. We do not have the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals, because we are not represented directly at the Council of Ministers. The Minister for Justice cannot give the distinctive Scottish input on criminal matters, because an English minister goes to the Council. That is a huge problem, particularly for criminal law in Scotland.

I say to Pauline McNeill that the Executive says:

"the purpose of this Bill is to implement binding international obligations. There would therefore be little or no scope for the Scottish Parliament to legislate in a way which was significantly different to the provisions"

in the bill. What the Executive says is not the case. As my colleague Michael Matheson said, framework decisions are binding on member states as to the results to be achieved, but leave the form and method of implementation to states. I will develop briefly Michael Matheson's argument.

The Home Office has issued a document on the protocol that requires European Union member states to locate and provide details of all bank accounts and transactions of a person who is the subject of a serious crime investigation and to monitor the activity of any account that they hold. The Home Office suggests three options for implementing the protocol. The first option is to rely on existing legislation, which would not allow the protocol to be ratified. The UK would be under no obligation to help foreign investigators and they would not have to help the UK. The second option is to legislate in accordance with a minimalist interpretation of the protocol and to allow judges discretion as to whether to grant a warrant for monitoring bank accounts. The third option is to require automatic implementation of requests from foreign investigators to monitor bank accounts.

The Home Office suggests choosing the second, discretionary, option, because it would have lower compliance costs for banks than the third option, as fewer warrants would be granted. Unlike the first option, the second option would allow the protocol to be ratified, so the UK would have reciprocal investigation from other authorities. The Home Office says that, as far as possible, the UK should go for the low-cost option for reciprocal investigation by other countries.

The choice about implementing the protocol is plainly substantial and moral and falls within devolved areas. Given the chance to examine the proposals, Scotland might want to be more helpful to our European partners than the Home Office intends to be and to go for automatic implementation of requests. By not having input, we have surrendered that moral choice and given our power to England, which has chosen the lesser option.

That is why we oppose the Sewel motion. Of course we support international co-operation on criminal matters, but Scotland had the choice to do even more than England appears to be doing.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

It is disappointing and regrettable that, for party-political reasons more than anything else, the Scottish National Party opposes the opportunity to increase international co-operation to deal with crime.

It is sometimes difficult to place the matter in context, because particular legal issues have been raised, but it is important to reflect on what the bill will mean for ordinary people in our communities, many of which are blighted by the horrors of drugs. We know that major drug criminals are reliant on being able to operate across borders. The new measures will make an important contribution to our ability to track down drug criminals and to determine whether money laundering, for instance, has been used to conceal the proceeds of crime.

The bill is important because it will enable the UK to implement several outstanding international commitments. It will also help to deliver practical, effective action against those who are engaged in serious crime. International inquiries into serious crime face practical difficulties because of the need to operate across different jurisdictions. We want to do all that we can to support cross-border inquiries to ensure that big-time criminals cannot exploit national boundaries in the way that was mentioned earlier.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

If the Executive had the choice and it wants to do as much as it can, should not we be going for the third option? That would allow automatic implementation of requests from foreign investigators to monitor bank accounts.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

We have before us today a series of measures that will make an effective difference. If there are measures that we can take ourselves from time to time or measures that we can take as part of UK-wide legislation, that will be the right thing to do. The issue before us today is whether we are prepared to accept the bill. When we are asked whether we believe that it will make a difference, we say that we believe that it will. Those who refuse to accept the opportunities that the bill presents will have to answer for that themselves.

It is also important to remember that we are debating reciprocal arrangements that will benefit our law enforcement agencies if they need to get urgent assistance from a partner country. It will also help to deter overseas elements from coming to the UK to carry out criminal activity.

In addition to the major issues that are before us, some small anomalies are also dealt with, for example the unacceptable anomaly that people with a driving conviction in Northern Ireland are not banned from driving in the rest of the UK, which Pauline McNeill and Phil Gallie mentioned. Pauline McNeill raised other issues and I will try to give further background on them, but if I do not answer all her points, I will do so later.

There will be a right of appeal against the recognition of an overseas disqualification in the UK. Grounds will include the driver not having an adequate opportunity to defend himself or herself abroad or the fact that the offence was not covered by the European convention on human rights. Drivers will have 21 days within which to appeal and the court may, where it sees fit, suspend the disqualification pending the outcome of the appeal. We believe that that provides crucial safeguards. UK drivers must abide by the laws of the member state in which they are driving. If a person breaks a member state's drink-driving law, for example, we believe that they should not escape the consequences when they return home.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

It is important to have clarification on how that will operate in practice. If other countries have different grounds for disqualification in drink-driving cases, it is important to know whether the driving ban will be active in Scotland. I realise that it might not be possible for the minister to confirm that today.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The point that we are making is that the rules that led to disqualification in the other country will lead to disqualification in this country. In the case of drink driving, the other country might apply a higher or lower level to a ban on driving, but whatever the application is in the other country, it will lead to a ban in Scotland irrespective of the fact that our levels are different. I can talk to Pauline McNeill later about the other issues she might want to raise.

