Scottish Parliament, 13 February 2003

363 contributions from 79 members. The official report.

Introduction

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

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

Before we start this morning, I inform members that there are problems with the automated cameras; therefore, I have exceptionally authorised two manned cameras to be situated on the floor.

The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3893, in the name of Pauline McNeill, on the Justice 2 Committee's report on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service inquiry. I call Pauline McNeill to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Justice 2 Committee.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The committee's inquiry seems to have been the longest inquiry in the history of the Parliament—it probably is. The seven-member Justice 2 Committee changed its membership a few times during the course of the inquiry, and we even had a change of clerks. I cannot give enough thanks to the committee members for their perseverance and sheer hard work in compiling the report in between scrutinising legislation, petitions and Scottish statutory instruments. I thank Stewart Stevenson, Duncan Hamilton, George Lyon, Alasdair Morrison, Scott Barrie and Bill Aitken for the hard work that they have done on the report.

I speak for all committee members when I put on record my utter admiration and thanks for the work of our clerks, Gillian Baxendine, Irene Fleming and, formerly, Fiona Groves. No task was too big and no member's comment was too garbled for Gillian to translate it into English to produce the report, which has, so far, been well received.

One and a half years on from when we first started, it seems that there might not be much controversy; nonetheless, I am relying on Bill Aitken to introduce some, because I know that he likes to do so. I thank Bill for assisting me and for putting in extra time to meet the report's deadline, for which I am very grateful.

The report has been quietly accepted and not widely reported, but I am not at all disappointed about that. I truly believe that the report achieved its purpose long before it was published and that much has changed already. Our decision to report on the state of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service was a dynamic decision and it became unstoppable when it was matched by the will of the Crown Office team to make changes. Most of my comments this morning will be positive, but I shall also highlight some concerns that I still have.

For me, it all began when my local police station explained to me how difficult it was to speak to a procurator fiscal. The police officers had just completed a local campaign of charging young offenders who were committing crimes against the elderly community and committing crimes in Anderston, in my constituency. The officers were all concerned that the charges would be dropped as a matter of policy, but they had great difficulty in establishing contact with a fiscal who could advise them whether the proceedings would go ahead. In the view of many policemen and policewomen in the service, the days were long gone when they had the kind of relationship with the local procurator fiscal in which they could simply phone the fiscal up and find things out. There were not enough fiscals, they were overworked and the relationships were not as strong as they used to be.

It was that situation that first made me want to know why the system had changed and how it could become more joined up and better resourced. Many MSPs have shared that interest and have written to the committee about their experiences, including among others Shona Robison, Duncan McNeil, and Cathy Jamieson, and we are grateful for their input. The terms of the remit that we announced on 8 May 2001 were:

"To investigate whether the resources available to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, including numbers of staff and the experience levels of senior prosecutors, are sufficient to meet its stated aim of thorough, critical and accurate investigation, preparation and presentation of cases, while having sensitivity to the needs of victims and witnesses."

We agreed to examine a range of specific issues. Among those were: trends in the number and types of cases, including the increasing complexity of serious crime; the effectiveness of liaison between the police; staff morale; and the trends in the use of fiscal fines and plea bargaining. We thought that the inquiry would give some indication as to whether the system was under-resourced.

The committee suspected that the system was under tremendous pressure because of a lack of resources, and we expected to find that there was overuse of the fiscal fines system and a tendency for soft pleas to be submitted prior to trials. However, what we found was a highly dedicated service that was under severe pressure because of the lack of resources and its having too few fiscals, but which rarely complained, so we believed that the quality of justice was at stake. In addition, the culture in the Crown Office was such that its staff did not regard it as their job to argue for more resources. However, that has changed.

Professor Duff presented the committee with evidence on the use of fiscal fines. He said that there was no evidence that they were being used more than they had been in the past. However, he also said that

"Experienced defence solicitors know that if everything is left to the last minute the poor fiscal depute will be so hard pressed that the defence solicitor might be able to negotiate a better deal on behalf of their client."

There might not be hard evidence, but there certainly was a view around that the quality of justice could be suffering because of a lack of resources.

In Glasgow sheriff court, fiscals conducting the Monday morning custody courts can be there until late into the evening. Sheriffs and clerks also work late, but the fiscal is the only person who has no administrative assistance. Anthony Campbell, giving evidence on his Chhokar report, remarked that a precognition officer in the Hamilton office was starting work at 5 am before going to court on a serious child-protection case.

The committee's view is that the prosecutor's role is a special one because in the marking of cases determining crime, decisions are constantly being made in an instant. For example, a decision can be taken in an instant as to whether a particular offender is to be charged with careless driving or with dangerous driving. I know that that matters to people. No case is ever straightforward, and I believe strongly that the delivery of high-quality justice depends on prosecutors—although not on them alone—and that a strong prosecutor can make a real difference in both the marking of cases and the prosecution of crime in our courts.

That is why I am pleased that the interview boards for new fiscals have acknowledged that recruiting from a wide and varied range of people whose backgrounds include a variety of experiences can add something to the system. The morale of the service has been lower than in any public sector service in recent times. Dealing with crime has become more complex and the introduction of the European convention on human rights has made its mark on the service, which is probably more accountable that it has ever been. The committee feels strongly that the Crown Office should, in the future, conduct another stress audit to ensure that that particular issue in the service has been tackled.

It is arguable that the Crown Office has been the most scrutinised department of government. Prior to devolution, the law officers spent a large percentage of their time out of Scotland and did not receive many parliamentary questions. However, figures show that there has been about a 63 per cent increase in questions to them. There is certainly more work for our Lord Advocate and Solicitor General and times have changed for the better. However, I would like to put on record my thanks to the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General and Alistair Brown for their co-operation with, and assistance to, the committee during its inquiries.

Staff numbers were a particular concern for the committee. We felt that it was important to consider that issue, which would indicate to us whether resources were adequate. We note the increase of 95 in the number of legal staff between 1997 and 2002, which is a 33 per cent increase. However, I must emphasise that the committee had difficulty in assessing the value that that added to the service. We wanted an establishment figure for every office, including information on the office's vacancies and any increase—or otherwise—in staff, so that we could assess where the additional staff were in Scotland, but I am not satisfied that we received the figures that would have allowed us to do that.

We chose to visit the Hamilton office—for obvious reasons—and were surprised to find that, 10 months on from the Jandoo report on the Chhokar case, there were still staff shortages. My visit with Bill Aitken to the Hamilton office yesterday has still to be reported on, but it is fair to say that we are beginning to see important changes for the better.

During its work, the committee felt strongly about victims; how victims are treated in the system was of major concern to the committee, so we chose to examine two case studies to elaborate our views. I am grateful to Ken Macintosh and to the Cawley family, who are his constituents. They described their experiences, which can only be called horrendous, to the committee. There was no one to greet them at the High Court when they arrived and there was no one to advise them why the second accused was sitting next to them in the public gallery following his acquittal the night before for lack of evidence. I am grateful to the Cawley family for highlighting a situation that I believe other families might have gone through. I know that, if it is anything to do with the Scottish Parliament, that will not be allowed to happen again.

Alan Kerr is an example of a father trying to support his son. He travelled from Ayrshire to Glasgow many times only to see the trial cancelled each time and was given no support or explanation for what was happening. I am grateful to him for giving the committee evidence. There has been a lot of progress in how victims are treated and I do not believe that we will go back to such days as Alan Kerr described—there should certainly be no repeat of that kind of treatment.

One or two things are worth considering in relation to the kind of system that we want to support victims. It is important that victims get information at every stage of the process, from the starting point at which a charge is made to the point at which the case goes to trial. Support during the trial to enable victims and their families to understand what is going on is vital, but I would not want that to interfere with the important work of the police and the procurators fiscal in the execution of their duties. We must ensure that we get that balance right.

I started by saying that my interest in the report relates to liaison with the police; I believe that it is essential that we ensure that that relationship does not break down in the future. The committee has recommended that the Solicitor General should have specific responsibility to ensure, at all levels of relationships between the Crown Office and the police, that liaison is functioning properly and that the police can speak to a procurator fiscal when they need to.

We have been careful to point out that other agencies expect prosecutions, such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and local authorities, who commented that they believed that the system could be better resourced to ensure that cases are prosecuted in relation to the crimes with which they are concerned. The Parliament will know that the Pryce-Dyer review, which was the Crown Office's internal inquiry, is a weighty report, the vast majority of which represents added value to our inquiry. The new management structure is already in place as a result of that review and seems, by all accounts, to have been much welcomed.

I have previously expressed some concern about the speed of the management changes. I know from the phone calls and correspondence that I receive from procurators fiscal on the front line that there is great concern that the resources are attached to the change in the management structure, as opposed to ensuring that those front-line fiscals are resourced. The committee is adamant that the conditions of service and the working conditions of procurators fiscal should be improved. We commented in the report about the need to have quiet space in the phenomenon of open-space planning. Procurators fiscal have written to us to say that that is an important development.

I am pleased that there is a prospect that the pay issue will be settled. That has calmed the fears of many frontline procurators fiscal who perceived that the priority was changes in management. I think that a progressive pay structure will attract the kind of people that we want to have in our procurator fiscal system, so there will be positive change in that regard.

Although I agree with much of what the Pryce-Dyer review had to say, I profoundly reject the parts that compare the service to the board of ICI. I am pleased that the Lord Advocate has rejected some of that and has ensured that the legal board at the top has a balance of legally qualified people.

We have done our best to report on what we have seen, on the many changes that have taken place and on what we have been told by the many people who have written to us. We have said that the report should be regarded as an interim report because it is important that the successor committee to the Justice 2 Committee assess the impact of some of the changes at a later date.

I put on record my thanks to everyone—procurators fiscal, agencies and others—who wrote to the committee detailing their experiences and encouraging us to do the work. I look forward to hearing the debate.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the 4th Report 2003 of the Justice 2 Committee, Report on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Inquiry (SP Paper 747), and agrees that progress in implementing the committee's recommendations and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service's programme of change should be kept under close review.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I know that I am on shaky ground here.

I go along totally with the Lord Advocate's comment that politics should be kept out of the courts, but politicians in a Parliament such as this express concerns about, for example, drug dealing and other major crimes, and they express the attitude that such crimes should at times be dealt with more harshly than perhaps the courts deal with them. How can we get that across to sheriffs and judges without being seen to apply political pressure?

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

I agree with a great deal of what the Lord Advocate says, but will he come round to addressing the recommendations in the report in his remaining two minutes? Does he agree that the report, excellent though it is, would have been far better if the Justice 2 Committee's recommendation that all staff in the service should have the opportunity to participate by setting out their views in an anonymous questionnaire had been implemented? Why was that suggestion by the committee rejected by the Lord Advocate? Does not it smack of the sort of secrecy of which we want to rid Scotland's justice system?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I am not sure whether I am required to say it, but I had better say that I continue to be an advocate. That means that, from time to time in the past, I was on the prosecution side of the bench, rather than the defence side.

It cannot be denied that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has been seriously under-resourced for years. That has meant that aspects of our justice system have been failing. The current shake-up in practices is long overdue and the recommendations in the Justice 2 Committee's report are important in that process. I commend the committee for its work. At long last, those of us who have called for such changes are starting to see progress. I welcome the progress that has been made, but much more could and should be done. I am sure that disagreement on that score is unlikely.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has been so under-resourced that it has been a factor in the slowing of the whole justice process over the years. It is not the only problem, but it is a key difficulty. It is difficult to see what other conclusion can be drawn from the figures that the Executive published in December. Since 1997, the number of crimes and offences has soared to 945,716, yet the number of prosecutions has plummeted to 139,596. The figures are diverging markedly, instead of following each other. The Solicitor General shakes her head, but those figures were produced by the Executive in response to questions.

While crime is increasing and police clear-up rates increase proportionally, the number of prosecutions is falling, which means that the number of convictions falls, because that number is bound to follow proportionally the number of prosecutions. When our constituents tell us that they do not feel that crime is being taken seriously enough, they are almost subconsciously aware of what those statistics reveal.

In January, I revealed an analysis of the statistics that showed that, since 1997, prosecutors have prosecuted fewer of the crimes of indecency and sexual assault that the police have cleared up and fewer convictions have been obtained. That picture prevails for many offences, including vandalism and fire raising. The divergence is stark. The police have been doing their job and their clear-up rates have increased with the increase in the number of crimes and offences, but the prosecution system has failed to keep pace. Why should that be? There must be a reason for such a marked divergence in the rate of prosecutions as compared with the number of crimes and offences.

In a parliamentary answer to me, the Solicitor General admitted that the number of court cases that have been dropped because of delays in the justice system has doubled in the past four years. According to the figures, the number of cases marked "no proceedings" rose from 4,214 in 1998-99 to 8,409 in 2001-02. According to newspaper reports, officials said that cases had been dropped because of delays by the police or other reporting agencies, delays by the procurator fiscal or because the time limit on bringing cases to court had been breached, which is basically the same as a delay, although it is a separate category. That is the reality of what people are experiencing and complaining about. Our justice system is creaking at the seams and the figures show that the situation has been worsening. Between 1998-1999 and 2001-2002, the number of cases that were dropped because of delays by the police or another reporting agency rose by 112 per cent and the number of cases that were dropped by the procurator fiscal went up by 123 per cent.

Another major problem with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is the inability to get any sort of information from it about the reasoning behind its decisions. This is not the first time that we have acknowledged that in the Parliament. I know that I am not alone in being incredibly frustrated by the number of times that I have to pass on to constituents the stock answer from the Crown Office, which is in effect that it does not have to explain its actions, which equally often means its inactions.

That leaves members of the public who have been victims of crime utterly bemused by the workings of the system and its inability, in their eyes, to deliver anything even approaching justice. That is a real problem. Both of the law officers know that it is one thing to announce from the top that things will change, but quite another thing to ensure that a harassed and overworked member of staff at the end of a phone call to a victim does not respond to a request for information with, "What do you want to know for?" I have had to deal with that experience in my constituency.

I believe that some of the sentiments and detail that are contained in paragraphs 20, 22 and 23 of the report are key to the problem. Those paragraphs make it clear that long-term under-resourcing has been, and continues to be, a major factor in inhibiting the staff in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service from functioning at their best.

I was particularly struck—for personal reasons—by the report of the committee's visit to Hamilton sheriff court last year. When the committee paid its visit, up to four ad hoc fiscals were operating at the court each day. In my early years as an advocate, I practised as an ad hoc fiscal—the practice was very common at that time. Let me tell members what that meant in reality: I turned up at 9 am, got handed a stack of cases for trial—easily up to 12 or so. By 10 am, I had to be in a position to confront the long line of defence agents—referred to by my colleague Fergus Ewing—who were offering pleas, giving reasons for not being able to proceed and asking for agreements about this, that or the other—all on cases with which I had no familiarity. All that I knew was that not all of the cases could go to trial.

Courts operate on the basis that the majority of cases will not, for whatever reason, go ahead. As an ad hoc fiscal, I had to make snap judgments about which plea it was okay to accept, which case was to be assigned to another day and which trials could—perhaps—go ahead that day. All of that had to be decided on cases that I had seen for the first time an hour previously.

Then, and only then, could I go about releasing the various witnesses in all of the cases that were not going to trial that day. They included police witnesses, some of whom would have to wait on the chance that some of the cases that were purportedly going to trial would go ahead when, as members also know, that does not always happen.

I have been assured in a separate discussion that the process of ad hoc fiscalling has fallen away. I am prepared to accept that it is not as extensive as it once was, but in the report, I read that it was being used extensively in Hamilton sheriff court only last year. I note in passing, from subsequent assurances that are contained in the report, that its routine use was eventually eliminated. However, the fact remains that the service is still having to fall back on that practice to get itself out of local difficulties.

The problem that I have with that is that I suspect the experience of ad-hoc fiscalling was not much at variance with the experience of the regular fiscals then and now—except, of course, for the fact that regular fiscals would also have had to undertake all of the work that led up to getting the cases to court. The 10 am line-up would certainly be the same. Speak to any defence agents and they will tell you that it can be difficult to get hold of a fiscal to make a decision in advance of the date of trial. Pauline McNeill is absolutely right when she said that defence agents often do not even attempt to do that. That is not always for the cynical reason that defence agents are trying to operate the system, but because they have been unable to get hold of the fiscal in advance of the court date.

There is cynicism about the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. There is a serious culture problem within the service that needs to be dealt with, which involves management and staff. If we expect staff to change, management's attitude to them has to change. Given that we expect them to make some of the changes that we are demanding of them, it would be unfair to do otherwise.

I commend the report to the Executive. It should not simply be put on a shelf. An SNP Government would take the recommendations seriously and I hope that the current Executive will also take them seriously.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

In speaking to the Justice 2 Committee's Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service inquiry report, I have to mention an interest as a former interim procurator fiscal depute and as a non-practising Queen's counsel.

I warmly support the Lord Advocate's recognition of the selfless service and dedicated devotion to duty shown by Scotland's prosecutors. However, it is very much our conviction that for too long Scotland's prosecution service has received less than adequate resources to carry out its vital responsibilities.

As the Parliament will recall, the Chhokar inquiry revealed that more support was necessary for prosecutors. Indeed, there is little value in having dedicated police officers detecting and solving crime and carrying out arrests if it takes an unacceptably long time for cases to come to court.