Time and again, we hear the point that was made about Council of Ministers meetings. The arguments are always the same, so the replies are essentially always the same.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Will the minister confirm whether the officials who are sitting at the back of the chamber have access to e-mails, telephones and fax machines? Will he also confirm that they have the benefit of the documents that are circulated around the devolved Administrations under the various concordats that were agreed with Her Majesty's Government, including those on justice and home affairs? It is not as if the United Kingdom did not take part in meetings on the Laeken summit and the Treaty of Nice. The UK led those discussions in the EU, and was ably represented by a number of prominent Scottish members of the UK cabinet.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Brian Fitzpatrick makes his point very well. Our officials are in regular contact with UK Government officials, and we have the opportunity to influence what they take to meetings and to receive the information that they obtain at them. At a political level, we have time and again documented and detailed our influence on European policy and legislation through our participation in the UK. As we have said, being part of a major European nation that is a major player in Europe gives us influence way beyond any influence that we would have if we were simply a member country of 5 million people. Scottish ministers attend EU councils and regularly discuss EU policy on EU matters with UK counterparts. It is not correct to say that we have no influence on EU law.

Phil Gallie mentioned prior consultation on the bill. I should point out that, as soon as a UK bill is published, we publish a detailed memorandum that sets out any devolved elements. However, we will certainly consider any measures that we can take to improve such consultation.

Peers have raised several substantive issues about cross-border surveillance, which the UK Government will consider further at committee stage in the House of Lords in January. There was a second reading of the bill in the House of Lords on 2 December.

As for the operation of the Schengen information system in Scotland, the system's Scottish base is the National Criminal Intelligence Service in Paisley. The NCIS controls access to information, and the information commissioner will be able to inspect data security at any point and without notice.

On the question about requests for assistance under clause 7, the Lord Advocate might need to make any such requests at the investigative stage—in other words, before proceedings come to court. Finally, on Michael Matheson's question on the admissibility of evidence under clause 6 and whether we can be sure that such evidence is obtained fairly, the courts will ultimately adjudicate on the admissibility of evidence in all cases.

The bill is an important piece of legislation that will bring major benefits to our partners in Europe and—significantly—to us. Not only will it enable us to deal with some small anomalies such as driving disqualifications, but it will mean that we will be able to work together to tackle some of the worst aspects of international crime.

I invite Parliament to support the motion.

David (None, Lothians)

The decision on that motion will be taken at 5 o'clock.

Business Motion

David (None, Lothians)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-3675, in the name of Patricia Ferguson on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out the business programme that is printed in the business bulletin.

I call Euan Robson to move and—if he wishes—to speak to the motion.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I will make a short speech. I am pleased to be able to inform the chamber that the SNP has indicated that the topic for debate on the morning of Thursday 12 December will be children and young people's services in Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following programme of business— Wednesday 11 December 2002 2:30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 1 Debate on Mental Health (Scotland) Bill followed by Financial Resolution in respect of the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business—debate on the subject of S1M-3589 Karen Gillon: The Sale of The Herald, Sunday Herald and Evening Times by SMG

Thursday 12 December 2002 9:30 am Scottish National Party Business followed by Business Motion 2:30 pm Question Time 3:10 pm First Minister's Question Time 3:30 pm Executive Debate on Fisheries 2003 followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business—debate on the subject of S1M-3464 Donald Gorrie: Debt and Lending Wednesday 18 December 2002 2:30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 1 Debate on Homelessness (Scotland) Bill followed by Financial Resolution in respect of Homelessness (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 19 December 2002 9:30 am Finance Committee Debate on its 7th Report on Stage 2 of the 2003/2004 Budget Process followed by Business Motion 2:30 pm Question Time 3:10 pm First Minister's Question Time 3:30 pm Stage 1 Debate on Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business

(b) that Stage 1 of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill be completed by 27 February 2003 and (c) that the Justice 1 Committee reports to the Justice 2 Committee by 17 December 2002 on the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Sheriff Officers) 2002 and on the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Constables in Scotland: Code of Practice) Order 2002.

Motion agreed to.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many children under the age of six have been prescribed the drug Ritalin. (S1O-6033)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Prescription data collected centrally are not patient-specific. Ritalin is not licensed for children under six years of age. A medicine can be used outside its licence, but that would be a clinical decision for the doctor concerned.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Is the minister concerned about the increasing number of children, including very young children, who are being prescribed Ritalin? Does he have concerns about the long-term effects on those children as they reach adulthood?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I have had concerns about the matter over a period of time. Constituents, including one who contacted me this morning, have expressed concerns about the prescription of Ritalin, particularly its prescription for children under the age of six.

Having said that, in my current position I have to listen to clinical advice. A Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network guideline that came out last year makes it clear that drugs such as Ritalin have a role to play. However, the guideline also states that they should be part of a multidisciplinary approach and that non-pharmacological treatments—including behaviour management—are equally, if not more, important.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Why has the Executive not allocated resources to ensure the implementation of the SIGN guideline 52? As the minister says, it advocates the use of psychosocial therapies to reduce dependence on drugs such as Ritalin.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

In general terms, resources have been allocated, although they are not allocated specifically on the basis of each SIGN guideline that is produced. It should certainly be possible to implement the guideline—which is obviously the guideline to which clinicians should look for advice—within the overall increases in health and local authority budgets.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will make representations to the European Commission regarding the loss of objective 1 status for the Highlands and Islands as a result of any miscalculation of figures by the Office for National Statistics. (S1O-6037)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

As always, we will fight to secure the best possible deal for the Highlands and Islands. The deal struck by Tony Blair in Berlin in 1999 means that the Highlands and Islands receives regional aid that is comparable with the funds received by an objective 1 area. We will use the most up-to-date statistics that are available to us in any negotiations on future aid.

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

I am grateful to the minister for his reply and for the assurance that the Executive will argue for the best deal for the Highlands and Islands. He will have my full support in doing so.

The minister will be aware of the significant benefits that European funding has brought to my constituency over the years. Can he tell the chamber what efforts have been made to prepare the ground for the debate in the future? Will he meet representatives of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Highland Council to hear their views on the need for continuing regional aid for the Highlands and the best methods of achieving that assistance?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

As Jamie Stone rightly says, European aid has brought enormous benefits to the Highlands and Islands, not least to his constituency where, for example, the Scrabster harbour project is improving the infrastructure of the area.

We have had a lot of discussions with our UK colleagues about the future. I attended the cohesion forum in Brussels to discuss the second cohesion report and to set out the Scottish position. I also attended the recent Euromontana conference in Inverness on the matter. On three occasions, I have met Commissioner Barnier, who spent some time in the Highlands and Islands earlier in the year talking about these issues. We also recently held a meeting of the structural funds forum in Scotland, which brings together all the key players to consider the future of structural funds. The forum includes the chairman of HIE and the leader of Highland Council. We will continue those discussions and preparations.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

In recent days, the minister has made great play of a letter that he has received from the European Commission that rules out any appeal against the loss of European cash for the Highlands and Islands. Will he publish that letter? Does it explicitly and incontrovertibly rule out the possibility of reclassification of the current funding package to objective 1? Does he recognise that securing such an outcome would ensure that vital regional aid continues beyond 2006 in the Highlands and Islands?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The question demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issues by the Scottish National Party.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

By you.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Not by me—by SNP members. The Commission has confirmed that past negotiations cannot be reopened. However, that is not relevant because the future negotiations are what is important. I have always made it clear that we will use the most up-to-date statistics in future negotiations, at which we will argue hard for the Highlands and Islands and for Scotland.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

If a mistake has been made and an enormous amount of money has been lost for the Highlands and Islands, does the minister intend to get the money back and, if so, how?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Mr McGrigor's question is based on another misunderstanding and implies that the Highlands and Islands has somehow lost out, which is not the case. In Berlin in 1999, Tony Blair negotiated a special deal for the Highlands and Islands, which will bring more than €300 million to the area over a six-year period. That deal is comparable to what would have happened if the area had retained objective 1 status and is the reason why progress has been made on many infrastructure programmes throughout the Highlands and Islands. As I have said, the Executive will continue to argue hard on that issue.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made on developing a joint-future approach to the delivery of community care services. (S1O-6050)

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

We are already making good progress on shifting the balance of care for older people using the new funding, which will rise to £48 million next year, to develop more intensive and flexible home care services. By April 2003, we will implement key areas such as joint resourcing and joint management for older people and single shared assessment for all care groups.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

Is the minister aware of the recent newspaper article that misrepresented a joint community care project to provide non-hospital care for older people in Smithfield Court in Aberdeen? Will the minister reassure the families and the older people involved that the community care that is provided is of a high standard? Will he join me in condemning the ill-informed comments made by some Opposition MSPs?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank Elaine Thomson for her question. The project she mentions is a joint project agreed between Aberdeen City Council and the local health board. It is part of the strategic response to delayed discharge, which aims to find more effective local ways of helping people who are taken out of hospital. I am not surprised by the sensationalist press coverage, but to describe the project—as the Opposition spokesperson on health has done—as a makeshift hospital that is not the answer and which will not provide the care the patients need is to ignore the key role of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care in assessing the quality of care. The project will complement existing provision of sheltered housing for older people and is part of a package that aims to provide the most appropriate care in the localities where people want it.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the minister agree that the joint-future approach between local authorities and health boards is completely missing from the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill, which is being considered by the Health and Community Care Committee? Will the Executive address that omission?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

We are absolutely committed to working in partnership on community care. In fact, the Health and Community Care Committee has examined many of those issues. The Executive is confident that we will develop a partnership approach that recognises the issue of mental health.

The original question was about the appropriateness of care provision. I assure members—although Opposition members do not want to hear this—that the project that Elaine Thomson mentioned is a model that will deliver for older people in the Aberdeen area and that will provide the support they require in their community. It is not only in relation to that project that we need to be sensitive about the language we use; language on care issues throughout Scotland should be sensitive as we try to deliver the best quality care for the older people of Scotland.

NHS 24

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made on the roll-out of NHS 24. (S1O-6026)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

NHS 24 was launched in Grampian in May 2002 and in greater Glasgow in November. It now provides a 24-hour service to some 1.6 million people. The phased roll-out programme aims to provide Scotland-wide coverage by December 2004.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I welcome the move to roll out the service and I inform the minister of the support for the service that I have encountered in my constituency. When does he expect the service to be rolled out in Lanarkshire? Will he comment on the fact that the staff who provide the service are invaluable members of the national health service family?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I pay tribute to the staff who work for NHS 24, whom I was pleased to meet in both Aberdeen and Glasgow. I am sure that all members were as appalled as I was by the senior doctor who described them as monkeys. I am sure that we all condemn that unreservedly.