I am particularly impressed that the Justice 2 Committee has had the moral courage to highlight obvious deficiencies in the current arrangements. Paragraph 114 of the report states:

"The Committee concluded that, given the importance and responsibility of the procurator fiscal's role, it is in the interests of justice for the service to be held in high public regard and have high morale. This is not presently the case".

The Conservative party's view is that Scotland's justice system is cracking at the seams. There have been longer delays, which can on occasion help offenders to evade justice—Roseanna Cunningham referred to that theme. We believe that an overhaul of the whole process is long overdue.

I am glad that the evidence given to the Justice 2 Committee supports our view. At paragraph 115, the assertions are strong and forthright. The committee concludes:

"We heard evidence of a service under extraordinary pressure ...We welcome the fact that there is no longer complacency about the scale of underfunding that has existed ... Although surprisingly few cases have come to light as having gone badly wrong, we consider there to be an unacceptable level of risk in the system."

That leads me to the vital issue of whether sufficient resources are being provided. In my view, they are not. In this year's budget, the increase for the justice department—only 1.3 per cent—is significantly lower than that received by other Government spending departments. It is clear that law and order, the rule of law and justice issues do not receive top priority on the Scottish Government's agenda. That is a matter of fact. It is interesting to read what the Justice 2 Committee concluded on that issue. It expresses concern that

"neither the Committee, nor the Department, have the necessary information to say whether these increases are enough ... We remain concerned about the real impact of the staff increases being made and how these translate into staff resource for frontline duties".

I welcome the recognition that what matters is that those prosecutors in the front line should be given the maximum support and back-up and should not be submerged by overwork and a terrific backlog of cases.

The Conservatives have called not only for an increase in the number of procurators fiscal, but for help to alleviate the backlogs in our courts, especially in the sheriff courts. We have therefore also called for weekend and evening sittings in courts. In addition, we think that increasing the summary sentencing power to 12 months would ease the backlog of cases before hard-pressed sheriff courts.

Our justice system is rightly founded on the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. An important cornerstone of the system of justice is the 110-day rule. An accused person must be brought to trial as quickly as possible, leaving enough time for the prosecution and defence to prepare, but no more. For justice to mean what it implies, it should be speedy. In this country, it would be unthinkable to have an accused person sitting on death row for literally years. We are proud that our system of justice has traditionally been fast moving—it is that quality that has made Scotland's system of criminal justice the envy of the world. It is therefore extremely important that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service should receive the necessary resources to ensure that deadlines are not missed. Of course, if there is a case of particular complexity, an application can be made to the High Court for an extension. I believe that that works well.

The crux of the matter was summed up extremely well, and frankly, in the Lord Advocate's evidence to the committee on 6 March. Before I quote his words, I should say that I very much hope that the Administration will take great heed of them. He said:

"The service has been almost a cinderella organisation for many years. It has been chronically underfunded for a long time ... there is no doubt that the ECHR has increased pressure, while the growth of serious crime continues to be worrying, and there has been an increase in the efficiency of the police. Those factors have come together and produced severe strains."

He concluded:

"for many years, the organisation has not been given the resources that it should have been given."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 6 March 2002; c 1114.]

Given that the Lord Advocate said that in committee, we can be certain that the Executive needs to do a great deal more on the issue.

I noted with concern paragraph 24 in the report, which contains an important revelation. It says:

"In the course of the inquiry we also received anonymous letters and phone calls from fiscals. While we treat these with appropriate caution, they reinforced the picture of a service where morale is low and where it is perceived that senior management discourage people from drawing attention to difficulties arising from lack of resources."

In this Parliament, we believe in greater transparency, openness and accountability, and I recognise the assertion in paragraph 43 that there are issues to be addressed over and above that of resources. That paragraph states:

"Our perception is of a hierarchical system which suffers from the fact that most senior managers have been legal experts not selected as or trained to be expert managers."

I hope that the Executive and the Crown Office will consider with great care all the recommendations that have been made in that regard and that they will examine the fact that too many police officers have been tied up for long periods at court waiting to be called as witnesses in cases.

The Conservatives regard justice and the pursuit of justice according to the highest standards and principles as absolute requirements and we want the Procurator Fiscal Service to be much more strongly resourced with more fiscals. I warmly congratulate the members of the Justice 2 Committee, its convener, Pauline McNeill, and the deputy convener, Bill Aitken, on contributing a considerable service by focusing our attention on actions that need to be taken in the public interest.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Before I begin, I should note that I will not be able to stay until the end of the debate. I apologise and seek the Parliament's indulgence to leave early.

I echo Pauline McNeill's sentiments and pay tribute to the committee clerks, who have worked so diligently over the past 18 months. This has been the longest committee inquiry in the Parliament and we must pay tribute to all committee staff, whose work ensured that we delivered the report.

In some ways, our inquiry has been overtaken by events. However, it has ensured that the coalition Executive has tackled the issues that were revealed in evidence to the committee and it has certainly helped to focus attention on real concerns about the Procurator Fiscal Service.

There have been six reviews of the criminal justice system in the past few years. As a result of the Chhokar case, there were inquiries by Sir Anthony Campbell and Dr Raj Jandoo. We have also had inquiries by Lord Bonomy and Sheriff Principal McInnes, as well as the Pryce-Dyer review. Last but not least, we have had the Justice 2 Committee's inquiry and now its report. The service must be the most reviewed organisation in Scotland since devolution, which only goes to show how much of a spotlight is on the justice system to ensure that it improves and delivers the service that we all expect. The service has moved from being what was, in the Lord Advocate's words, "a cinderella organisation" before 1999 to one that is now firmly centre stage and in the spotlight.

During our investigations, we found that the service was under extraordinary pressure because of various factors, some of which have been mentioned: first, the increase in the number of petition cases from 4,638 in 1996-97 to 5,217 in 2000-01; secondly, the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into Scots law; thirdly, the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive; and, lastly and just as important, the greater expectation among the public of openness, accountability and the better treatment of victims and witnesses. All those factors have brought added pressures to bear on the system.

There was a range of evidence on how well the service was coping with the challenges that arose because of those factors. The internal pressure audit showed levels of stress and dissatisfaction many times higher than in an average, similarly sized organisation. It also revealed a hierarchical and rigid culture of blame, secrecy and mistrust in the organisation.

The Pryce-Dyer report identified a catalogue of issues that could be put down to poor communication between the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and its main criminal justice partners—the police and the courts. In her speech, Pauline McNeill highlighted her experience of that issue. The Pryce-Dyer report also identified a catalogue of management issues, including poorly focused management information, inconsistencies in budgeting, a lack of resilience in the staffing of the organisation and the lack of a corporate and united approach to standards and processes in the service. The report also found major cultural barriers between the legal and administrative staff—there seemed to be a genuine division between the two sides. Resourcing was identified in a number of key areas as one of the crucial problems facing the service, as the Executive has acknowledged.

In view of those findings, one might have expected a big churn rate of staff as well as high long-term sickness rates and recruiting difficulties. Surprisingly, however, none of those problems was revealed in evidence to the committee. That is a tribute to the dedication and commitment of the staff. Despite the pressures that they were under and the many problems that were identified in the various reviews, staff still turned up and delivered a service. There were no long-term sickness problems and the staff seemed to remain dedicated and willing to commit to the service. The committee was surprised that there was not a great churn rate of staff leaving and new staff being taken on. However, the new chief executive, Robert Gordon, said in his evidence to the committee:

"Even if people are not leaving us, it is not a sustainable way to run a business if they are staying with us while feeling undervalued and under huge pressure."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 24 April 2002; c 1226.]

That is a sentiment with which we would all agree.

I am thankful that action is now being taken to address the concerns arising from the various reviews. An extra £24 million is being invested this coming year—that is a 10.7 per cent increase in real terms. In his speech, the Lord Advocate highlighted the huge increase in resources that there has been since he became involved in the service as Solicitor General.

Ninety-five new legal staff have been recruited—that is a 33 per cent increase from 1997. However, that in itself brings problems, because it means that a whole cohort of new legal staff is coming in. Those people need training and supervision, which puts added pressure on the service in the short term.

From evidence to the committee, we learned that an extra 94 administrative staff have been recruited, which is a 12 per cent increase. That is important, too. It is all very well having front-line legal staff, but, if they are not backed up and properly supported by administrative staff, they cannot deliver daily in court. Moreover, a new management regime has been put in place to try to address the major failings identified in the Pryce-Dyer report.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is no longer the cinderella organisation that it was before devolution. The Executive is investing heavily to improve the service, but it will take time to measure whether the changes that have been made are the right ones. Judgment cannot yet be made on whether the new arrangements are working, because they are only just being implemented.

I hope and expect that, as the committee recommended, the subject will be revisited by a subsequent justice committee in the new parliamentary session. We may have to wait two to three years before the evaluation can be made. I hope that, when that evaluation is completed, we will see a dramatically improved service that will guarantee to the public the delivery of a service fit for the 21st century.

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

There have been a number of last-minute requests to speak in the open debate. I will try to get everybody in, but the last two or three speakers may not get more than a couple of minutes each. At this point, we will start with speeches of four minutes.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

A number of reasons have been given this morning for why the committee chose to investigate the subject. The Lord Advocate said that, since devolution, there has been an unprecedented questioning of the Scottish criminal justice system. Although the system had trundled along relatively satisfactorily for many years, we found that things were not working in quite the way that we had anticipated. It was a bit like lifting the proverbial stone to see what is going on underneath. The pressures that people were working under to keep the system going were certainly too great.

Like many people in Scotland, I was relatively unclear about the complex role of the procurator fiscal before I undertook the inquiry. The term is commonly used in Scotland—people have heard of procurators fiscal, but most do not know what they actually do. I first met the Solicitor General—in her previous role—in the summer of 2001, when we undertook our first visit to a fiscal office in Aberdeen. What struck Tavish Scott and me on that day was the sheer complexity of what was expected of a fiscal working in a busy office. Never mind all the other issues that people have highlighted, including the extra work load and staff vacancies—just doing the basic job is an incredibly complex task. I do not think that people fully understood what the job is about.

The committee inquiry seems to have been a bit of a catalyst for change in the system. The change might have happened anyway but, irrespective of why it happened, there has been considerable movement in the service over the past few months, which is incredibly welcome. As I have visited my local office over the past four years, it has been quite incredible to see the changes that have taken place, especially during the inquiry, as people began to see the evidence that the committee was taking, and now that the report has been produced. At the same time, there has been unprecedented change in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service itself. Those two things together have begun to improve the service that is being offered to people. That should not be ignored.

The committee recommends a number of tests that might be applied in the future to determine whether the changes that are currently being made have led to improved services. We all want a service in which staff are valued, where morale is higher, where there is an end to routine evening working and where fiscals have more time to spend on front-line legal duties. The changes that have been put in place, which other members have highlighted, may well achieve that.

As the committee's convener said, one of the factors that prompted the inquiry was concern from the police. We hope that there will be improved communication and access to fiscals and better understanding of the prosecution decisions. It is important that all the players in the criminal justice system are signed up and joined up. We must all sing from the same song sheet. We should not get into a situation in which one part of the criminal justice system blames another part for its failings, as has happened too often in the past. If the changes that we have seen can get us a more effective system, the committee's inquiry will have played its part. We should also acknowledge the changes that the Crown Office has made in the intervening time.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

When the convener of the Justice 2 Committee said that she had been doing extra time, I was somewhat alarmed, but I think that I know what she meant. Members of the committee did indeed do extra time.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is truly at the heart of the Scottish criminal justice system. If that system is to reach its full potential—as all members and people throughout the country want—that heart must be healthy. Our communities need faith that those who commit crime will be brought to book soon and in an appropriate way.

The Lord Advocate described the Procurator Fiscal Service as a "cinderalla organisation" that had been

"chronically underfunded for a long time."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 6 March 2002; c 1114.]

That is lamentably true. However, we must and should praise the dedication of Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service staff, who are chronically overloaded with work and use weekends and evenings to keep up with cases. That is not good enough for staff, the public or the police.

The committee heard distressing evidence from victims of crimes and their families, who felt let down by the system and revictimised. However, I recognise the progress that has been made in that area.

A number of unfortunate cases have been brought to my attention and I would like to speak about one of them. A former constituent of mine, who now lives near Inverness, was the victim of a brutal assault. The initial investigation went well and the perpetrator was caught and charged. However, when the case went to court, the accused received a minimal fine rather than the imprisonment that had been expected, as vital evidence was not produced on the day. Why? An inadequately supervised junior policeman and a fiscal who had never met the victim and therefore knew nothing of the severity of the victim's injuries were involved. In that case, a lapse in detail impacted on an individual.

Another constituent had a much better experience, but, unfortunately, that was in the Netherlands. Her son was involved in a car accident. He had pulled over, as his car had broken down, and another car had barrelled up the outside lane and run him over. He spent a year in hospital. The Dutch took the victim's mother across to the Netherlands and she stayed in hospital with her son at the expense of the Dutch for six months. When the case came to court, the mother sat with the prosecutors in the well of the court. She was paid to fly over to the Netherlands and the presiding officer invited her to give her view of the impact of the accident on her family. She could not praise the prosecution service in the Netherlands more highly. That is the standard to which we aspire and towards which we are beginning to move.

On another serious note, the committee had only anecdotal evidence about departmental performance. Statistics are in short supply. A key management theory nowadays is that what cannot be measured cannot be managed. It is not right for members to interfere with the administration of justice, but the Lord Advocate must realise that we will take a close and continuing interest in the administration of the justice system—in other words, in the processes of justice.

New people have been added to the system, but we must not expect too much too soon. In his book "The Mythical Man-Month", Fred P Brookes poses the question:

"How do you make a late project later?"

The answer is by adding staff, as existing staff must train the new staff. All the failings in our system need to be put right to ensure credibility. Only a system that treats victims humanely and with compassion can truly dispense justice. We must deliver.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I make no bones about the fact that, when I entered the Parliament, I was not seen as a major advocate of the institution—indeed, I queried the whole basis on which it was structured and its necessity. However, perhaps one of the advantages that has resulted from its creation has been the Justice 2 Committee's report. During the election, perhaps all of us had concerns about the standard of our justice system.

I recall that, in committee debates on the budget some years ago, I took to task the then Lord Advocate and Solicitor General, as well as the Minister for Justice, Jim Wallace, pointing out to them the inadequacies that we thought existed in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I have to say that I was particularly disappointed by the responses. I pay tribute to the current Lord Advocate and Solicitor General, because they seem to have listened. That links into the Justice 2 Committee's inquiry. Masses of evidence suggested that the perception that members elected to the Parliament had of the justice system was based on a strong foundation.

George Lyon said that, to some extent, events overtook the report. I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that changes have taken place because of the evidence that the committee took. I pay tribute to all committee members, including my colleague Bill Aitken and Pauline McNeill, with whom I served on the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. I do not believe that events overtook the report. The Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General and the Executive have recognised the shortcomings in the system. Having heard the Lord Advocate's comments about the increase in staff and the reorganisation, I find it obvious that the issues raised in the inquiry have been dealt with as we have gone along. That is what should happen wherever possible—when concerns are raised, they should be addressed immediately. On that basis, I compliment the individuals to whom I referred.

However, we cannot be complacent. Roseanna Cunningham's comments and the statistics that she cited were of great interest to all members. She demonstrated that problems still exist and that the general public still have certain perceptions and concerns, particularly about the way in which our court procedures operate and about some of the findings of the courts.

I said in an intervention earlier that political perceptions and requirements cannot be seen to be weights around the necks of sheriffs and judges. However, if the courts do not somewhere along the line recognise the concerns of ordinary people, the justice system will ultimately break down. That must not happen in our society.

The additional funding that has been mentioned is welcome, but the issue is not wholly about funding. We have looked across the board. Members have focused on the need for an increase in police resources, but it is pointless for the police to increase their detection rate, using those additional resources to considerable effect, if the courts and the justice system cannot keep up and let them down. Nonetheless, I welcome the extra funding and the changes that have been made to date.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I congratulate the Justice 2 Committee on its report, which is the result of intensive scrutiny of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service over a long 18 months. As George Lyon said, the committee's inquiry has played a considerable part in progressing change.

I will talk about the fiscal service in the Highlands and Islands. During the summer recess about two years ago, I visited as many of the Highlands and Islands sheriff courts as I could, not only in the Highland Council area but in the northern isles, the Western Isles, Moray and Argyll. I visited Skye, Lochaber, Wick, Tain and Dingwall. I spoke to sheriff clerks and fiscals. I examined arrangements for witness support, in particular for child witnesses, and for disabled access.

I visited Inverness sheriff court, which is more like a city sheriff court because of the volume of business. There is a tremendous contrast between Inverness and the outlying courts. I shadowed a fiscal depute in Inverness sheriff court for a day. I noted the intense pressure that she was under in a relentless, time-constrained process to mark cases and speak to them before the sheriff in a tiny, overflowing courtroom.

When I was in Stornoway, the sole fiscal had to deal with a serious stabbing incident on a foreign ship out in the Atlantic. It was an unusual and time-consuming case. Such a case might mean that everyday work had to be set aside, yet he was the only fiscal.

In Shetland, I met the fiscal who is responsible for Lerwick and Kirkwall sheriff courts, who spoke about the problems of travelling between Orkney and Shetland in the extreme weather conditions that prevail there for a considerable part of the year. If the fiscal is stormbound on one island, work piles up on the other.

Fiscals are independent, self-contained and responsible for their work load. Some enjoy the independence, but it has its drawbacks, especially in relation to holiday cover, illness or work overload. The problems of rural procurators fiscal who work alone are different from the problems that fiscals in the city experience—the work load issues and the stresses are different.

Another factor was that, for administration purposes, the Highlands and Islands were lumped with Grampian, an area that covers two police forces. I will not talk about Argyll, which covers another police force and which has never been part of Grampian and the Highlands for administration purposes. I do not want to be even more of a sook than Phil Gallie, but Elish Angiolini was the regional fiscal at the time of my visit and I have no doubt that the new structure that has been put in place is a result of her appreciation of the problems on the ground. I remember talking to her in Inverness about the situation in Orkney and Shetland.

The changes that were announced last autumn are having an effect already. The Highlands and Islands is now an autonomous area and its boundaries are coterminous with those of Northern constabulary. The new area fiscal, Graeme Napier, is based in Inverness, as is the new area business manager, Gordon Ellis.

Although the area team is new, there have been significant developments in support for fiscals. First, a request to the Lord Advocate for a depute fiscal for Orkney and Shetland has been granted, which will have a significant impact on the work load and logistical problems in the northern isles. Secondly, as a result of the new information technology systems that have been in place since November, any fiscal's office can access another's work. For example, when the Tain fiscal needs a bit of help, other fiscals in the network can provide it. Thirdly, within the past week, approval has been given to buy a digital dictation system, the product of which can be downloaded to a computer and e-mailed, which will allow clerical staff in offices throughout the network to access it. That system will help to smooth out the peaks and troughs in individual offices. The first and third of those initiatives came directly from the area office.

Northern constabulary has said that there is now more consistency in the fiscal policy in the Highlands, which is to be welcomed. However, more work needs to be done, particularly in relation to Inverness sheriff court. I would like the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General to keep an eye on the work load there.

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

In my 20 years of practising as a solicitor, I found, through the day-to-day experience of working in the courts, that Scotland is fortunate in having the highest quality personnel working in our justice system. We can rightly be proud of that. Until 1999, Scotland was the only country in the world that had her own legal system but lacked a legislature. I am delighted that Phil Gallie is now a full convert to the merits of the Parliament.

Since I became an MSP, I have seen matters from constituents' point of view. What happens when the system goes wrong? Although I found through working with fiscals and others that, in most cases, the system does not go wrong, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General must focus on the situations in which matters go wrong to ensure that victims are dealt with properly.

Like Stewart Stevenson, I could mention constituents who simply have not been given information. For example, I know of a case in which the victim of a serious assault was not informed when the assailant was let out of jail and went back to live beside the victim. When a complaint is made about such matters, the response is often truculent or arrogant, which is wholly wrong. However, I get the impression from the written response to the report to which the Lord Advocate referred that matters are changing and that there is a will to change, which I acknowledge and welcome.

In intervening on the Lord Advocate, I referred to paragraphs 14 and 18 of the report. The committee's unanimous request that every member of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland should be given the chance to set out their views—good and bad—of how the system operates in an anonymous questionnaire was sensible. That is part of a new system of openness and democracy. It is to be regretted that the Lord Advocate rejected that approach. Had that approach been followed, the experiences of those working at the chalk face could more accurately have been taken into account.

The committee has done a great job.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

rose—

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

I do not have time to give way, as I am in my last minute.

Of necessity, the committee's excellent work only scratches the surface of a huge system that involves a great many people. I know, for example, that intermediate diets have not worked properly because fiscals do not have time enough to study the papers and discuss cases before an intermediate diet. That clogs up the system, takes more time and is a waste. A few more fiscals in the busiest sheriff courts would address that problem, and action is being taken to deal with that.

I handled a serious case in which the son of constituents of mine died in a road accident and the police approach to the case was called into question. I was struck by the constituents' approach to the matter, which was rational and sensible despite the trauma of their loss. They paid particular tribute to the Solicitor General, who was working in Aberdeen at that time, for her sensitive response. I do not want to mention the couple's name, but I think that the Solicitor General will know who they were.

In that case and others where the justice system fails, it does not yet respond properly to victims' and others' concerns about their dealings with it. However, now that we have our Parliament and perhaps a bit more openness, there is a willingness to tackle those concerns. I welcome that approach.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I thank the Justice 2 Committee for its work in producing the report on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. A great deal of effort went into the inquiry, and that shows in the substance of the committee's findings.

A picture clearly emerges of a public prosecution service that is overworked and understaffed. The service has far too often had to rely on the dedication and commitment of individuals who have struggled to cope without the necessary support structure in place.

I also thank the Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd, and the Solicitor General, Elish Angiolini, for their reforms, which have taken place in parallel with the committee's inquiry. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General have recognised the problems that face the service and have begun to tackle them.

I will focus not so much on the needs of the Procurator Fiscal Service as on those of the victims of crime and their families. There cannot be a member present who has not heard of the vicious and unprovoked murder of Christopher Cawley in a Glasgow bar some two and a half years ago or who is unaware of his family's concern and anger at the failure of the prosecution to convict Louis McDonald and Gary Sanders for the crime.

The lack of information that was available to Christopher Cawley's family throughout the case is deeply disturbing. That extended to the family even missing the beginning of the trial because no one took the time or took on the responsibility to let them know that court proceedings were starting. Neither the volunteers from Victim Support Scotland nor the police's family liaison officer were able to offer the support that the family needed. A simple explanation of the roles of the police and the Procurator Fiscal Service was never forthcoming.

The lack of transparency of the court proceedings and, equally, the prosecution team's decision-making process added to the family's frustration and anxiety. There was no attempt to take the family's views into account, but neither was there an explanation of why that should be so. When charges against one of the accused were dropped, there was no explanation. In fact, as Pauline McNeill said, the family found out about it only when the former co-accused walked into the court alongside them.

My outstanding concern is the lack of an independent investigation or complaints procedure to handle public worries about the prosecution of crime. Following the Jandoo and Campbell reports on the Chhokar case, the Lord Advocate has committed himself to an independent inspectorate but has also said that it will not consider individual cases.

Given the mechanisms that now exist to tackle miscarriages of justice, we need a satisfactory system to address the situation in which the miscarriage is a failure to secure a conviction. I am not arguing that verdicts should be challenged. That the prosecution of crime, like justice itself, should be impartial is often argued and is, indeed, an accepted principle. However, I hope that the Lord Advocate will acknowledge that impartiality has sometimes been used as a smokescreen for not answering questions at all. Coupled with a lack of transparency in the prosecution service, that has given rise to a suspicion of a self-serving system that protects prosecutors from scrutiny and that is unaccountable to the public.

I end with an appeal to the Minister for Justice—although he is not here—to meet the Cawley family and the Lord Advocate to discuss the family's outstanding concerns. The Justice 2 Committee has played a major part in redressing the Cawleys' sense of grievance, through listening to their evidence. I hope that the committee's recommendations will now be acted on.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Of all the skills that I thought I would have to develop as an MSP, cramming a year's study of the Procurator Fiscal Service into two and a half or three minutes was not one of them. Nonetheless, if colleagues will excuse me, I will not use this limited time to go over the ground that we all share on the positive work that the Justice 2 Committee has done and on the areas of the report on which we agree. We all accept that the Pryce-Dyer report was significant, that there has been an increase in resources and that more work remains to be done.

I will highlight a number of areas of concern, and I hope that this will be taken in a constructive spirit. The Lord Advocate mentioned the publication of proposals for the appointment of advocate deputes, which will form a part of the whole restructuring. I wish to focus on that, because there are some real concerns about those proposals. The problem lies in the increase in High Court business, with an increase of 29.4 per cent in the number of cases between 1998 and 2002. Additionally, there are the problems with getting people to do Crown junioring and legal aid. There is a real stress point in the High Court.

The response from the Executive and the Lord Advocate is understandable in a sense—they favour a reclassification and seek to allow procurators fiscal, from ad hoc deputes all the way to trial deputes, to mark or prosecute cases.

There are a number of real issues to be addressed, the first of which is independence. It is nice for an SNP politician to be able to talk about independence and get support for it from around the chamber. Its importance cannot be overstressed. The written submission of the Faculty of Advocates states that the

"entitlement on the part of the prosecution authorities to bring criminal charges against a person before the courts upon their decision alone means that it is important that the operation of that entitlement is, and is seen to be, as independent as possible."

Let us contrast that with the description of fiscals as, in the Lord Advocate's own words, career civil servants. That raises the question how that independence and the perception of that independence are to be regarded. If the Government were to announce a crackdown on crime, would that mean that, as career civil servants, fiscals could be seen to be marking on an independent basis? The committee received evidence from fiscals themselves that they had come under pressure from various Government bodies. Perhaps such pressure is understandable, but should we really be trusting individuals to show independence under such circumstances, and not have something built into the system?

What about situations where there are obvious conflicts of interest for solicitors who are in partnership? What arrangements are going to be made to preserve the independence of the service? If people are to have confidence in the system and in the prosecution of crime, they have to believe that decisions are made on the basis of what is fair and just, and not according to any other priority.

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

We move to winding-up speeches, starting with Donald Gorrie for the Liberal Democrats. I ask for these speeches to be kept tight, please.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

The Justice 2 Committee has carried out a very good inquiry, which has been a good example of how Scottish parliamentary committees can do very good work. I welcome the investment that the Executive has put into the court system. Starting from a very low base as it does, that increase in investment might have to continue for quite a few years. We want to ensure that the money is well directed and achieves what we want it to achieve.

We should look at justice as a whole. It is not just a question of procurators fiscal. There is a whole team of people involved in trying to reduce offending and reoffending, crime and the fear of crime. All sorts of people are involved in that—in some ways, every citizen. The police, procurators fiscal, the court system, judges, advocates and solicitors are all involved, but so are social workers, voluntary organisations that provide arrangements to help to turn people in trouble round, community organisations and indeed the whole community.

For example, if we sorted out our football structure so that far more boys, girls, young men and young women were playing football, we would not only have a decent football team in a few years' time, we would reduce crime considerably. We are all involved in that task. The Parliament and the Executive must learn to examine the issue of crime as a whole. We are good at having committees highlight particular issues, but we must now diffuse our light over a wider area, while keeping it as bright. I am not sure how to do that.

We cannot ignore bottlenecks in the system. There is no point in having a very good police system if the court system is not good. I return to my analogy of a football team—there is no point in investing in better forwards if our defenders continue to let in goals. We must invest throughout the system.

I have not yet heard anyone use the cliché that justice must be seen to be done, so I will. Like most clichés, that one is extremely true. The public view of justice is very important. The public have problems with the system. They see endless delays in cases coming to court and view the criminal justice system as a game with very obscure rules that they do not understand. The public view politics in the same way—that is another problem that we must straighten out.

We must challenge the professionals' innate conservatism and defensiveness. Such conservatism is a characteristic of all professions. We must ensure that the professionals are not preventing progress from being made in the system as a whole. We have made good advances and I have great confidence in the team that is running the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. However, we have much further to go. This inquiry is a good step forward. We can all co-operate to produce a justice system that will be at the heart of our democracy and of which we can be really proud.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I have said everything that I wish to say. I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for his frank, full and honest contribution.

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

The chamber is most grateful to the member.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

In the future, when a prosecution against an individual is dropped, will the victim be given information concerning why the case has been dropped?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Will the Solicitor General take an intervention?

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Will the Solicitor General take an intervention?

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the Solicitor General take an intervention?

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I make it clear that I am not impugning the integrity of fiscals. I am asking whether the Solicitor General sees a difference between the institutional independence of the Faculty of Advocates and the position of the people specifically described by the Lord Advocate as career civil servants, who are not independent institutionally. Does the Solicitor General see that that might create in the public mind a perception that the prosecution service's independence is diluted?

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

The fact that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton withdrew did not mean that Mr Matheson was doing the same thing. I call him now, but he is out of sequence. If he makes any points to which the Solicitor General wants to reply, I will allow a few minutes for that.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I congratulate the members of the Justice 2 Committee on the report. I am aware that when carrying out a committee inquiry over a year and half it is difficult to remain focused while having several pieces of heavy legislation on the agenda as well—as the Justice 1 Committee also experienced. All credit should go to the Justice 2 Committee for completing its thorough inquiry.

One of the constant themes of the report is the dedication of the prosecution service staff, who are prepared to work late into the evening and over the weekend to fulfil their duties. A heavy responsibility is placed on their shoulders because they make crucial decisions that affect individuals' lives. Several members have referred to particular constituency cases in which such decisions have had an impact on individuals' lives. The service is under considerable pressure, but it has many dedicated staff. However, for several reasons, they clearly enjoy only limited public esteem.

We should expect the staff of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to be dedicated, but we must also be prepared to provide them with the necessary resourcing and management to deliver the required service. I cannot help but feel that the report highlights the fact that the service has been running on the good will of its staff for far too long.

Resourcing is an important issue. The Lord Advocate said that the prosecution service has often been a cinderella public service. However, the service not only requires additional financial resources; the way in which it operates must be reformed and modernised. Additional financial resources are welcome, but the report highlights that there is a need to ensure that staff are provided with the training and support that will allow them to do their job properly.

If we provide extra resources to our Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, we must be prepared to ensure that there is effective monitoring of how the service is operating to ensure that the resources are being targeted to the right areas to deliver the necessary change.

The report highlights the management culture that exists in the service. It says that there is a lack of trust and support in the current management system, and that there are managers who have a great deal of legal expertise but limited management expertise. As Roseanna Cunningham said, if we are to create the change that is necessary in the service, we must be prepared to tackle the management culture. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton noted, there are elements of secrecy in the system—the Lord Advocate will be aware of my particular interest in matters relating to secrecy.

Paragraph 30 of the report states:

"We also noted that, although there was a category of 'PF staff shortage' as a reason for 'no proceedings' this was virtually never used. This appears very odd and it has since been suggested to us informally that staff are discouraged from using this category."

To say that a case cannot be proceeded with because of staff shortage is not to admit to a weakness on the part of a member of staff but to draw attention to a weakness in the system. The culture must change in order to address the problems that exist.

We have identified a number of problems in the service, but the real challenge is to deal with them effectively to ensure that we have a Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service of which we can be proud. The report is the start of that process. I commend it to the Parliament and I urge the Executive to take forward the recommendations that it contains.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am probably the last person who would want to wallow in mutual congratulation, but it is appropriate that I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Justice 2 Committee for their efforts and commitment, and for the production of a thoroughly worthwhile report. I associate myself with the committee convener's comments about the clerking service, which has provided immense assistance. Further, I pay tribute to the convener for the considerable drive and commitment that she showed in pushing through the process. Not at all grudgingly, I say that the law officers deserve considerable credit as well. While the Lord Advocate would not have required a crystal ball to predict a number of the committee's recommendations, the fact that the Crown Office has anticipated and recognised many of the committee's concerns has been highly beneficial to the proper administration of the prosecution system in Scotland.

However, there are still problems. George Lyon quite properly highlighted some of them. While it seems that the question of salaries payable to procurators fiscal, for example, has been largely resolved, there is still lingering doubt about the adequacy of the budget. In a classic case of making oneself a hostage to fortune, the Lord Advocate defined the prosecution service as the cinderella department of the Scottish Government. I might be tempted to identify other departments as the ugly sisters, but I will not do so, and will say simply that there could be difficulty in implementing many of the committee's recommendations if the budget is inadequate.

If procurators fiscal and Crown counsel are overburdened, the impact is felt throughout the criminal justice system. The committee inquiry revealed a number of points of concern and Roseanna Cunningham's illustrations of what happens in many summary courts were quite correct.

We found that morale was low. There was little hope of opportunities for advancement or career satisfaction, although the Solicitor General pointed out that considerable career satisfaction can be derived from service as a procurator fiscal. Staff who are already overloaded have less time to liaise effectively with other agencies such as the police and to progress the outcome of cases. In particular, staff were unable to give adequate time and information to victims or their families, or to speak to defence agents to agree evidence or negotiate pleas.

The Solicitor General referred to the fiscals' work load, which routinely spills over into evenings and weekends. As such, fiscals' pay should be comparable to that of people working at similar levels in other public organisations, such as the police and other sections of the civil service. To facilitate the direly needed fiscal recruitment drives that are currently being undertaken, fiscals must also receive comparable pay to that offered by the private firms that are alternative employers for potential and current fiscals.

There can be no doubt that there are lots more bodies in the service, but the committee was concerned that the management structure might be top-heavy. The problems identified in the report are at the front end of the service. In crude terms, we really must seek to have more people with gowns on their backs prosecuting in Scotland's courts than managers number crunching in their offices. Although there must always be a professional and hands-on approach to management, it cannot be at the expense of the operational side of the prosecution service.

I am extremely pleased that the Lord Advocate has taken the appropriate approach to granting fiscals rights of audience in the High Court. That will be greatly encouraging to those who seek to reach the top echelon of the profession and who are not members of the Faculty of Advocates. I accept Duncan Hamilton's caveat about independence, but I am confident that those who have served long and hard as fiscals in the prosecution service will maintain the independence that is necessary for the public perception of the department to be as it should be.

When Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, the then Lord Advocate, launched a pilot, we thought that it would be successful. I have little doubt that, in future, we will see other success stories. The Lord Advocate's responses will have to be linked to the recommendations contained in Lord Bonomy's recently published report. Many of his lordship's recommendations make sound sense and others might tempt the Lord Advocate down the route of departing from some sound principles of Scots law. That issue might have to be left for another day, but I flag up that I could not consider any departure from the 110-day rule as being justified. Although our report confirmed that the existence of the rule caused pressure, that pressure must be managed and lived with.

I am disappointed that the satellite Crown Office at Glasgow High Court is not being further developed. It gives me no pleasure to record that the Glasgow area provides the High Court with the bulk of its business. That makes it all the more important that the business be dealt with in the most efficient and expeditious manner, particularly for the victims of crime and for the relatives of those who have died in homicides.

I would prefer more resources to be put into the Glasgow side of the operation. I have no wish to increase Edinburgh-Glasgow rivalries, but the system seems to be geared towards Edinburgh. Although I fully understand the historical and administrative reasons for that, I would like the necessity of having a full-time and well-staffed unit at the High Court in Glasgow to be recognised. I do not believe that the purpose of such a satellite office has been properly thought through. I accept that many advocates depute live in Edinburgh and require frequent access to the Crown Office, but my view is that there should be a unit in Glasgow. It would save a lot of time and effort and considerable wear and tear on individuals.

Earlier, Kenny Macintosh—quite appropriately—mentioned the situation of the relatives of crime victims. During our inquiry, we took evidence about two unfortunate cases. Again, it is appropriate to point out that additional resources have been put in and that positive steps have been taken in how witnesses are dealt with. That has been highly beneficial and indicates that a degree of sensitivity that was not present has now been put in place. Again, the Crown Office is to be congratulated on taking such radical steps on the basis of the committee's report. Undoubted progress has been made.

The report has achieved things that few of us could have expected at the start, but fears remain. Law and order is one of the Executive's many priorities, but it is doubtful whether being a priority in such circumstances has much merit at all. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is much admired throughout the world. The Lockerbie prosecution was a classic example of how, when it works effectively, it is probably without peer among modern judicial set-ups. The fact that there was such international recognition of the Lockerbie exercise indicates the inherent strength of the prosecution service.

Mention has been made of the dedication of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service staff. For my colleagues on the committee and me, it has been a matter of considerable surprise, and of great appreciation, to see the dedication on the ground of people who are prepared to work long hours, in some cases for scant reward and even less public recognition. If the report does something, it puts on record a parliamentary committee's appreciation of the work that is done.

If there is to be continued improvement, and if we are to provide the service that we all want and which the people of Scotland need, resources must be adequate, and the commitment of Scottish ministers must measure up to the tremendous commitment that has been demonstrated by the Lord Advocate and his staff. Arguably, the Crown Office—and the justice system in general—might no longer be the Cinderella of the Scottish block, but it is still the poor relation. If we are to achieve the aim of a safer Scotland, which I know we all share, that needs to change, and Jim Wallace needs to fight his corner more effectively.

That said, I believe that the report is a success story. It has been a significant catalyst for change. The report and the reaction of the law officers to it reflect well on all concerned. I commend the report to the chamber in the strongest possible terms.

Tourism

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3869, in the name of Alex Neil, on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report on the future of tourism.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is my pleasure to open on behalf of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee this debate on the committee's report on the future of tourism in Scotland. I always feel that debates on committee reports are rather curious parliamentary beasts. Much prowling round the jungle has gone on, to the accompaniment of roars, grunts and snuffles, and there has been some locking of horns, but when the ultimate product is unanimous—as this report is—it usually means that no one emerges bloody and bitter.

I see the visible disappointment of members, who are no doubt asking, "Does this mean the report is passive or inert—just another committee report?" Nothing could be further from the truth, because the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has a mind of its own. Indeed, it has been innovatory and, some would say, harbours its own idiosyncrasies. It is none the worse for that.

Before we proceed to the report, there are certain courtesies to be observed. First, I am not Alex Neil, the convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee—we are not quite that idiosyncratic—but I thank him for departing from traditional practice in allowing me as deputy convener to lead for the committee in this debate. That is an act of characteristic gallantry. I think that he took the view that as one of only two original committee members—Marilyn Livingstone being the other—our dowager status should be acknowledged.

If the Parliament will indulge me briefly, I will say that serving on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has been challenging but immensely interesting and pleasurable. The committee has been positive for the parliamentary process. It is pleasing that the media frequently accord the adjective "influential" to the committee.

I thank the clerking support team of Simon Watkins, Judith Evans, Jane Sutherland and Michael Govind for their advice and forbearance. Judith Evans and Jane Sutherland were the clerks for the case studies in Denmark and California, and I thank them for mothering beyond the call of duty. Our clerks have been of the highest calibre. The committee is also indebted to our adviser Roger Carter for his sage comments; to the many organisations and individuals who gave the committee oral or written evidence; to Stevens and Associates for its immensely helpful and instructive research, which was commissioned pre-inquiry; to the Scottish Parliament information centre for welcome research support during the inquiry; and to the Parliamentary Bureau and the Conveners Group for making time available for the debate. I think that I am correct in saying that, with the exception of the Finance Committee, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has had more debates in the chamber than any other committee.

Alex Neil would wish me to express a final note of appreciation to the committee's members. A heavy volume of work had to be packed into a tight schedule. Four cross-party case studies were undertaken in Scotland. They covered VisitScotland's e-tourism venture; rural tourism issues and the impact of foot-and-mouth disease in Dumfries and Galloway; golf tourism in Fife and business tourism in Scotland; and urban tourism and dispersal issues in Edinburgh. Two cross-party studies were undertaken abroad, which involved myself and Tavish Scott—very agreeable—going to Copenhagen and taking in Malmö in Sweden, and Alex Neil and Gordon Jackson going to California in the USA.

In short, much was asked of members, who responded spiritedly. The committee had a healthy and robust debate as it shaped its views, but all was achieved without our eating lumps out of one another. That is probably just as well—otherwise, the exercise might have been indigestible.

The report is the sixth full report that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has produced after holding an inquiry. It is a thorough and robust piece of work. I intend not to go through the report ad longum, but simply to comment on pivotal processes and aspects of the report. I do not intend even to use the full time allocated for my speech, because it is important for other members to be given the chance to speak.

In June last year, the committee agreed that the inquiry's remit would be to inquire into the levels and effectiveness of Government support for tourism. The committee also agreed to pose a set of key questions to stimulate and focus debate. Those questions were singularly significant and can be found at paragraph 43 of the report.

Of undoubted assistance in pointing the committee in the right direction was the pre-inquiry research from Stevens and Associates to which I have referred. That research achieved a status in its own right and focused the committee on matters that merited investigation.

The external research is worth dwelling on. A sample of countries and territories was identified for comparison with Scotland on five key tourism markers, which were the scale, nature and growth of tourism; the structure and nature of governance in support of tourism; the nature and level of direct and indirect support of tourism; marketing strategies and trends, whether niche or general promotion; and the perception of the country or region as a tourist destination. The report of the findings of those comparisons facilitated the identification of practice that was applicable to tourism in Scotland. It did not always produce an outcome that was entirely favourable to Scotland.

The research report identified five key lessons for Scotland. The first was that Scotland should create a clear and focused national tourism strategy that involves leading private sector representatives. The second was that Scotland should encourage different products and service providers to establish a strategic alliance that meets market demand. I think that I speak for the whole committee when I say that those two lessons were material in influencing the committee's approach to the inquiry.

The committee had a mission and a compass, but did not necessarily know what it would encounter on the journey. It soon became clear that the tourism territory in Scotland was congested and that numerous bodies, organisations and individuals were struggling to perform roles, provide advice and represent provider groups in the industry—not to mention the prominent roles that some providers play. All of that was set against a backdrop of various Scottish Executive strategies and initiatives.

Interestingly, we found that the situation contrasted sharply with that in Denmark and California, where the lead position of the industry was not only prominent but unquestioned. It is no co-incidence that that situation forms part of our key recommendations: members will find them in paragraphs 172 and 173. It is vital that the industry's voice be clear, visible and articulate, and that there is not a chorus of collective contributions.

It was also clear that a critical factor in the success of competitor destinations was the attraction of new air links—that was an issue that weighed heavily with the committee. The committee agrees that the Executive's new route development fund is a sensible contribution to meeting that need, but further work needs to be undertaken by VisitScotland and the enterprise agencies to prosecute actively the case for such development.

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

Listening to Annabel Goldie, I miss working with her and colleagues on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.

Does Annabel Goldie agree that one of the recommendations that the Executive should follow is the recommendation that is to be found at paragraph 213? It reads:

"The Committee recommends that the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning aids HIAL"—

Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd—

"in renegotiating its PFI arrangements because of their impact in constraining growth at Inverness airport."

Could not the route development fund of £5.3 million be used to assist the situation? Surely the use of that fund could have a significant impact on the need to attract more low-cost carriers to Inverness airport?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Ewing touches on an important aspect of the inquiry. I do not think that any committee member would dispute the fact that we found the issue perplexing. What seemed particularly arcane was the structure of the private finance initiative, which had to be unravelled. We were given the clear impression that the structure of the PFI package was hostile to the improvement and expansion of routes. That seems to me to be something of a commercial paradox.

I say to Mr Ewing that, as the recommendation suggests, the situation needs to be actively investigated. The minister might want to comment on that. The issue taxed the minds of the committee, hence our recommendation.

No doubt others will wish to address particular aspects of the report, but, in promoting Scotland as a world-class destination, it is clear that there needs to be close co-ordination with United Kingdom ministers, particularly in respect of the role of the British Tourist Authority. I know that Tavish Scott, Gordon Jackson, Alex Neil and I were immensely impressed by the role of the BTA abroad, which we saw when we undertook our foreign visits.

All members of the committee recognise the potential for partnership between the BTA and VisitScotland. We think that the BTA has the potential to be a strategic and significant partner in VisitScotland's work overseas. We were struck by the professionalism and obvious willingness of the BTA to engage in that partnership. One practical and manageable proposal is to place VisitScotland staff in each of the BTA's eight international hub offices. It is also important to measure activities under any such initiative. It would not be enough to simply put such a structure in place; the committee felt that it was important for it to be measured.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Is the member aware of the report by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, under Gerald Kaufman, on the changes to the BTA and the English Tourism Council? It appears that the Westminster committee went further than the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee did in its interesting report in indicating its hostility and opposition to the changes that Ms Jowell has announced.

The Westminster committee report calls for a properly federated structure for the BTA. In the light of that, does Miss Goldie wish to reconsider whether the Scottish Parliament should go further than the committee has done in expressing our distaste about being boxed in by having to go through the British Tourist Authority?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am not acquainted with the detail of the Westminster report, but I can say that the committee researched fully the role of the BTA as part of its inquiry and took evidence from that organisation.

In fairness to the minister, the committee took evidence from him and subjected him to intensive questioning about liaison between the Scottish Executive and the Westminster Government. What is important is that we are where we are. We are working with a new devolved Parliament within the context of the United Kingdom. The BTA is a significant association and operator in the tourism field, and, from committee members' direct experience, I believe that the BTA has a positive contribution to make to the development of Scottish tourism. Perhaps Mr MacAskill will want to pursue those aspects further with either VisitScotland or the minister.

There were also key recommendations in the report on Executive strategies and targets for research, business tourism, e-tourism and skills. In relation to area tourist boards, the minister may have some comment to make on the review that is being conducted.

Although the committee did not take evidence on the ATB structure—members thought that it would have been premature to comment on the structure per se—it was clear that in the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, ATBs have a distinct role in acting as gateways to Scotland in business and leisure tourism, and in dispersing tourists elsewhere. That compares with the successful Copenhagen model, and the committee felt that Edinburgh and Glasgow should be encouraged to maintain that drive.

I am pleased to say that the overall reception of the report from the industry has been favourable. However, it is in the public domain that the BAA in Scotland had certain concerns about paragraph 190 of the report, which refers to BAA ownership of the three main airports in Scotland. The BAA has written to the convener and committee members, and that letter is on the agenda for next week's meeting and will be considered seriously.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am in my closing minutes, so I shall continue.

I hope that the minister will feel able to receive the report warmly—I shall stop short of asking him to embrace me—in principle; I appreciate that it would be unreasonable to expect him to respond in detail. Perhaps he will be able to indicate the direction in which he thinks the Executive might go in relation to the report.

I commend the report to the Executive and the Parliament as a positive and robust contribution to improving tourism in Scotland. I take pleasure in moving motion S1M-3869, in the name of Mr Alex Neil.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the 1st Report 2003 of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, Report on the Future of Tourism in Scotland (SP Paper 740), and commends the report to all stakeholders in the tourism sector.

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I should like to thank the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for the opportunity to speak on its report. I am glad that the committee chose Scotland's biggest business sector as suitable for an in-depth inquiry.

When the committee began its work last year, tourism in Scotland was still suffering from the aftermath of foot-and-mouth and the other tragic events of 2001. Although the committee has not ignored the past, it has clearly concentrated on the future, which I welcome. I am happy to embrace the report, if not to physically embrace Annabel Goldie for her introduction—perhaps I could do that another time. The report will help the hard work that is going on throughout the tourism sector in Scotland to get the sector growing so that it can make a contribution to an expanding Scottish economy.

I shall comment on one or two of the most significant points that are raised in the report. Three years ago, the Executive published its "New Strategy for Scottish Tourism". That strategy still holds good with its focus on five strategic priorities, and in March last year the Executive set out in its "Tourism Framework for Action" an action plan to deliver the strategy. That plan has now been taken forward across the sector, and a lot has been achieved. Information on what has been achieved will be published next month in the first annual report on the action plan. As well as recording what has been done, that report will show what remains to be done. Already, the efforts of many people across the tourism sector and in the public sector are producing results.

The figures for 2002 demonstrate that tourism is on the road to recovery. For instance, hotel occupancy in Edinburgh and the Lothians last year was at its highest level since 1997, despite the fact that the number of beds increased by 15 per cent during that period. It is particularly heartening that tourism expenditure by overseas visitors increased by 3.6 per cent over the first three quarters of 2002. We must ensure that that trend continues.

Those figures show that we are on the way to achieving the target that the Executive has set VisitScotland of returning tourism numbers to the 2000 level by 2004. In addition, the short breaks market is becoming increasingly popular and important. Indeed, I have made use of short breaks myself over the past year or so, and the market brings people to Scotland at times outwith the typical holiday periods.

Although that progress is encouraging, I am prepared to state clearly that many uncertainties face us and that we will press on with the key strategic priorities that we have outlined on a number of occasions.

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

Although we should recognise that the figures for 2002 are good news, the minister has hinted that the situation is slightly patchy and our interpretation of the report is dependent on what members here in the chamber say about it. For example, Annabel Goldie gave us a very elegant but rather broad-brush description of the situation. Given that tourism is one of the few long-term viable industries in the Highlands, does the minister agree that the marketing of particular areas, such as the far north, is key if tourism is to be for all, and if the benefits that we have seen in 2002 are to be rolled out to those areas of Scotland that could use the money?

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Indeed. Although it is important to market Scotland as a whole, many areas within the country can be marketed on the strength of their unique attractions. The far north of Scotland—including Caithness and Sutherland, which I am sure Jamie Stone has particularly in mind—is part of that marketing strategy. The Highlands of Scotland Tourist Board markets the area very effectively. I am sure that its efforts will continue, and I recognise the benefits of such an approach.

I find it encouraging that many of the committee's recommendations in the report build on the priorities that the Executive has already established. For example, Annabel Goldie mentioned direct air access. The report makes important recommendations in that regard and we recognise the issue's strategic importance. That is why, in November 2002, the First Minister announced the interim route development fund, which amounts to £6.8 million.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the minister give way?

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Not at the moment.

The First Minister announced that fund specifically because we wish to increase the number of direct routes into Scotland and therefore the benefits of tourism. VisitScotland is working closely with the Executive on that issue and I expect that some announcements will soon be made on important new direct air links to Scotland.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I have a question on direct air links, which has already been raised in relation to Dalcross airport—or Inverness airport, as most of us call it. HIAL is fighting with its hands tied behind its back in its attempt to attract low-cost budget airlines to the airport. In that respect, will the minister directly address paragraphs 213 and 214 of the report?

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I notice the report's specific comments about the public-private partnership aspects of the matter, and I will be having discussions with Lewis Macdonald as the minister with responsibility for transport, and other colleagues in the enterprise and lifelong learning department, to find out what can be done about the situation. However, contracts have already been entered into, which might have implications that might or might not meet what the committee has sought on the matter. I recognise the importance of Inverness airport to tourism and to other aspects of life in the Highlands.

Business tourism is increasingly important in Scotland; I stressed that point when I addressed the Business Tourism Scotland conference last month in Glasgow. After all, business tourists spend one and a half times more than leisure tourists, and encouraging business tourism is a good way of spreading accommodation capacity in Scotland, particularly during the winter months. That is why VisitScotland will put more emphasis on business tourism in the coming year.