On the first point that Margaret Jamieson made—

David (None, Lothians)

It was Karen Whitefield.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I apologise. I am utterly confident that NHS 24 provides a good service because I have spoken to people in Aberdeen and Glasgow who have used it and who have benefited from an integrated service. In the past 24 hours, I have spoken to someone who phoned NHS 24 in Glasgow. The information from that call went straight through to the accident and emergency department that she then attended. Patients will benefit increasingly from integrated and seamless services.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister realise that the advent of NHS 24 is eagerly awaited by rural communities in the Highlands, where primary care services are under great pressure? Can he assure me that NHS 24 will be able to deliver an improvement to the health service in rural areas? When can we expect it to be rolled out to the Highlands and Islands?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

As I said in my first answer, NHS 24 will be rolled out across Scotland by the end of 2004. It will be rolled out early in the Highland region, given that it started in the north of Scotland. Over and above the general benefits that will apply throughout Scotland, NHS 24 will have particular advantages for rural areas. For example, general practitioners in rural areas will benefit, in terms of their being on call.

David (None, Lothians)

Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its estimate is of how much the Highlands and Islands will receive in regional aid from the European Union from 2006 to 2010. (S1O-6018)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

It is premature to place any limitation on our ambitions for regional aid post-2006 within the context of a significantly enlarged EU.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I would have thanked the minister if he had answered the question. First, will he admit that the Highlands and Islands should now have objective 1 status? Secondly, will he admit that we do not have objective 1 status because the UK Office for National Statistics bungled the job and the figures? Thirdly, does he agree that, if we had objective 1 status, we would automatically qualify for transitional relief after 2006? Fourthly, does he accept that the cost of that failure by the UK Government and its agencies could be up to £200 million for the Highlands? Finally, will he publish or keep secret the letter from the Commission, to which he referred earlier?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Fergus Ewing is not right about many things, and he is wrong again on this occasion, on all fronts. There is no automatic qualification—[ Interruption. ]

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Will the minister publish the letter?

David (None, Lothians)

Order. Let us have no commentary during the answer, please.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

There is no automatic entitlement to transitional aid. The Executive continues to fight hard for the Highlands and Islands, as it always has. I have already referred to the fact that the Highlands and Islands have not lost out in any respect, as they have received special transitional aid from Europe equivalent to what would have been received under objective 1 status.

Fergus Ewing displays a misunderstanding of the situation that reveals the difference between the coalition parties and the SNP. We are certain about what we are seeking to do and we are using the facts, whereas SNP members like to use incomplete statistics. We have a proven track record, in contrast to the risk and uncertainty that is offered by the SNP as it seeks to take us out of the UK, threatening our future in Europe and our share of the rebate. That is why the Scots people do not trust the SNP.

Winnie Ewing (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Could we please clear up a mis-statement of fact that keeps being made by members of the Labour Government? They say that a special deal was made when we lost objective 1 status; that lie is not only told, but is repeated and repeated. Areas that had objective 1 status would have qualified automatically for transitional money.

I remind the minister that when the Highlands and Islands were alone in Europe in having bordering on 70 per cent of the average gross domestic product per head—we had no competitors at that—Scottish Office officials wanted to fight to get objective 1 status for the Highlands, because we were so near the threshold. However, we did not fight then. Is there going to be no fight again by the Labour Government?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Those are extraordinary assertions when it is known full well—I repeat—that there is no automatic entitlement to anything else at the end of an aid period. The transitional aid was achieved by negotiations that were partly conducted by Scottish interests through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and others, such as the former Scottish Office. As I indicated, the Highlands and Islands benefit enormously from European aid. We will continue to fight our corner in the future, using the most up-to-date statistics to do so.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made on improving transport infrastructure in Ayrshire. (S1O-6016)

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Scottish Executive investments are improving roads, railways and buses in Ayrshire.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

I thank the minister for his answer. Does he agree that best use can be made of the proposed three towns bypass by ensuring that it is adequately linked to an upgraded A737, so that we can properly connect north Ayrshire to Glasgow and the east?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I am happy to agree that the three towns bypass will be an important element of the improvement of the transport infrastructure in Ayrshire. Invitations to tender for that project went out last month. Irene Oldfather will know that improvements are also taking place on the A737 at the Roadhead roundabout and the Head Street junction. I am aware of proposals and suggestions that further improvements could take place at Dalry, for example. However, such decisions will be made as part of future major investment programmes.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Is the minister aware that last week his deputy ruled out any chance of a toll bypass around Maybole? Can he say what plans the Executive inherited for a Maybole bypass? Can he say whether a route has been defined for that bypass and, if so, whether that route has been protected? Does he agree that the A77 southern link between Ayr and Stranraer is an important artery for Ayrshire's infrastructure? What does he intend to do about the problems in Maybole?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I am happy to agree that the link to Stranraer is important for Scotland and for Galloway in particular. We continue to work closely with the partnership there. Lewis Macdonald has been involved in recent weeks with that partnership, looking at the A75 and A77 links to Stranraer. On the detail of the legal position on a potential route for a Maybole bypass, I am loth to make anything of legal positions when I reply to a question in the chamber, but I am willing to find out the detailed answer to Mr Gallie's question and reply to him in writing.

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

I thank the minister for acknowledging the importance of the A77 south of Ayr, not just to Ayrshire, but to Dumfries and Galloway. That was also acknowledged by the fact that the recent meeting of the north channel partnership—the organisation that represents ferry interests—was hosted by South Ayrshire Council in Ayr. Can we expect further announcements—indeed, any announcements—about improvements to the A77 in the near future?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The most significant improvement to the A77 is, of course, the M74 extension. We made announcements on that issue only in the past few days, when the preferred bidder was announced. I appreciate that the question was about further south on the A77 but, as a regular user of the road, I must say that both parts of it are important in relation to how long it takes to reach Stranraer.

As the member knows, the north channel partnership discussions are looking at several proposed schemes for the A77 and A75, which are geared particularly towards making the transit from ferries easier. I would expect to be able to make announcements in the relatively near future about the outcome of those negotiations.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures are being taken to protect the haddock fishing and Arbroath smokie industries. (S1O-6041)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

As the member will be aware, in a general sense the Scottish Executive is committed to avoiding the closure of our mixed fishery, which particularly affects our valuable haddock fishery as well as our whiting and cod fisheries. We are negotiating for a solution that respects the science but affords a sustainable future for the catching and processing sectors. We support in particular the Arbroath smokie industry with financial assistance from the European Union structural fund allocation.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

Nice answer, but I will check against delivery.

Is the minister listening to today's massive demonstration by fishing communities from throughout Scotland and representatives of all political parties, which demands a secure future for Scotland's fishing industry? Is not the plain truth that, while Scotland's fishermen take the pain of cuts, closures and fishing bans, any benefit that might be gained is being undermined by European factory fishing, which uses tiny-meshed nets, a sample of which I have with me, to fish for sand eels, thereby also undermining the sand banks? Given the simple equation that no food plus no fish equals no fishing industry, what is the minister doing to stop such industrial fishing? What is he delivering for Scotland's fishermen? We do not want words from the minister; we want action.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The negotiations that will finally determine the matter will take place later in December. It will be important for us to have words of substance to negotiate with at that table before we come to a result.

On industrial fishing, we have in recent weeks made our position absolutely clear to the European Commission: if we are to have an equitable solution to the difficulties that are affecting all of the species, there must be equity in terms of mesh sizes—

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

The mesh size of the nets that are used is tiny.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I understand the member's point, but that is the position. The member asked what my position was. My position, and that of the Scottish Executive, is clear: we do not accept the continued use of nets with such a small mesh size, whether by the Dutch or the Danish, for industrial fishing. We will continue to put that case. It is not equitable for those fisheries to catch the amount of cod that they do as a bycatch when we are required to use much larger mesh sizes in the North sea. We will continue to articulate that case in the negotiations.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Is there any attempt to reassess the economic impact of fishing on the regions in Scotland? I notice, from the papers that were being handed out at today's demonstration, that the figures that are being given exclude Arbroath entirely, on first investigation.

Has the minister taken any steps to ensure that his political masters are present in the fishing communities? Will he take the First Minister and others to places such as Arbroath, which David McLetchie and Iain Duncan Smith will visit tomorrow?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I have no doubt that those communities will find that visit uplifting. However, given that—unless I have my geography wrong—both my Scottish leader and my federal leader represent fishing constituencies, I am not entirely sure that they need me to take them on visits. Perhaps Alex Johnstone's leaders need to be taken on visits so they can have explained to them what the fishing industry is and where Scotland is, but mine do not.

On the impact on communities of the current proposals, I assure the member and the communities that we are working hard on economic modelling—in close collaboration with my colleague Iain Gray—to assess that impact to ensure that we have a clear view of the possibilities. We are acutely aware of the fact that the potential impact must be taken seriously.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the minister appreciate that industrial fishing and its impact on white fish stocks is one of the biggest concerns of Scotland's fishing communities? Can he explain why, in a written answer this week, he said that he has made no attempt to consider the impact of industrial fishing on white fish stocks, despite the fact that he has more than 250 scientists in his employ? Does he agree that that is shameful? Should not he be trying to find evidence to take to Europe to help him fight Scotland's corner?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

We have access to the scientific information that is produced throughout the European Community. The issue is not only about our opposition to the member states that practise industrial fishing. In my response to Andrew Welsh, I made it absolutely clear that we do not need much more scientific advice to make it obvious that nets of the mesh size that he held up have a deleterious impact on the fishery.

However, Richard Lochhead should also be aware that, when we talk about industrial fishing, we must be clear and explicit about what we are trying to achieve, because we also need some of the nations that have industrial fisheries to support us in what we are trying to do in relation to the cod fishery. It is not a simple argument.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

What about the nets?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

We know about the nets. The matter is not just about the industrial fishery. Having examined the issue closely, Andrew Welsh will also be aware that the flat fishery is also causing us real problems in relation to its cod bycatch. All that information is out in the open. I make it abundantly clear to the Parliament that that is part of the argument that we are articulating as hard as we possibly can to ensure that we protect Scottish interests in terms of the cod, haddock and whiting fisheries.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has held any discussions with, or issued any guidelines to, national health service trusts regarding the inclusion in public-private partnership agreements of hospital ancillary facilities such as parking, television and telephones. (S1O-6013)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