VisitScotland's marketing strategy—

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister give way?

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I will take one more intervention, but then I really must move on. I have only 12 minutes.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister assure us that business tourism will form an important part of the major events strategy?

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Yes, indeed. The major events strategy is about not just big sporting or cultural events, but major conferences, some of which are very major indeed. For example, a midwives conference that will be held in Glasgow in 2008 will attract something like 18,000 delegates. Of course, the exhibition market is also an important aspect of the strategy.

On marketing, I acknowledge the remarks that the committee, Annabel Goldie and Kenny MacAskill made about the BTA. We were consulted about the proposed new arrangements. I gave evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in the House of Commons and have seen its report. From our point of view, the most important matter is to ensure that the BTA structure works for Scotland and chimes with VisitScotland's marketing strategy.

That is why my officials will keep in close touch with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and VisitScotland with the BTA, to ensure that the new structure works for Scotland as it is put in place. We are determined that the new structure will result in stronger marketing of Scotland in key overseas markets—it is not as though we can somehow suddenly detach ourselves. The BTA spends about £5 million on marketing Scotland abroad. From VisitScotland's point of view, that is effective. I visited two of the offices and I saw the effort that the staff put into the job. If there is any change in that situation, I will be quick to deal with it, as will VisitScotland. People have to be a little more confident about the new structure and must wait and see how it settles in.

There is a question of utilising new technology in the tourism sector. I welcome the committee's support for the new website, visitscotland.com. I have been impressed by the solid start that has been made by the e-tourism booking service. The latest figures show that nearly £1 million-worth of new bookings has flowed to Scottish tourism businesses and to the new contact centre in Livingston since it was opened only last August. The most dramatic increase has been in the Edinburgh and Lothians Tourist Board area, where there has been a 20-fold increase. Other parts of the country have been good and, in fairness, some have not been so good. These are early days, but a considerable, solid foundation exists upon which to build.

The committee emphasised the importance of better product quality and better skills and training. I have mentioned that consistently in the period in which I have had responsibility for tourism. Just this week, I met Careers Scotland to discuss what it is doing and what it can do to ensure that young people in schools in Scotland are given every opportunity to pursue tourism and hospitality as a career, because there are many worth-while jobs in the sector.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

Will the minister give way?

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I am sorry; I must press on, or I will not get through all the points in my speech.

Much has been done by VisitScotland, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and other bodies such as Springboard Scotland, to ensure that training takes place and that those who are working in the sector keep their skills up to the mark so that they can maximise the quality of tourism for our visitors to Scotland. That is an important aspect.

Another of our strategic priorities is restructuring. I welcome the committee's recognition of the work done by VisitScotland. It is widely recognised that there is a new energy and direction in the work of VisitScotland and that has been an important factor in the recovery of tourism in Scotland since 2001.

I note from the report that the committee did not take direct evidence on the area tourist board review. However, the views that are expressed by the committee are helpful as we seek to finalise our thinking on that important issue.

The Executive received well over 300 responses to the consultation. Needless to say, there were many diverse views on the subject of the future of support for tourism. Many respondents commented on the important issue of funding, but not so many commented on the functions that will be needed in the future as we develop tourism in Scotland. Certain common themes emerged from the responses. One such theme was that, if tourism is to prosper, there needs to be much better integration between our tourism strategy, as developed and delivered nationally by VisitScotland, and the delivery of that strategy on the ground. I certainly concur with that.

In considering the responses, we started by examining the functions and not the structures and funding, important as those are. I am convinced that local businesses need to be involved in developing the overall Scottish tourism brand and the various products in it, so a key function of the new structure will be to engage those local tourism businesses in the delivery of the national tourism strategy. That links in to the response that I gave to Jamie Stone. Individual tourism businesses, wherever they are, need to understand what is being marketed nationally for Scotland, what the strategy can offer them and how they can build on it locally. That is a key method to ensure that Scottish tourism grows again.

Another key role, which was referred to in the committee's report, is that of major gateways—especially, although not exclusively, in Edinburgh and Glasgow. We want to maximise the gateway effect as well as the dispersal function, which is important to achieving a geographic spread of tourism throughout Scotland. For example, 75 per cent of visitors to the tourist information centre at Waverley station are not staying in Edinburgh; instead they are using the city as their base.

Those are the kind of issues that are important as we proceed. I am not saying that our tourism support structure must not do anything other than the functions that I have described. However, if it cannot achieve them, it will not operate effectively in support of the national priorities now and in the future.

I am aware that there is a degree of anticipation in the sector over what the outcome of the area tourist board review will be. Naturally, we have taken some time to reach conclusions and have given a great deal of thought to the proposed new model. We are now close to final decisions on the outcome of the review. However, after very careful reflection, including discussions with officials, Cabinet colleagues and VisitScotland, I have concluded that it would not be appropriate to announce any decision prior to the dissolution of Parliament. Given the vital contribution of the tourism sector to the Scottish economy, a new structure for tourism in Scotland deserves to be received and evaluated outwith the glare of an election campaign, where it could become the subject of political point scoring. So the new structure will be finalised, but an announcement will be made as soon as possible after the new Parliament has convened. I believe that that is the right time to make a statement on such an important matter.

Our aim is to have a structure that is flexible and fit for purpose as international markets change. All the indications are that international tourism will continue to expand in the long term, and we want to be able to take full advantage of that and get tourism in Scotland growing strongly again. The committee's report will be of considerable assistance in doing that, and once again I compliment the committee's members and its support staff on a thorough job well done.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

There is a lot of good news in the Scottish tourism industry, but we should not be fooled by the figures for 2002. The 2002 figures simply look good because 2001 was such a disaster, and there are long-term structural problems that need to be addressed.

It is fair to say that we welcome the report, particularly because we recognise that tourism is our biggest industry and that its wants and needs are often ignored. That is perhaps part of a cultural hang-up that afflicts our country in recruiting staff and in other aspects of the industry. Scotland and the Scots must recognise that service is not servility and that tourism is not incompatible with a strong manufacturing base. Many small and large European nations see that as something that is complementary, and perhaps the classic embodiment of that view is the state of California, which has a modern, go-ahead manufacturing economy and which also ensures that its tourism is a high-quality product.

The industry must be welcomed for its worth and benefit, and its denigration, in all sections of our society, must cease. Collectively—I mean nationally, rather than from a specific political position—we must stop lecturing and start listening to the industry. We must stop complaining and start delivering and we must stop going on about the bad aspects and start praising the good aspects. There are problems in tourism in Scotland, but the good sectors are far better than those that are failing to deliver, and there is service in California that is just as bad as that in some areas of Scotland.

Fundamentally, the debate is about the role of VisitScotland. The fundamental role of VisitScotland must be about selling Scotland. If it will not sell Scotland, who else will? At the end of the day, VisitScotland's duty is to ensure not that it sells the product of an individual hotelier or restaurateur but that it engenders the whole concept of coming to Scotland. The individual operator will sell the specific product, but the requirement for VisitScotland is to sell an interest in coming to our country. VisitScotland must be moved away from being a regulatory body and a tourist police force to being a marketing force for Scotland. There are more than enough bodies addressing a plethora of regulation. We do not require VisitScotland to come in with additional bureaucracy on top of that. It must focus on selling Scotland abroad, just as Tourism Ireland is focused on selling Ireland.

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I find those remarks surprising. Surely the quality of tourism in Scotland must be regulated in some way, so that people know when they walk through the door what standards they can expect of the hotel, restaurant or whatever. Surely that is part of VisitScotland's role, notwithstanding the fact that other bodies will do it as well. Regulation is a central part of developing tourism in Scotland. It is about quality.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Those matters are dealt with by local authorities. We have environmental health departments and an array of other bodies to deal with those matters. We should compare how Scotland and VisitScotland punch in comparison with Ireland and Tourism Ireland. Tourism Ireland sells Ireland rather than running round policing Ireland. It ensures that it delivers quality. The quality in Ireland is no better than in Scotland, but Tourism Ireland outperforms VisitScotland considerably. We must move on and accept that.

There are important matters to mention in relation to the report, such as the necessity of the industry playing a leading role. That is something that should have been viewed as common sense. If it has not been dealt with, it must be. The best folk to advise and deal with the industry are clearly those who work in it. We must take on board the benefits of such an approach.

We support direct air services. I want to talk about two matters in particular in that respect—BAA and HIAL. My colleague Margaret Ewing will speak at length about HIAL—what is happening with the company is a scandal and the Executive and the First Minister cannot shirk responsibility. We are talking about the First Minister's airport—he is the sole shareholder. Everybody now acknowledges the problems with PFIs. There is more than one way to address the matter, but it must be addressed.

On direct routes, we support the growth of a route development fund, but we are rather surprised that its purpose should be to lower landing charges. That seems to me to go against the interests of marketing direct routes. We are in danger of subsidising an airport operator that has a monopoly and imposes landing charges that are outrageous in comparison with the charges at airports south of the border, never mind competitor airports elsewhere. Why should we keep that operator in the standard of living to which it has become accustomed? Mr Donald Dowds, who is the chief executive of BAA, does not like the committee's report. If that is the case, perhaps he should consider whether his position as a VisitScotland board member is compatible with proposals to open up and pursue direct services. If he cannot deliver, he should not remain on VisitScotland's board. BAA has failed Scotland and that matter requires to be addressed.

The position of the BTA must be addressed, too. We do not see a requirement for VisitScotland to have a plethora of offices. We recognise that VisitScotland, as the national marketing body for Scotland, has the best people to sell Scotland. It is absurd to suggest that Scotland can be sold better by the BTA when the BTA is trying to sell an entirely different concept. As others have suggested, if that were true, Tourism Ireland would be lining up to be taken aboard and brought into the bosom of the BTA. No doubt the Portuguese also would seek to be sucked into the benefits that are provided by the Spanish tourism authority. Nobody with a different product seeks to hand it over to their competitors.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am sorry, but I am approaching my final minute.

The situation is unacceptable and must be changed—it simply cannot continue. VisitScotland should decide where it wishes to market. I do not believe that the benefits of using the BTA offices are shown in any statistical information. We should also bear in mind who sits on the BTA's board, in the main. The BTA exists to fly people in on British Airways to a BAA airport down in London and thereafter disperse people north. If people are happy to go beyond York to Edinburgh, we may benefit, but the prospect of their going north of Edinburgh—even beyond the Trossachs—is rare.

On the area tourist boards, it is simply unacceptable for the minister to say that he has kicked the review into the long grass and that a decision will be taken some time after the election. As in other aspects of Scottish society, the Executive is compounding study by consultancy and reviewing us to death.

I have a time line. In February 2000, a new strategy for tourism was launched by the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning—I think that it was Henry McLeish. The decision to launch that strategy was correct. In October 2000, the PricewaterhouseCoopers report was published. In November 2001, Wendy Alexander announced an area tourist board review at the "Scotland united" tourism conference. In May 2002, the ATB review commenced. In September 2002, the consultation period for the review closed. In December 2002, Mike Watson announced at the "Scotland united" tourism conference in Crieff that he hoped to make an announcement on the ATB review early in the new year.

Today is 13 February and we have been told that, despite the launch of a new strategy in February 2000 and the fact that we have gone through three ministers, no decision will be made until after the election. That is simply unacceptable. There is unity in the industry on what needs to be done. We need a decision, not a minister who is afraid of deciding and is again postponing, studying and consulting us unto death. He is presiding over the death throes of businesses because he will not decide.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will start on a warmer note than that on which Kenny MacAskill finished. I praise the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and its members, clerks and adviser on the work that they have done. I sympathise tremendously with them over the efforts that they made to go to sunny lands, warm lands and cold lands to find out what tourism is like abroad. I know that that was a hard part of their working year.

I might as well mention another bit of good news. I was delighted to hear today that the tourism expo will move to the north-east this year. I am sure that the industry will be made welcome there. That is a boost for the north-east and the role that it plays in the tourism business.

The key point that I took from the report was the importance of a leading role for the industry. I think that we all knew how important it is that the industry play a leading role, and it was long overdue for that to be stated firmly in a Parliament document. Without the industry's involvement, there will be no future for the industry. If we expect businesses to take an entrepreneurial approach, we cannot enforce on them a regimen that is set down by the centre. It is important that alliances are made. The minister mentioned alliances when he talked about the BTA, and I will come back to that point.

We must ensure that all levels of the industry—including support systems, communications and so on—and all its varied sectors, whether large or small, are involved in the process. Either that involvement must be on a consultative basis or, in particular in VisitScotland, all levels and sectors must be represented as part of the management. Without that connection, VisitScotland is not the exchange and interchange between the industry and the world outside that it must be. I know that work is being done on that aspect in the restructuring, but much more must be done.

Another issue is the amount of money that is being spent on tourism around the world. We do not spend a lot. I will not use the Irish model as an example, because that might cause problems for certain people. However, it is important to recognise that in many parts of the world the money that is spent on tourism comes from businesses putting their hands in their pockets and looking to the state to provide other things. Here, we have an unusual tourism industry, in that a mixture of the public and private sector delivers the product and the taxpayer puts in support. It is important that the Parliament ensures, on behalf of the taxpayer, that the money that is spent is focused meaningfully, in a way that is of use to the industry.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

David Davidson mentioned the democratic scrutiny of money that supports the industry. In an alarming development, the Government has taken a decision on the future of the ATB structure but does not want the election and democratic scrutiny to get in its way. Will Mr Davidson comment on that, or at least consult his colleagues on it? What is the Conservatives' position on that development? The election and democratic scrutiny are being viewed as bad and troubling things, but surely we should hear now the Government's plans for the future of the ATB structure. Will the Conservatives back the SNP in calling for a decision now rather than after the election?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I was about to make exactly that comment about the Parliament's role in the review process. I find it insulting that the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport can come to the Parliament and say that the Executive has made a decision but is not going to tell the Parliament. The minister is talking about a vital industry for Scotland. The industry, which is Scotland's largest, has great potential. It has the largest employment base—far greater than whisky and oil and gas put together. We are not getting an answer. That is a great disappointment to all those who are involved in the industry. Many people are waiting to see what direction the Government might go in and what decision will be made, because after the decision has been made, we will have to reconsider how we structure support for tourism in general.

My colleague, David Mundell, was particularly concerned—I would not say upset—about one point. He was pushing for recommendation 361 in the committee report on how the enterprise agencies are tuned in to working to the common agenda. On that point, I wrote to the minister recently about a problem with the teaching company scheme for industry placements for postgraduate students. I found out from a constituent that one of the students worked up a programme but was told that tourism is not covered by the scheme as it is not business. We must address that lack of joined-up thinking.

I look forward to the minister responding to that point; perhaps he has not had time to respond to my letter on the matter. I asked for a meeting, and perhaps that will come. We need to sort out the joined-up issues, because Government cannot operate in isolation. I hope that the minister will give a better response in his winding-up speech on why the decision on the ATBs will not be announced today.

We must get people into the country—that is the job of national and international marketing—but we also need a proper dispersal programme to get visitors away from the hot spots and gateways. Tourists must be dispersed, not only throughout the central belt, but to the Borders, the Highlands and the north-east. The Executive has a role in that—it must help to produce an integrated transport system with through-ticketing and to tackle the direct flight issue. Local government also has a role.

Credit must go to BAA for its £60 million investment through the international route development fund. The issue is how the money can be applied to fit the processes that are ahead of us.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Is the member aware that BAA proposes to increase landing charges, which will mean that people from Scotland who fly to London will have the privilege of paying for the construction of Heathrow terminal 5, which will cost £3.8 billion? Is the member aware that whatever BAA has put into the route development fund will be offset by what we will have to pay and that those payments towards Heathrow terminal 5 will help to ensure that we always have to fly into Heathrow?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

That goes back to the point that I made about the Executive's role as a facilitator in the discussions that must take place with the industry, carriers and other transport operators.

The report does not go far into VisitScotland's role. That body must focus more on international marketing and research. I agree with the minister that we must develop a national quality assurance standard so that people from abroad can see what they will get. I agree with Mr MacAskill that we do not want a police force, but we must support and encourage skills training and development.

Tourist information centres—TICs—have not been mentioned. I believe that the report could have gone further on the issue of modernising TICs through the use of touch-screens and other measures. If touch-screens are set up abroad, will VisitScotland run them or, if they are run in Scotland, will the ATBs run them? We will not know about that until we have an answer on the ATBs.

I would like a thrust in the direction of making membership of ATBs or quality assurance schemes compulsory for those in the industry. Such a measure is long overdue and could be a major factor in raising the quality of the product.

The report shows that we need better responses from the minister and better co-ordination. We also need more action on the ground between the industry and the support bodies for which the minister is responsible. The minister cannot walk away and say that he will be in one place making decisions while the industry is out there struggling. There must be better co-ordination between the two.

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I gave you brief notice of this point of order, which arises from the remarks that Lord Watson made in the closing part of his speech. He said that a decision has been made on the future of area tourist boards. We have waited for that decision for a long time and it will affect the lives of many people who work for the boards. However, the minister said that, although the decision has been made, it will not be announced until after the impending general election.

Surely people—not least those who will be affected—are entitled to know what the decision is. Under standing order 13, it is up to the Executive to initiate a ministerial statement, but are not there circumstances in which the Parliament and the public may appropriately expect a ministerial statement to be made? Will you invite the minister to reflect on whether that option should be pursued as soon as possible?