No guidance has been issued to or discussions held with NHS trusts regarding car parking, television or telephone charges for PPP facilities. There is general guidance in relation to car parking charges, which is currently being revised.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I genuinely thank the minister for that reply because, when I raised the matter with him in September, there were no plans to revise the guidance. Does he think that the Lothian University Hospitals NHS Trust has breached the general guidelines that have been issued in regard to what it charges patients for car parking? It charges £10 per day, compared to the daily rate of £1 at Perth royal infirmary. I assure the minister that I am not being selective in my comparisons; I have investigated all the health boards in Scotland. The minister will find, once he gets into the subject, that the television payment rate of £3.50 per day at Dumfries royal infirmary compares to £1.50 per hour at the Royal infirmary of Edinburgh. Will he comment?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Car parking charges at the Royal infirmary of Edinburgh have, in my experience as a constituency MSP in Edinburgh, been the most—indeed, so far, the only—controversial element of the new hospital that has been drawn to my attention. We need to look carefully at the new guidance on car parking charges. The existing guidance says that the charges should not be excessive, but I accept that there is an element of subjectivity in that. I think that charges were relatively expensive even at the old Royal infirmary of Edinburgh, so the increase is not all that great in Edinburgh terms. However, that does not altogether remove concerns about the charges.

Television is nothing to do with the PPP contract—it is not part of the contract. I think that Ms Macdonald will find that the rate that she quoted for Dumfries is more or less the same as the rate for Edinburgh, because, after the first two hours, there is no charge at all.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

In view of the current World Trade Organisation negotiations on the general agreement on trade in services, does the Executive have a view on how GATS will affect future policy on involvement of the private sector in our public services? Will the Executive reassure the Parliament that all efforts are being made to represent Scotland's interests to United Kingdom and European Union negotiators?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I cannot talk across all the ministers' portfolios, but GATS will have no significant implications for health.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has for the future operation of livestock auction markets in the light of last year's outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. (S1O-6021)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Everyone is pleased that livestock markets are back in business following the foot-and-mouth outbreak. In the aftermath of that outbreak, I expect livestock markets to comply with all existing legislation, including the current biosecurity provisions.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I endorse the minister's remarks. Does he agree that the livestock auction markets have a vital future role to play in ensuring that livestock changes hands in the safe, biosecure environment that they can provide? Does he also agree that, by setting a base price for most other forms of stock purchase, they form an irreplaceable part of Scotland's food price chain? Will he give his robust backing to the continuing operations of livestock marketing companies? They are still struggling to recover from last year's disease outbreak, which they were highly influential in helping to stamp out.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I have no difficulty in assuring the member that the Executive has absolutely no plans to interfere with the provision of livestock auction marts. We must understand that there are direct purchasers who would offer particular deals, and I do not think that there is anything that I can do about that. We have to be concerned that, under such deals, transactions are carried out in a way that does not breach biosecurity arrangements. I agree fully with the member on the general principle of the continuing need for livestock markets.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many convicted sex offenders are receiving treatment and how many such offenders who have been released have had treatment. (S1O-6066)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That information is not available in the form that the member requested. In June 2002, 466 known sex offenders were serving terms of imprisonment. There are 42 places currently available on accredited programmes for the treatment of sex offenders and in May 2002, 179 prisoners were liberated after participating in prison-based treatment for sexual offenders.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I understand from the minister's reply that only 42 of the 466 sex offenders are currently receiving any treatment to stop them reoffending against children and women. It has been revealed that less than one third of prisoners at HMP Peterhead are given treatment before release. Does not that make a mockery of child protection?

Today's Scottish Daily Express contains claims that prisoners at Peterhead are planning to open a toy shop after their release, that one particularly dangerous paedophile, Francis Currens, made a video of pregnant women and of children while he was in Peterhead, and that those men are in contact with other perverts in the outside world. Will the minister please look into what on earth is happening in our prisons?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will put Dorothy-Grace Elder's point into some kind of perspective. She will appreciate that if one is serving a very long-term sentence, the programmes that one can receive are not continuous. The STOP 2000 programme, for example, runs for a specific period and is not repeated. Therefore, we would not expect all prisoners to be undergoing treatment continually.

The Spencer report, which was published in September this year, highlighted the insufficient number of sexual offender treatment places; indeed, it called for a fourfold increase in places. The Scottish Prison Service is gearing itself up to deliver a greater number of programme places, but that takes time and involves proper training for what is very sensitive work.

The Scottish Prison Service is also developing a rolling programme for prisoners who are serving shorter sentences. Much of the effort has, so far, been concentrated on prisoners who are serving longer sentences but, as members will agree, shorter-term prisoners also need programmes. Work on providing such programmes is being done.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Can the Minister for Justice provide an assessment of how many of those who received treatment prior to being released have reoffended? What actions is the Executive taking to address that reoffending?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Lord James will recall that, during some of the Justice 1 Committee's discussions on the prison estate review, various figures on the level of reoffending were posited. From memory, I do not think that there was agreement as to how reliable those figures are. It is important, however, that we obtain that information.

Lord James will also be aware of the work that the Justice 2 Committee is doing in its stage 2 consideration of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, part 1 of which relates to the new orders for lifelong restriction, which will be directed in particular towards serious violent and sexual offenders. I think that we are taking a significant step forward on how we, as a community, deal with prisoners in those categories.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what concerns it has in respect of the delivery of general dental services in the Scottish Borders. (S1O-6029)

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

We are aware that there is evidence that access to national health service dental services in the Borders is becoming more difficult. That is why the Borders is one of the designated areas for the £1 million package that we introduced in August as part of a phased programme to improve recruitment and retention of dentists in Scotland. Although elements of the package cover all areas of Scotland, there are enhanced incentives for designated areas.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I refer the minister to a report of 24 September to the Borders NHS Board executive team. The report, which postdates the allocation of the money to which the minister referred, makes it clear that it is becoming more difficult to access general dental services in the Borders. I refer the minister to the case of a woman in Kelso, who after scouring the Borders for NHS treatment was forced to go to England as a private patient, because no care was available in the Borders. If the minister agrees that that is a disgrace, what does she intend to do about it?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

We are aware that there are a number of pressure points in dental services throughout Scotland. That is why we have instituted the designated areas scheme. The £1 million package will include payments of £3,000 to each new dental graduate, £5,000 to all new dentists and up to £10,000 to dentists who take on trainees. One cannot say that the Executive is not doing anything about the problem.

I am aware of the report to which Christine Grahame referred. Borders NHS Board is considering that report and how to address the issues that it raises. We will support Borders NHS Board and continue to examine ways to bring dentists to areas where they are needed. I have answered a number of questions on the issue in the chamber and have said continually that we will examine new ways of bringing dentists to areas of need. However, members from the SNP have failed to come up with one suggestion for addressing the problem.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it plans to meet its stated recycling targets. (S1O-6062)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The target to recycle and compost 25 per cent of municipal waste by 2006 will be met by local authorities implementing the national waste strategy.

The Executive has allocated £230 million over the next three years to the strategic waste fund to assist local authorities in the implementation of the area waste plans. Yesterday I announced that £6 million of this year's allocation to the strategic waste fund is to be distributed between local authorities now, to help them to expand recycling and composting.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I am sure that the minister agrees that sustained, concerted effort across agencies will be needed to persuade people to be more waste aware and to change their behaviour. Does he agree that the report on the Waste Aware Scotland survey, "Public attitudes to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle in Scotland" is encouraging and offers good pointers to what is likely to be effective? Based on that survey, will the minister do what he can to facilitate and encourage the introduction of kerbside collections where population density makes them a sensible option?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Yes. The survey indicated that 83 per cent of people would be more willing to participate in recycling if kerbside collection were available. In the area waste plans and their contributions to the national waste strategy, local authorities are required to indicate how they intend to increase public willingness to participate in, and public awareness of, recycling. Included in the strategy are measures such as kerbside collection. Local authorities will be able to apply to the Scottish Executive for money from the strategic waste fund to finance kerbside collection.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

If my memory serves me correctly, two years ago £50 million was allocated to waste management, to be bid for by councils. Has all that money been bid for? What percentage of it went to fund recycling, rather than to deal with general waste management problems?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I do not have the details that Robin Harper seeks. I will be happy to provide him with a breakdown of the figures in writing.

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

Will the minister help me to solve a little mystery? Will the minister confirm—[[ Interruption. ] I know that the minister cannot hear me, so I will wait until the rabble clam up. Will the minister confirm that on 20 February he said:

"The National Waste Plan based on the area waste plans will be in place by Autumn this year. We then want to set mandatory recycling and waste reduction targets and the forthcoming Local Government Bill will give Ministers the power to set such targets."

What happened to that ministerial promise?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The ministerial promise remains. The difficulty has been in finalising—[ Interruption. ] There are different ways of approaching the matter. We have tried to proceed through co-operation and collaboration with local authorities. That is the way in which Labour and Liberal Democrat members prefer to proceed. We have built that plan from the bottom up and that is why it has taken a little longer to get the area waste plans.

The second part of the question was on setting targets. We have taken the view that, as the interim area waste plans have indicated, it is possible to reach the target of 25 per cent waste recycling. Although we have not finalised the national waste strategy, it begins to look as if we could achieve a figure of something of the order of 40 per cent waste recycling. If that is the case and if the plan confirms that, that is the target that we will include in the local government bill when we introduce it. That is the answer to the member's question. If he disagrees with a bottom-up approach, I ask him to give us his alternative.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Have steps been taken to encourage businesses, particularly those that operate premises in which considerable recyclable waste is generated, such as business centres and serviced office accommodation, to employ the recycling services that many waste management providers are making available?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Yes. We have a group of people who are trying to deal much more generally with the various elements of the national waste strategy. In particular, we are giving local authorities every encouragement to do exactly what the member suggested.

First Minister's Question Time

David (None, Lothians)

The next item of business is First Minister's question time.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I draw to your attention the edition of The Scotsman from Monday 2 December, in which Mike Russell stated that he would use First Minister's question time today to demand assurances from the Executive on theatre funding. [ Interruption. ] I am trying to make a serious point.

David (None, Lothians)

Order. Let me hear the point of order.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Unless Mr Russell is now operating under the title, "Mystic Mike", how would he know that his question would be selected for today? Will the Presiding Officer give us an assurance about the criteria for the selection of questions and will he assure us that there was no prior agreement to select Mike Russell's question for the First Minister today?

David (None, Lothians)

In the first place, I did not see that report on Monday morning. If I had seen it, it might have tempted me not to select the question. I do not know when the question was lodged, but questions are not selected until Monday afternoon and The Scotsman goes to bed on Sunday night, so perhaps Mike Russell is Mystic Meg.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S1F-2313)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I met the Secretary of State last week and I will see her again tomorrow when I will take the opportunity to discuss with her the meeting that she and Ross Finnie have had this week with Scottish fishing organisations. Today, we welcome to our Parliament campaigners from the fishing communities in Scotland. I assure them of our support to secure both a sustainable stock in the North sea and sustainable communities in Scotland's fishing areas.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I thank the First Minister for his answer and I welcome his comments.