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Further to that point, Presiding Officer—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will rule on the point of order, Mr Watson, although you may make your own point.

I am grateful to Mr Ewing for giving me notice of his intention to raise the matter. In effect, he answered his point of order when he said that it is for ministers to decide when a ministerial statement is due. I do not believe that anything in the standing orders entitles me to instruct the minister to issue a statement. Whether a statement is merited and whether a decision has been made and should be announced are essentially political matters and, as such, they are matters for proper political debate, not the subject of the standing orders.

That is my immediate reaction, but I will reflect further on the point of order in case I have overlooked anything in the standing order in question. Does the minister wish to make a point of order?

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I do. I will provide some clarification, because, in their anxiety, Scottish National Party members have not listened to what I said. I will quote two important passages on the issue from my speech:

"We are now close to final decisions on the outcome of the review."

All right?

"So the new structure will be finalised"—

I point out to Mr Wilson that I said "will be finalised"—

"but an announcement will be made as soon as possible after the new Parliament has convened."

I hope that that is clear.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Further to Mr Ewing's point of order, it is clear from rule 13.2 of the standing orders, which deals with ministerial statements, that the chair has discretion to respond to a request from the Executive to make a statement. It is not for the chair to prescribe or to instruct.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I beg your pardon, but the issue is of grave democratic importance, because the minister—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Yes, but that is a political matter, Mr Wilson, not a matter for the standing orders.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The minister is already on the record as having said that there would be an announcement early in the new year. Now we are told that there will be no announcement. Did the minister know when he said that there would be an announcement early in the new year that he was misleading Parliament, or is this another example of the Government running roughshod over democracy and playing fast and loose with what should be a democratic chamber?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Mr Wilson, that is not a point of order.

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

It was not—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Order. The matter is one for political debate, as we can see. Members should refer to the issue in their speeches. It is not a matter for a ruling. The standing orders are clear. If members wish to make political points about the matter, they should do so in their own time. The exchanges have already impacted severely on the time that is available for back-bench speeches and I will have to express regrets to various individuals later in the day.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

It is unfortunate that the committee debate will now be overshadowed by the spat over the decision. Of course the matter is important, but to raise it in such a way is unfortunate. Members can make such points in speeches. I wish that they would.

I am hugely grateful to Annabel Goldie for her introduction. I am sure that Gordon Jackson, Alex Neil and I are particularly grateful for her recollections of our foreign jaunts. I associate myself particularly with her remarks on the work that so many people—our clerks and advisers, as well as committee colleagues across the spectrum—put into the inquiry.

That is why Kenny MacAskill's speech was so disappointing—SNP committee members engaged constructively in a good report and it is unfortunate that Kenny MacAskill did not talk to his party colleagues about the way in which the inquiry was carried out. His speech reminded me of days of yore, when Sarah Boyack had to deal elegantly with debates on transport and we used to hear rants of the same order.

The committee sought to answer three fundamental questions with the recommendations that are in the body of the report. How do we bring more visitors to Scotland? How do we help visitors to travel to and around Scotland? How can the Government and the other relevant bodies enhance the business environment for tourism operators?

I will deal first with the "more visitors" theme, on which the committee sought to examine the BTA's role. I share the view of many members that the BTA is a positive force for Scottish tourism. That came out clearly not only in the case studies that Annabel Goldie mentioned, but in the evidence that the BTA gave to the committee.

There have been some concerns about the way in which changes took place—I know that other members are interested in that point. It struck me that Westminster's Culture, Media and Sport Committee has been more vigorous on the point than we have.

The answer to the problem lies in paragraph 19 of the committee's report, in which the recommendation is to

"set specific targets for BTA in attracting tourists to Scotland".

The minister referred to that in his remarks. It is entirely right. Scotland must vigorously ensure through the agencies that are under our responsibility that the BTA delivers for us, however the service-level agreement is described.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Does Tavish Scott—unlike Mr MacAskill—agree that there is a real opportunity for Scotland to be a bit mercenary, if nothing else, in our relationship with the BTA? We could piggyback on the infrastructure and expertise of the BTA and gain the best advantage from it, adding value through its activities.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I share Brian Fitzpatrick's view. There is indeed an opportunity—that is how we should look at it—to achieve a lot more than was achieved in the past. That is the focus that the committee is encouraging the Government to take.

The minister and others have spoken about the fact that more visitors are coming through business tourism. That struck the committee, too—I refer in particular to the evidence that Rhona Brankin, Adam Ingram and I took. Business tourism presents a huge opportunity. The minister mentioned the 18,000 midwives who will come to Scotland in 2008—that strikes me as a good year in which to have a baby. [Interruption.] I am not going there. Business tourism is an important development for Scotland. The sector is growing; it already accounts for 25 per cent of Scottish tourism spend. For VisitScotland, the average return on the leisure market is about £12 for every £1 of spend; the average return on business tourism in Glasgow is £110 for every £1 of spend. There are significant advantages to be gained in the business market. The committee report's recommendations, particularly at paragraph 27, are important in that regard.

A number of bodies are undertaking much proactive work on the subject of travelling to and around Scotland. Given what has been said, it is only fair to quote from the letter that all members received from BAA Scotland in the past week. I was pleased that Annabel Goldie mentioned that the committee would be returning to the matter, as there is more work to be done, and not just by us—there are also important matters for Westminster. BAA's letter says:

"BAA's best financial interests, and those we believe of the travelling public, are best served by promoting more direct international services".

That strikes me as an important sentence. We should look to the opportunity there. On the next page of its letter, BAA points out all the destinations to which Scottish travellers can now fly directly and adds:

"New routes to begin later this year include Barcelona, Cologne and Prague".

It strikes me that that should be encouraged and enhanced, rather than denigrated.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does Tavish Scott agree that it would be of advantage to the business community and to everyone in Scotland if BAA were out the road? BAA has a monopoly, the effect of which is that the landing charges at its Scottish airports are on average 50 times higher than those at its London airports?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I refer Mr Paterson to what I have just read out:

"BAA's best financial interests, and those we believe of the travelling public, are best served by promoting more direct international services".

Another important recommendation, to be found at paragraph 189 and thereafter, is on attracting visitors and relates to internal transport. We recommend an evaluation of public service obligations, a subject that is close to my heart. I acknowledge that the minister has picked up on that point, but I draw to his and the Parliament's attention what a travel company told me the other week in a letter. The company takes Americans—a very important market—on a bonnie Scotland tour, spending 13 days and 12 nights in Scotland at a cost to the individual American of $3,645. The tour includes two nights in Stirling, two nights in Kyle of Lochalsh, two nights in Inverness, a night in Kirkwall, two nights in Lerwick and back home via Edinburgh. The constraint for that travel company is the internal cost of flying around Scotland. That is why I commend in particular the committee's recommendation on public service obligations, which I hope the minister will consider in consultation with his colleagues.

The minister referred to the foot-and-mouth outbreak and the events in New York in 2001. As colleagues have said, contingency planning is vital, especially given the international situation and the importance of the American market to Scotland. There is a natural tendency to concentrate on the domestic market, given that it accounts for 90 per cent of the visitors to Scotland. However, the USA spend of £201 million in 2001 is significant. I encourage the minister to be proactive with the appropriate agencies on that issue.

I commend the report to Parliament and encourage colleagues to contribute to a lively debate that is important to the future of the Scottish economy.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I advise members that business must end at 1 o'clock, which will restrict the number of speakers whom I am able to call.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I echo the words of Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott in thanking the clerk to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, the committee's adviser, those who attended meetings of the committee, committee staff and those who took the time to give evidence. The committee has provided people with a real opportunity to get into the entrails of the tourism industry—to find out exactly what is happening and whether the auguries are auspicious.

I thank the committee convener, from whom I hope we will hear at some stage. Obviously there are issues on which we could or should split. It pains me to say this, but—compared with the rant that we have heard today from the nationalist front bench, especially from Mr MacAskill—Alex Neil is often a still small voice of calm. Yesterday, we were told that we should be prepared to have a national consensus, but when Kenny MacAskill came into the chamber today the mask slipped. We might have been more impressed if Mr MacAskill had made a submission to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, of which he is no longer a member. There was a problem with his attendance record at committee meetings, but we are pleased to see that he is present for today's debate.

Tourism should not be allowed to become the subject of party-political spats. It is one of our largest and fastest-growing industries. It generates £4 billion annually and employs 8 per cent of the work force—more than the oil, gas and whisky industries combined. It is crucial to our economic and cultural well-being and will be of growing importance to the economy. We must all bear in mind the labour intensiveness of the industry and its purpose and function as a creator of wealth and jobs. We have great assets—culturally, in our cities, in our people, in our scenery, in our history and in our welcome. We must ensure that we get best value out of those for the industry throughout Scotland.

As has been mentioned, a companion exercise to our inquiry was undertaken by the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which scrutinises the work of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Its inquiry, like ours, was spurred on by the effects on tourism both of foot-and-mouth disease and of the events of 11 September 2001. The committee's report was published on 4 February and it is interesting to compare it with the report of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. Both inquiries were conducted independently, but they have reached substantially the same conclusions on a number of key points. I take some pleasure from that, as it shows that we are probably travelling along the right rail tracks.

In our report, we probably did not quite capture the diversity of businesses in the tourism industry. We need to discuss more broadly what tourism is. Is it a discrete, distinct business, or is it an amalgam of businesses? We also need to consider the diversity of our visitors—why they come, how they come and what they come for—and the diversity of places in Scotland. It is hard to distil those issues into the text of a committee report, but members did their best to capture the flavour of what is available in Scotland.

As I mentioned, the report covers the impact of foot-and-mouth disease and 11 September. We do not have time for victory laps, but we concluded that Government action had helped the industry to deal with those crises. Although nothing good could have come from either of them, it is clear that they raised the profile of tourism in the Government, in the media and across the country. A spotlight was shone on structural problems in the support for tourism. The challenges of recovery must be met and the report contains some recommendations for doing so.

In the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's report, it is accepted that there was unsatisfactory consultation on the merger of the BTA and the English Tourism Council. SNP members should read what a number of members of the Westminster committee said about the consultation that took place on the issue. They should also read what the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport said to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. If, for a moment, we can get out of the trenches and seek solutions, we will do the industry the kind of service that it deserves from the Parliament.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

As a member of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I support the report's key recommendations. I acknowledge the need to further develop and strengthen the tourism industry. Naturally, the committee tended to focus on tourism matters that are within the remit of the Scottish Parliament, but it would be idle to pretend that reserved issues are not of vital interest to the future of the Scottish tourism industry. Westminster controls the exchange rate policy and a whole swathe of fiscal policy from fuel tax to air passenger duty to VAT. At their current levels, those all have a major impact in putting up the price of the Scottish tourism product and in reducing the competitiveness of our industry in the international marketplace.

Action to cut VAT on hotel accommodation is long overdue. All the research shows that, in a highly prized, sensitive industry such as tourism, there is a clear negative correlation between high VAT and consumer demand. With VAT on hotel accommodation more than double the European Union average of 8 per cent, the UK is the odd man out in Europe. If the Scottish Parliament had the powers, it could follow the Irish example. Cuts in VAT that were introduced in the late 1980s, together with other initiatives, quadrupled tourism revenues in Ireland.

Perhaps the most impressive part of the report is the internal research that was conducted by Stevens and Associates, which identifies lessons to be learned from comparable competitor countries that are performing much better than Scotland. The clear message from that research is that strategic intervention and leadership on the part of the Government combined with a fully engaged private sector are critical for success. I suggest that we still have a long way to go in that respect.

For example, our Burns heritage is a key part of Scotland's brand image. A year or two ago, Allan Wilson suggested that Burns promotion was to be a major focus for Executive action. I assume that he was not talking about putting up statues. However, I have seen little or no action apart from the setting up of a small-scale Burns festival in Ayrshire. In the meantime, the Burns museum and visitor centre project in Alloway is being endlessly delayed as funding applications grind through the system and the definitive collection of Burns artefacts deteriorates for want of appropriate accommodation. There is not much evidence of joined-up working within the Executive in that instance.

Still wearing my Ayrshire hat, I emphasise the importance of developing direct air links to provide easy access to Scotland for international visitors and I highlight the continuing success of Prestwick airport in attracting low-cost operators to do that. I trust that the Executive and its agencies will not stint in offering any support that is required to build on that success.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the committee's report. As an economist, I was drawn to specific figures in paragraph 58 of the report. I was alarmed at the reduction in tourism in Scotland between 1997 and 2001. The minister talked about the situation in 2002—perhaps the figures have improved, but I can judge only by what is in the report.

In 1997, there were 23.3 million trips to Scotland; in 2001, there were only 19.1 million. In 1997, there were 97.3 million nights' accommodation in Scotland; in 2001, there were only 78.2 million. In 1997, tourism expenditure in Scotland was around £5 billion; in 2001, it was down to around £4 billion. This week, the Scottish Tourism Forum's manifesto confirmed that there was a decline of 24 per cent in the number of overseas visitors to Scotland between 1997 and 2001, along with a 21 per cent loss of spend in that period. I am, therefore, delighted to speak in the debate, as I think that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report has come not a moment too soon.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

The committee acknowledged the challenges, but we also have to acknowledge the good things that are going on. In the past four years, Greater Glasgow and Clyde Valley Tourist Board has increased its annual convention sales by more than 200 per cent. We must acknowledge the good things that are going on and consider how we can encourage and support them. I hope that Mary Scanlon will agree with me on that.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Yes, I certainly welcome any increase. However, Mr Fitzpatrick's statistic emphasises the problem—if business tourism in Glasgow is going up by 200 per cent while the overall decline in Scotland is 24 per cent, we must ask what is happening in constituencies such as Jamie Stone's and elsewhere. If the average reduction is 24 per cent but there is a 200 per cent increase in Glasgow, there are serious problems outwith Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Paragraph 104 of the report says of Estonia and Slovenia:

"Both countries saw an increase of around 25% in 2000 compared to the previous year."

It continues:

"Scotland on the other hand, experienced the largest decline in ITAs"—

international tourist arrivals—

"of 11% in 2000".

We certainly need to work together to do something about that.

An issue that is guaranteed to infuriate people living in the Highlands is extortionate air fares, particularly those for going to the Highlands. Things have improved in recent years, but when airlines advertise seats at £29, for example, they do not always tell people that the price applies only to a few seats, which must be booked months in advance. I note that the committee report states that low-cost airlines have

"created a new dynamism within tourism."

I acknowledge what members have said about PSOs, particularly the PSO that safeguards the air link from Inverness to London. Given that tourism contributes to more than 11 per cent of employment in the Highlands, the recommendation that the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning should aid HIAL is fitting.

I have prepared so much but I do not have enough time.

There was great enthusiasm for doing business with Ryanair because all its seats are cheap and the airline would give people in the Highlands the same access to cheap flights as is available to people in cities elsewhere in Scotland.

I will leave the issue of HIAL just now by saying that the problem always was that HIAL cried for more subsidies. However, I bring to the minister's attention a farmer in Orkney called Andrew Banks, who bought a second-hand Caledonian MacBrayne ferry, built two piers, offered cheaper trips to and from Orkney and, as a result, increased tourism enormously there and gave local people the opportunity to visit the mainland at a reasonable price. That example shows the difference between public organisations waiting for more subsidies before doing anything and a true entrepreneur working to benefit his business and his community of Orkney and the Highlands. The difference could not be starker.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I congratulate the members and the clerks of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee on the report. I am particularly pleased that the committee took the opportunity to get out and about. The committee visited Shetland—I hope that that visit was as enjoyable as the visit to California was. I am sure that the Shetlanders were delighted to host the committee and to make their views known. I have never visited California, but I have often been to Shetland and I am always delighted to be there.

I am pleased that the committee recommended re-examining the PFI contract for Inverness airport, which inhibits the development of budget routes. I ask the minister to explore that matter seriously, although I realise, as the SNP obviously does not, that contracts cannot be changed just by waving a magic wand at them. However, attracting new direct air services to the Highlands and Islands is one of the keys to the development of tourism. The air industry has experienced turbulence lately, but there is still an appetite for flying. However, the downturn in transatlantic travel is well documented and the current international situation will not improve matters.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Maureen Macmillan referred to direct links. Does she realise that, since easyJet started its service from Inverness to Gatwick on 5 February, it has carried 1,000 passengers? The difficulty with the PFI is that other airlines that would be interested in coming to Inverness cannot negotiate appropriate terms.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Yes, I realise that, which is why I asked the minister to consider seriously whether the contract could be changed. However, as I said, a contract cannot be changed just by waving a magic wand at it.

For the Highlands and Islands, the Inverness to Gatwick link is key. In our submission to the consultation exercise on air transport, Rhoda Grant, Peter Peacock and I made the case for retaining the link and asked for the imposition of a PSO. I hope that ministers at Westminster will give the matter full consideration. I know that the Scottish Executive backs us. Moreover, as Margaret Ewing said, we must be able to persuade budget airlines to operate out of Inverness as frequently and on as many routes as possible.

In all the debates on tourism, the same issues seem to crop up. At yesterday's meeting of the cross-party group on tourism, the Scottish Tourism Forum expressed concerns that there is not enough profit in the industry to fund training, which, in turn, affects the quality of service that can be provided—small profit margins mean that quality is cut and that refurbishment is put off for later years. The Scottish Tourism Forum would like VAT on tourism businesses to be reduced. Perhaps the minister could raise that issue with Westminster colleagues.

Some of the most effective marketing is done by word of mouth. The converse of that is that, if people have a bad experience, they will pass that information on to friends and family. Quality, therefore, has to be improved and I hope that the Executive will seriously consider compulsory registration on licensing. Although education and training is one way of driving up standards, we might be getting to the point at which compulsory registration is the only way in which to ensure a step change in quality and standards so that Scotland does not lag behind other areas. The Scottish Tourism Forum would like a common quality standard across Scotland and the UK.

The report makes important recommendations with regard to the Executive's strategy and targets. Evaluating the effectiveness of VisitScotland's marketing is important and I know that the Highlands of Scotland Tourist Board is keen that there should be greater integration of marketing between it and VisitScotland. Marketing makes a difference and I am confident that VisitScotland is focusing on the right targets, such as ancestral Scotland.

With the current international climate, there is a critical need to encourage the English, Welsh and Irish to holiday in Scotland and Scots to holiday at home. I know that VisitScotland has turned its attention to the matter.

We must capitalise on Scotland's assets and recognise the importance of the tourism industry to Scotland. Communities that are dependent on the industry for income need to view tourism more as a community activity than as something that is of interest only to individual businesses. There should be more community-based TICs.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I have to hurry you.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I have great optimism for the future of tourism in Scotland and I am sure that it will be an important factor for many years to come.

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

I am pleased to be taking part in a debate on tourism. There is no doubt that tourism in all its forms is a major part of the Scottish economy. That was clearly demonstrated by the critical decline in visitor numbers into the UK, particularly Scotland, which was aggravated by the events of 11 September 2001 and by the restrictions imposed throughout much of the country in the attempt to control the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. Many tourism businesses and those related to them struggled to survive at that time; only by their hard work, determination and willingness to adapt to the changing circumstances were they able to continue in business.

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

Does John Farquhar Munro agree that one problem for businesses in the Highlands, particularly in Inverness, is the burden that is placed on them by high business rates? The Forum of Private Business argues that rateable values of hotel premises are higher in Scotland than they are in England. Does the member agree that that serious burden must be addressed?

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

I agree that the rates burden is a significant element of the problem. I am glad that the report suggests that the rates burden could be reduced considerably. I am sure that that would be good news.

As I was saying, and as others have said this morning, Scotland has a unique experience to offer, which could and should be promoted on the world stage. Much has been done but more needs to be done to ensure that we have a vibrant and viable tourism industry, which is essential—I do not think that anyone would argue with that.

I accept that the BTA continues to promote the UK as a tourist destination. However, we have our own agency in VisitScotland, which has been tasked with attracting visitors to Scotland. It must be given the support and resources to promote Scotland not only in the United Kingdom and Europe, but worldwide. VisitScotland has the relevant experience and capability and, in my opinion, is best suited to undertake that function on our behalf. It should not be under the direct control of the BTA.

The BTA and travel agents must be made aware that Scotland has its own identity on the world map. We have excellent airport facilities, which can be accessed from all major international airports. Visitors to Scotland do not have to be directed through London Heathrow, as tends to happen currently. I have talked before about all the difficulties that that creates for increasing the number of visitors to Scotland. Our peripheral airports are capable of accepting increased traffic, so let us promote that.

As we develop all sections of our tourism industry, let us make sure that our tourists enjoy their visits and that their experience of Scotland is unique. That is how we should promote our industry. We should extend an invitation and welcome to the world at large and say that Scotland is now the place to visit.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

Any strategy to improve our tourism industry will have to operate on at least two levels. We have to improve the product and to take a hard look at, for example, quality control and the proper development of skills. I am not entirely sure that the committee got to grips with that properly.

We must also be clear about how we market Scotland as the product—it was in that context that Alex Neil and I made the much talked about visit to California. I say right away that that visit was tough. We learnt a great deal from visiting the British Tourist Authority and other marketing agencies that Scotland has out there and we were also able to consider some set-ups that market California's local facilities in the United States and internationally. We did that in Pasadena, we saw the Californian state set-up in Sacramento and we were able to go to the San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau. Those operations were all different but they were all there to market either a city or the state of California. It is fair to say that we were impressed on each occasion. Even making allowances for the the-grass-is-always-greener syndrome, we felt that there was something to learn from each of the operations that we considered.

Alex Neil and I often disagree, but today Annabel Goldie moved a motion in Alex Neil's name and if that is the sort of day we are having, Alex Neil and I can agree about one thing that stood out from the trip. We might disagree about the role of the private sector in some contexts, but we agreed totally that the main lesson from each visit was the pivotal role of the private sector and industry. That has been mentioned by David Davidson and other speakers and it appears at the beginning of our key recommendations on the first page of the report—that is how important the committee thought the issue was.

The importance of the private sector was reflected in the structures of the local organisations, which were designed to maximise the ideal of working together; it was interesting to see how that is done. The structure of the California state operation in Sacramento is innovative and demands a much longer discussion than we have time for now, but the success of the operation was not just about its structure, but about attitudes. That applies equally to the industry and the Government.

What we saw was a real sense of partnership and shared common interest and purpose. Indeed, the overwhelming impression was not only that the private sector is truly and genuinely involved, but that it is actually driving the process. We got the impression that that partnership and emphasis is vital. I know that that is understood here. Not only is Peter Lederer chairman of VisitScotland, he is a major figure in the industry. I looked again at his evidence and he understood clearly that the partnership must work properly and is committed to that. I also got the clear impression that he accepts that there have been weaknesses. I could read what he said. I do not really have time—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Do not.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

He said:

"The industry must speak with fewer voices and pull together".—[Official Report, Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 11 December 2002; c 3011.]

He was prepared to be critical of his own industry, but there are two sides to that, and I would perhaps be more balanced than he was. The industry might not be properly engaging with its problems but, on the other hand, it is important that Government agencies do not just consult the industry; rather, they must include it properly as a main driving force in the process. It is not just about changing the structure—we must ensure that expertise and commitment are properly harnessed.

The industry must be involved in marketing not only its own hotels and businesses, but in marketing Scotland, because the two are not mutually exclusive. The Government must put in place structures—the committee recommended this—that will ensure that the industry is brought into the process. Alex Neil and I tried to emphasise commonality of interest following our visit.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

Tourism is a key contributor to the Scottish economy, Deputy Speaker—I am sorry; old habits die hard. I meant to say "Deputy Presiding Officer". Despite an increasing budget for VisitScotland, Scottish tourism has declined in terms of visitor numbers and revenue since 1997. Given the industry's significance to the Scottish economy, that is clearly a worrying trend.

I congratulate the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee on addressing those problems and I welcome the recommendations on setting targets for attracting international and domestic tourists, attracting new direct air services and improving business tourism. Although those form a basis for progress, a great deal more will be needed to develop the cutting-edge tourism policy that is required to turn round the fortunes of this sleeping giant of an industry.

We must, in building for the future, fully utilise the latest technology. An estimated 9.3 per cent of the world's population are currently online, and online travel is one of the fastest growing areas of the travel industry. Over the past 12 months, nearly 30 per cent of UK internet users have gone online to access travel routes. In addition, 94 per cent of Ryanair ticket sales are made on the internet and easyJet makes about half of its bookings via the internet. Indeed, online travel sales are predicted to reach a total of $29 billion by 2003.

Scotland must be in there as a major player. How will the Government ensure that Scottish small and medium-sized enterprises are not simply squeezed out by major conglomerates and tour operators? How will e-tourism allow native Scots businesses to build up individual tourism enterprises and locally based projects, such as Pictavia in Angus, Seafest in Arbroath and other initiatives? Scotland must be in there as a major player.

I ask the minister to address those points today, and also to address the issue of how technology can overcome the massive language skills deficit in the Scottish hotel industry. One survey showed that 97 per cent of hotel staff could not answer a question in French or German. Such basic language skills are an essential part of a welcoming and helpful approach. That issue was ducked by the minister in his opening speech, but it must be addressed.

I am happy to note that already, some e-commerce initiatives are solidly coming through. This week, through ScottishGolf.com's "tee-time" booking system, any golfer anywhere in the world can book a time and pay a deposit through a secure internet connection, then all they have to do is turn up on the day and enjoy a round of golf. That system will soon incorporate courses all over the country. Using the internet to book golf tee times is just one example of how e-tourism should be utilised. There is nowhere better to do that than on the tremendous range of golf courses in Angus.

The vsitsotland.com venture is a welcome development in Scottish tourism, but we must now ensure that it is developed ahead of competitor destination sites. We in Scotland know that we have a product that most other countries envy. The key question is about how to market it properly and that is the question that the committee's report asks. Marketing the product properly is the task of those who will act on the report.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am obliged to two members who have removed their names from the list of speakers. We are still running behind time. Iain Smith has four minutes; I ask him to keep his speech tight.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

No one can dispute the tourism industry's importance to Scotland for its economic contribution and the jobs that it creates. Furthermore, no one can dispute that the tourism industry has suffered from a decline in recent years.

It is important to bear it in mind that we tend to focus greatly on the overseas tourism market and that we sometimes forget that domestic tourism has the biggest share of the market and is its most important part. The domestic market supplies 90 per cent of our visitors and 80 per cent of tourism income. It is obvious that a 1 per cent increase in the domestic market could be matched only by a 5 per cent increase in the overseas market. It is important not to forget that.

Short breaks—particularly those that are taken by older people and people who take early retirement—are an important part of the tourism business. Some concern must be felt about their future, given the state of the pensions industry. Many of our businesses are also concerned about the trend of booking later, which causes them great uncertainty about the season ahead.

I come from north-east Fife, so I must refer to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's important visit to St Andrews to study golf and business tourism. The tourism businesses in St Andrews greatly welcomed that visit and the useful exchange that they had with committee members. Perhaps a little disappointment was felt at that study's not being reflected much in the report's recommendations, but the visit highlighted important matters.

I am sorry to say to Andrew Welsh that the Old course in St Andrews is the course that attracts visitors to Scotland. In places such as Carnoustie and Troon, people say that when the Old course is closed for maintenance or before the Open Championship, their businesses suffer. We should therefore recognise the Old course's importance to golf tourism marketing and the importance of encouraging golf tourists to visit and play on many of the hundreds of excellent golf courses throughout Scotland.

I am slightly disappointed that the result of the area tourist boards review is not yet known. That is causing uncertainty and concern in the industry. Those boards are important parts of the industry and are business led—the majority of board members are business people. The boards are not just accommodation agencies. As the committee's report says, the boards should reflect the interests of the retail, transport and visitor attraction sectors.

Transport links are vital. In the past year, we have welcomed the Rosyth ferry, which has increased tourism. Tourism businesses have seen car-based overseas tourists come to Scotland and travel not just in Fife, but as far as the Borders and the Highlands, although Fife has benefited from the ferry. I am pleased that, as part of its partnership with other tourist boards, the Kingdom of Fife Tourist Board has attracted £4.1 million of European money to help to market tourism in some parts of Scotland. That will be used to attract up to an estimated £100 million of new tourism business.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The member has one minute.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

That is an example of tourist boards working well together to attract money that might not be available from Government agencies. That is an important part of the tourist board network's role.

We must improve transport links and the quality of transport throughout Scotland. The links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports are vital, but why should people have to go through Edinburgh to visit Fife? That is nonsense and must be sorted out. We must improve the integration of transport through the use of multimodal tickets and we must ensure that visitors to Scotland can buy travel passes that allow them to travel on any form of transport at a reasonable cost. That is all part of improving the quality of the service.

If we are to attract more visitors to Scotland, we must continuously improve the quality of the tourism product that we offer—that means not only accommodation, but attractions and packages. We must also examine the industry's competitiveness. We should note that many tourism businesses are small and locally based. They will benefit from the small business rates relief scheme that is to be introduced, but we must consider the fact that VAT on hospitality services in Ireland is only 5 per cent, which puts our businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I must hurry the member.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

We must also consider the euro. We should be in the euro, which would help our tourism businesses. As the report recommends, we must also do all that we can to assist Scottish tourism businesses in using the euro.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I do not know about the principle of introducing entirely new material after a member's time is up, but there we go.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I would like to ensure that the Official Report records the fact that I had the most glamorous assignment of all of the members of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. I was sent not to California or Denmark and I was sent not even to St Andrews—I was sent to VisitScotland's headquarters in Ravelston Terrace for a day. However, that visit gave us an opportunity to analyse material on visitscotland.com, which has been highlighted today as being a very important initiative. I hope that the recommendations in the report in that respect will be followed through so that the website is monitored to allow us to discover how much real new business—not displacement business—is generated by visitscotland.com. Many people out there have reservations about visitscotland.com, particularly small accommodation providers.

I agree with Tavish Scott that it is very disappointing that the minister's announcement—or non-announcement—overshadows the debate, because the review of the area tourist boards has been under way for a considerable time. We have heard today how important business and business leadership is to tourism. One thing about business is that it knows that it has to make hard decisions, some of which are unpopular, but business does not bottle out of making decisions just because it thinks that the decision might attract electoral flak.

I understand why the deputy minister does not want to have to go around defending a decision to abolish Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board and to merge it into a larger board based in Glasgow, if that is to be the decision, but why not tell the Parliament the decision and allow the tourism industry to debate its future during the election period?

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

Will the member give way?

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am sorry but I am very short of time.

I was very disappointed by the tone of Mr MacAskill's remarks, although they did not surprise me. Most of the things that he has said in the chamber on previous occasions could not be substantiated by the committee's inquiries. Mr MacAskill has come to the chamber time after time to slate the BTA, but the evidence that the committee took did not substantiate what he says.

The committee was, however, prepared to address the issues around, and the serious concerns about, the British Airports Authority. Rather than engage in a rant against individuals, we put forward the reasoned position that the BAA should be inquired into so that we get at the facts, but Mr MacAskill does not like the facts and neither does he like the committee system, hence his appearance at the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee only as a tourist rather than as a substantial member. He does not like inquiring into the facts, because they do not back up his rants.

One of the most important aspects of the report, although I am disappointed that it does not appear at the beginning as a key recommendation, is that Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise funding be co-ordinated within our tourism strategy. The reality is that funding for tourism from Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise is considerably greater than VisitScotland's budget. If those budgets are not co-ordinated, we will be missing a trick. I would like to see that important recommendation followed through.

At the end of the day, we must acknowledge the importance of tourism, as Annabel Goldie did in her opening remarks. Everybody says that tourism is important, but it is the most important indigenous business in Scotland and we must start proving that that is the case. The report is a good opening to that process, but we have to follow it through.

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

First, on a local note, my constituency and Dumfries suffered more than other areas from the decline in tourism that resulted from foot-and-mouth disease. The local tourist board made excellent use of the money that it was given; it ran an excellent campaign to get visitors back to the region.

Given that tourism is a major industry, it is clear that some of the figures in the report are not encouraging. The recent figures that Grant Thornton Ltd published also show a 143 per cent increase over the past year in insolvencies in tourism-related hotels and catering businesses. My friend Fergus Ewing spoke about the rating system and the differential burden that we have in Scotland, which might be relevant to that issue.

Mr Mundell referred to the enterprise network. I note the committee's recommendation in paragraph 361 of the report that the enterprise network's contribution to tourism should be "consistent." I highlight that paragraph because I have been receiving complaints about differences in the treatment that is offered by different local enterprise companies, and especially about differences between that which is offered by Highlands and Island Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise. It is suggested that the former is much more flexible in its approach to helping out tourism development, although I do not know why that should be the case. It is clear that tourism is not simply a Highlands and Islands activity, although some people might think that it is. It is not even simply a rural activity because, as we have heard, city tourism is just as important, if not more so. We need, therefore, a consistent approach. The relationships between area tourist boards are clearly a difficult matter; there are tensions between membership organisations—perhaps this applies only to some members of the industry—and an organisation that has quasi-public duties. Any mechanism must have the industry at its heart.

Many people find it easy to see what is wrong with the current system but, as I am sure the minister is finding out, it is much less easy to come up with a better alternative. Boundary changes would not necessarily be the answer, and Mr Mundell made a valid point about the Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board.

Uncertainty is bad, so we need to conclude the review. It is a bizarre argument to say that we should not discuss the review before or during an election campaign—such discussion is what democracy is all about. If we were to extend that principle to other areas, we would be in for a very quiet election campaign.

I welcome the development of electronic marketing of tourism, because we in Scotland are clearly in danger of falling behind. The report refers to some initial difficulties in Dumfries and Galloway, which I think are largely down to a lack of communication. The vast majority of businesses in my region have now signed up to the idea to some extent. However, I am concerned that we still do not have a go-live date for the public version of the new website, which is important given that we are already into the season in which people make bookings over the internet. I am also not convinced that e-tourism will reduce work for tourist information centres—the two are complementary, rather than being alternatives to each other.

On the BTA, regardless of what has been said in the chamber, there is a fundamental incompatibility in one organisation trying to market two competing products. I think that that is unsustainable.