I wonder whether the First Minister has taken an interest this week in opinion polls. If so, he will have seen a poll showing that 94 per cent of Scots believe that the fishing industry is important to Scotland's future—a conclusion that, I am sure, is shared throughout the chamber. We are told, as the First Minister has just told us, that one part of the Scottish Executive is fighting to save the fishing industry, while another part—the Scottish Prison Service—is trying to recruit fishermen in the north-east of Scotland with the rather crass slogan:

"Not all careers float away with the tide."

Will the First Minister reassure Scotland that that disgraceful propaganda does not represent the view of his Government and that the Executive will pull out all the stops to save Scotland's fishing industry?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There is no doubt in my mind that that was a crass and insensitive advert and an apology could not have been issued too quickly, because it is important to deal with such incidents quickly.

The main issue today is that we in this Parliament are most effective when we are united. In the next fortnight, we need to be united and strong in ensuring that our fisheries minister can go to Brussels, argue on behalf of the fishing communities and deliver a result in what will be very difficult circumstances.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In that spirit, I say to the First Minister that he will be aware that a new regime for fishery management will be introduced on 1 January. That regime will give much greater influence to countries with a direct interest in particular fisheries, and in this case the North sea fishery. Does the First Minister agree that it is essential that the European Union negotiations later this month, which will seek to secure a long-term future for the industry, should be carried out under that new regime rather than under an old system that has always failed the Scottish fishing industry?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We must deal with the reality of the situation, which is that the decisions will be made at a meeting that will take place in two weeks' time. For a number of weeks, our job in the Parliament has been to ensure that, if possible, we build a consensus with those in Scotland's fishing industries and within the Parliament for a strategy that has the right solutions and that wins enough support among our European partners to enable the right decision to be secured in December. That will not be an easy task.

Anyone who thinks that, if we simply make demands, all the other European countries will fall into line is wrong. We must ensure that we have the right arguments and that we work well in advance of the European Council to put forward those arguments and win support. If we do that, we can be as successful as we have been in the past.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

My point concerns the difference between conducting the negotiations on 20 December under an old regime that will come to an end on 31 December and conducting them under a new regime that will come into place on 1 January, which will give much greater decision-making power to those with a direct interest in the North sea fishery. Will the First Minister assure us that he would support a plan that would give much greater significance to a North sea management plan and that he would support the production of such a plan by participant countries at a future European Council in the new year? Will the First Minister instruct his fisheries minister to lodge such a proposal at the meeting in December?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There is a difference here between rhetoric and reality. The meeting in December will make the relevant decisions. We must influence those decisions here and now. We should not pretend that an easy solution can be obtained by postponing until another day.

I see that Mr Welsh is about to say something. He should be cautious for a second. I support regional management of the fisheries and a North sea management plan. A North sea management plan would still involve the Danes, for example, who are involved in the practice of industrial fishing that we want to tackle. The issues remain the same whether we are talking about the whole European Union or a North sea management plan.

We must ensure that the right decisions are taken in December, that we sustain a stock in the North sea and that we sustain our fishing communities. As I have said, we need to be united in that approach. We also need to ensure that we have regional implementation of those fishing plans to secure a better system for the future.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

All that I am asking the First Minister to do is to give an agreement that he will at least put on the table the proposal that I have made to the Parliament. Will he do that?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We are trying hard, and have been trying hard for weeks, to secure a consensus in the Parliament that backs up the fisheries minister when he represents our country in Brussels and seeks to secure a future for Scotland's fisheries. We have sometimes made such efforts in difficult circumstances and in the face of provocation.

Solutions that attempt to put off decisions until another day will not work at the European Council. We need to win the argument now. We are taking on that argument and working with the fishing organisations and the representatives of fishing communities, some of whom are here again today, to obtain the best solution for Scotland that it is possible to obtain in a majority vote situation in the European Council.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-2325)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The agenda for next week's Cabinet meeting will be agreed later this week.

I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Mr McLetchie on the award that he won last week. I look forward to debating with him again in the future.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Thank you very much.

The First Minister will recall that, at question time five weeks ago, when some people were more concerned about the petty cash in Mr McConnell's local Labour party, I asked him about the crisis that was facing Scotland's fishing industry. That crisis is obviously still facing the industry. With the benefit of five weeks' hindsight, will the First Minister acknowledge that far too many people are responsible for fishing within the EU institutions and within the United Kingdom Government, which appears to have already accepted a case for bans and major quota cuts and which is talking the language of compensation—the language of defeat?

Will the First Minister encourage Mr Finnie and the other members of the UK delegation to the fisheries council to challenge that kind of defeatist mentality and demand measures that will sustain our communities rather than simply manage their decline?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As I said in my previous answers, we need to be serious about this subject in the chamber. It is easy for those who are not required to go to Brussels and make the case to say that we should not make what are sensible proposals. Those proposals will do the two things that are important. First, they will conserve stocks in the North sea, so that our fishing communities have an industry years and years from now. Secondly, they will ensure that we have fishing communities with a strong fishing industry in the meantime. Both those objectives run side by side. Ross Finnie's discussions have been aimed at achieving those objectives. That is why it is important that we enter into positive discussions with our European partners and with others. That is also why we have the full support of the UK Government in doing so.