My final point is on skills. Tourism was the cinderella industry, but there have been changes made to increase its professionalism. I was worried by David Davidson's point that the teaching placement scheme still does not regard tourism as an industry. It is shocking that that attitude should still prevail. Tourism is a hugely important industry and I hope that the report will contribute to increasing its success.

David (None, Lothians)

Because of the business motion under which I am operating, I must have Alex Neil on his feet by 1 o'clock, so I call him now, and thank those members who co-operated in allowing this to happen.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is an indication of the success of today's debate that Brian Fitzpatrick has joined the SNP benches for the final speech.

I begin my reiterating and reinforcing the "thank yous" that Annabel Goldie read out at the start of the debate and I supplement them with three of my own. First, I thank Annabel Goldie for calling me gallant, which is the first and probably the last time when that will happen. Secondly, I thank Brian Fitzpatrick for saying that I am a calming influence. That is certainly the first time, and probably the last time when I shall be called that. Thirdly, in relation to the visit to Shetland, I thank Tavish Scott and Shetland Islands Council, which provided excellent hospitality. I got a feeling for Up Helly Aa.

I shall concentrate on two or three key issues. I say quickly, by way of background, that the inquiry took place about a year after the committee was being put under enormous pressure to hold the inquiry during a time of crisis—if I can call it that—in the Scottish Tourist Board, which was undergoing a change of chief executive and suffered the resignation of the new chief executive. The committee took a clear decision not to hold an inquiry at that time.

The purpose of our inquiry was not to hammer a nail into the coffin of the Scottish Tourist Board, to run down Scotland, to reinforce failure or to get a cheap headline. Instead, the purpose of a parliamentary committee is to examine a subject's long-term future. In this case it was the tourism industry—we had to find out where we need to be in four, five or 10 years and we had to consider our position in the international tourism market.

We are all aware of the problems of the past four or five years, such as the reduction in tourist numbers, the additional problems that were caused by the events of 11 September 2001 and other unforeseen circumstances, such as foot-and-mouth disease. However, the challenge to us all is not to sit moaning and groaning and wondering why all of this has happened; instead, we must look to the future and do something about the situation. The tourism industry in Scotland has enormous potential.

Last year, I did a calculation—on my own, believe it or not—based on Ireland's overseas visitor numbers, which include visitors from the UK mainland. If Scotland had the same overseas visitor numbers as the Irish, that would inject an additional £1 billion a year into the Scottish economy. That is the scale of the opportunity that is open to us through the tourism sector. So, the key question is: what do we need to do to get from where we are to where we want to be?

The committee report addresses three fundamental strategic issues in that respect. First, as the independent research that the committee commissioned concluded, it is high time that we stopped contemplating our internal navel over the Mason-Dixon lines between this area tourist board and that area tourist board. To be quite frank, tourists from Germany, Norway, America and Canada could not care less about where the boundary lies between this toon and that toon in area tourist board terms—they want to visit Scotland. They want to have the experience of coming to this country to see the scenery, meet its people, enjoy their ancestry and all the rest of it. The first clear message has to be that we should look outward, rather than inward. Our future lies in beating the competition in the international marketplace, not in examining our internal structures for ever and a day.

However, the question thereafter is how we can best promote Scotland. There has been a lot of discussion about the BTA. No doubt there is concern south of the border—as there is north of the border—about the way in which the Department for Media, Culture and Sport south of the border failed to consult on the recent changes and simply implemented them. Indeed, there is much concern about that among MPs in London whose report called for the establishment of an English tourism board. I support that proposal: England needs its own tourism board, but there must be a consequential change to the BTA's role.

We are simply saying—the BTA agrees—that we are not getting the benefits of the resources that have been invested in some hub offices to the extent that we could and should. VisitScotland needs urgently to piggyback on that resource much more than it is by putting its Scottish focus into those offices and promoting Scotland. If Gordon Jackson was able to promote to me the benefits of the private sector while we were in California, I at least got him to agree that, on the question of a Scottish focus, he was a nationalist. Indeed, he agreed with everything that the SNP said on that point. That was a real conversion.

Our proposal is very practical. Of course, it has budgetary implications, because there would be staff involved; however, perhaps only one person and a secretary is all that is needed. After all, the other resources already exist—we simply need a Scottish focus.

David Mundell and I took evidence from Eddie Friel, who used to run the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and now runs the Glasgow Tourist Board. Mr Friel was Northern Ireland's man in America at the time of the hunger strikes. During the year in which the hunger strike deaths happened, tourism to Northern Ireland from north America jumped by about 10 per cent. Eddie Friel went into the BTA office in New York as a Northern Ireland representative. He piggybacked on the research that had been done, but he put a Northern Ireland focus on it, as a result of which he was able to promote Northern Ireland. At that time, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board was much more independent than the Scottish Tourist Board.

There is a possible case for VisitScotland to have its own representation in some markets where the BTA has no representation—it is horses for courses. It is like running any business; one sends the sales and marketing people to where they can generate the most interest.

The second major point that I want to make before I wind up is on transport links. There is no doubt whatever that one of the two fundamental prerequisites to realising potential is encouragement of the growth of low-cost airlines. Some 80 per cent of the people coming to Scotland from Oslo are Norwegian. I know and others know that—we see them in the pubs in Ayr and even in Prestwick every weekend, Presiding Officer. They come from Norway for the cheap drink. It is £8 a pint in Oslo, but it is £2.50 a pint in Ayr and probably £1.50 in the Labour club in Allison Street. It is a lot cheaper for them to spend forty quid getting into Ayr for the weekend from Oslo and save a bob or two on drink. We are talking about tourists to Scotland spending money in Scotland.

I will be clear about what the committee is saying about BAA. It says that there is on the face of it, based on the evidence that we received, a prima facie case—as the Latin people used to say—for an inquiry into the monopolistic position of BAA. It does not have only one monopoly; it has two monopolies. It has a monopoly in Scotland and a monopoly in London. On the basis of the evidence, the combination of those monopolies might present the problem. We suggest that there needs to be a thorough inquiry, but BAA is coming back to us and saying that it is not true; however, if members owned a monopoly company, they would say the same. Unfortunately, monopoly and competition are—temporarily, I hope—reserved matters. Therefore, it is up to the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Select Committee or whatever to investigate the matter, but it must be investigated. Our tourism industry is too important for the future of Scotland for us to continue to receive only a fifth of the number of flights that Dublin receives, for example.

This has been just a sketched conclusion of our report. I hope that the minister will take decisions based on our report. I do not care whether that happens before the election or whether someone else takes them after the election—as long as our report is implemented, the Scottish tourism industry will flourish.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I should have stopped that speech earlier, but I sensed that people were enjoying it.

The next item of business would ordinarily be the business motion, but as members will be aware, this week's business motion was taken yesterday. Therefore, there is no more business.

Question Time — Scottish Executive

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to ensure that every local authority provides at least one course of swimming lessons to all pupils prior to their leaving primary school. (S1O-6409)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Executive has now published its audit of swimming in Scottish schools. It shows that, although there are some excellent examples—such as Glasgow, which now has free swimming for all children and free lessons for children in primary 7—swimming provision varies considerably from one local authority to the next. Ministers want every child in Scotland to get the opportunity to learn to swim. I will be writing to each local authority asking them to take action on the audit report.

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I thank the minister for instructing the audit of school swimming. I know that he shares my disappointment that the report shows that more than a quarter of schools make no provision at all for swimming lessons. Will he assure me that sufficiently robust guidelines will be put in place to ensure that local authorities can no longer cut swimming lessons as a soft option when budget savings are required? After all, swimming is one subject on the curriculum that could save a life.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I agree with Kay Ullrich. That figure of 25 per cent or more is unacceptable. I will consider the suggestion of guidelines or guidance on that area.

I point out that, through the quality of life funding, for example, a number of local authorities—17 in all—have improved swimming provision. For example, Renfrewshire Council has used £550,000 to give swimming lessons and improve access; Aberdeen City Council has used £180,000 for primary school swimming; Dumfries and Galloway Council has used £130,000 for free swimming for under-18s. Other authorities can therefore access funding if they wish to use it for that purpose. I encourage them to do so.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Does the minister agree that he will find it much easier to meet his target of every primary school child being instructed in swimming if sufficient physical education specialists are recruited to teach in primary schools?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I agree that we need to extend the number of PE specialists in Scotland's schools. That means examining carefully the number of PE specialists we train and the nature of that training. I would like there to be much more of a cluster approach in which the secondary school PE teams are also able to go into our primary schools and give the quality, specialist education that many members would like to see. For that reason, we have increased the priority that will be given next year to the recruitment of PE teachers in the advice that has gone out to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to promote harmonisation of the terms and conditions of national health service ancillary workers. (S1O-6424)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

If it is accepted, the modernised pay system—set out in "Agenda for Change: Modernising the NHS Pay System" — will introduce harmonised terms and conditions for all NHS non-medical staff.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I welcome "Agenda for Change", which holds the prospect of a minimum wage for non-clinical staff in the NHS. However, I raise concerns about the disparity that continues to exist in some other conditions of service, such as sick pay and pensions. Some porters and domestics still do not have the occupational sick-pay schemes that clinical staff enjoy. That is not justified. Therefore, will the minister assure me that there will be a programme in future to eradicate those inequalities so that our poorest paid are protected?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

One of the many changes from "Agenda for Change" will be that sick pay will start from day 1 of employment, unlike the present situation.

Pauline McNeill raises wider issues, some of which relate to differences between staff who are employed on NHS conditions and those who are employed by private contractors. At the recent staff partnership forum, I said that the new minimum health service wage of £5.18 hour—an 11 per cent increase on the previous rate—should be paid by all employers in the health service, including private contractors. There are other issues relating to pension and sick-pay rights, which are sometimes different for contracted-out staff, and the same principle ought to apply there too.

Recycling (Fife Council)

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what recent discussions it has had with Fife Council on improving the council's record on recycling. (S1O-6421)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The most recent discussions between Executive officials and Fife Council have covered the expenditure profile for an application submitted by the council to the strategic waste fund and the council's proposals for use of the £374,000 recycling grant that was awarded in December 2002.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The minister will be aware that, according to the performance indicators that were recently published by the Accounts Commission for Scotland, Fife generates more waste per head than any other council in Scotland and recycles less than most. Does the minister think that Fife's Labour administration is aware of the national waste strategy's waste hierarchy, which is to reduce, reuse, recover and only then dispose? What bids has Fife Council made to the strategic waste fund to address its appalling record?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

A number of councils may be under the illusion that, by simply moving towards a greater recycling target, they will solve the problem. The member's general point about every council in Scotland having to address the question of waste minimisation is crucial to the success of the national waste strategy.

On Iain Smith's question about applications from Fife Council, it is my understanding that the council has applied for about £4.5 million from the strategic waste fund to help with its plans over the next three years in meeting the strategy's aim and objectives.

David (None, Lothians)

Before calling further supplementary questions, I remind members that this question relates to Fife Council.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

My question is very relevant, but it is not on Fife.

David (None, Lothians)

In that case, I call John Scott. Is your question about Fife, Mr Scott?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Well, it is about recycling.

David (None, Lothians)

I am sorry, but it has to be about Fife Council. We will move to question 4.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I have a more general question.

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to increase investment in building up locally based companies, especially in areas that have suffered from large job losses. (S1O-6438)

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Growing businesses is a key priority of our strategy for the enterprise networks. Local economic forums provide a mechanism for driving forward an agreed economic development agenda in each local area. We have refocused our regional selective assistance scheme to help locally based companies access support.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

That is encouraging. What other measures are in place to help people to set up companies and develop them, other than money, although money is important? Many people have good ideas, but not the technical, legal or planning skills to implement them. Is there enough support to help such people to develop their new companies?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The small business gateway has been key to streamlining and increasing the effectiveness of the kind of support to which Mr Gorrie refers. It ensures that services and support can be provided by accredited business advisers or by lawyers and accountants—whichever are required for the various aspects of people's plans—and can be accessed through one website or one telephone number. We have worked hard with those involved to ensure that it is much easier now compared with how it used to be for people who have a good idea for starting up a business to access not just grants and money but expertise.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As the minister said, one of the main measures for helping businesses to grow is regional selective assistance. How much of the funding for the current financial year is still left in the RSA budget? In other words, what has been neither committed nor spent? How will that money be recycled to help local businesses?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

As Mr Neil will understand, the RSA scheme operates day by day, and discussions on potential grants, applications and so on take place every day, so I do not have a figure to hand. Mr Neil will also know that one of the changes that I have made on RSA has been to publish quarterly reports, so that details about the grants that have been offered and accepted are clear and transparent.

The amount of money that we allocate in the budget to RSA is less than it was. That is the case simply because it operates in an inward investment market that is much smaller. I assure Mr Neil that no project has ever been turned down because of a lack of money in the RSA budget. As long as I have anything to do with it, that will not happen.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The minister will accept that a congenial business environment would help local investment in locally based companies. If the minister and the Scottish Executive accept the need to mitigate the rates burden—which they have done by conceding a freeze on business rates—why will they not go the whole hog by restoring a uniform business rate to achieve real competitiveness and to give real help to locally based companies?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Miss Goldie knows the answer to that question. There is a difference between both the rates poundage and rateable values in Scotland and England. For that reason, the burden imposed on businesses is the same in Scotland and England. We have said that we will freeze business rates. That measure will come into force in the next financial year and will help businesses. However, all the other measures that we are taking to improve the skills of the work force are also important. If we took money from those programmes simply to reduce business rates, we would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

In the light of the recent decision by the Boots Company to close its Airdrie factory, does the minister agree that the workers in Airdrie require a two-pronged approach? Such an approach will ensure that they receive the maximum redundancy package, assistance in retraining and new job opportunities. It will also involve a strategy to support and nurture local companies, so that employment opportunities can be created locally.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Karen Whitefield is absolutely right. She has already been involved in discussions with the company, local agencies such as Scottish Enterprise Lanarkshire and North Lanarkshire Council about how to do what she suggests. There is no point in going over old ground, but we all wish that we could have started those discussions at a much earlier stage in the process.

Boots has made a commitment to support regeneration in the Airdrie area. It is important that it works with the efforts that have produced such good results in Lanarkshire in recent years, to give the area the boost that it requires.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to improve rail services around Aberdeen and the north-east. (S1O-6434)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Our investment in rolling stock, announced in December, will result in new trains operating on the Aberdeen to Edinburgh and Aberdeen to Glasgow routes. In addition, the Scottish Executive has supported the cost of progressing the Aberdeen crossrail proposals and is working with the Strategic Rail Authority to improve services on the Aberdeen to Inverness line.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

As the minister knows, the railway line passes through industrial areas to the south and north of Aberdeen and through Dyce, where the work force for offshore oil channels. Given the enormous potential of the crossrail project to tackle congestion, which is one of the top 10 transport priorities, will he assure me that he is doing everything possible to advance it?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I agree entirely about the potential benefits of additional services on this route. Nora Radcliffe mentioned Dyce and other industrial areas around the city. The challenge is to link improved rail services to other aspects of the public transport network, such as the evolving strategy for public transport access to Aberdeen airport, which is important. We will consider the crossrail proposals as they evolve to the next stage and encourage work on them to continue. We will examine the proposals with a clear view of the important contribution that they may make to the public transport network in and around the city of Aberdeen.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The minister will be aware of reports that seem to suggest that, rather than trying to improve services, the Strategic Rail Authority is seeking to reduce them by instructions that it is giving to ScotRail. Did the minister give directions and guidance to the SRA to do that? If not, on what basis did the SRA act? Is that not clear proof that we need to take the ScotRail franchise back into public ownership?

David (None, Lothians)

Order. That question is well wide of the mark. The minister need not answer it.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

How does the minister see the proposed Aberdeen crossrail scheme complementing the western peripheral route, to which the First Minister made a very welcome commitment when he was in Aberdeen recently? Both are part of the modern transport system that is being developed for Aberdeen and the north-east.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

As Elaine Thomson is aware, we will proceed with the construction of the western peripheral route around Aberdeen. That is one of the key projects in the modern transport strategy that has been developed by Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council. The strategy comprises both public transport and roads investment, which is a good, balanced approach and we will continue to work with the authorities in carrying it forward. Of course, we will continue to provide direct instructions to the Strategic Rail Authority on matters relating to the Scottish rail passenger franchise.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what provision it has made to support the increased use of recycled aggregates. (S1O-6433)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Improving Scotland's resource use is a key priority in our approach to sustainable development. We have allocated £1 million from the aggregates levy to the aggregates programme to be run by the Waste and Resources Action Programme, with the objective of reducing the demand for primary aggregates through the greater use of aggregates from recycled and secondary sources. The programme will provide a comprehensive information service to stakeholders in the aggregates supply chain, support research into aggregates-related issues and provide capital support to stimulate the development of secondary and recycled aggregates infrastructure in Scotland.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Further to the answer that I received from the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning two weeks ago, does the minister believe that the pursuit of the use of recycled aggregates will in any way offset the cost to the Scottish economy of the aggregates tax? Is he in a position to calculate what the cost of that tax will be to the Executive's road building programme?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Mr Johnstone is obviously very persistent in pursuing the matter, on which Lewis Macdonald gave what I thought was a comprehensive reply.

I remind the member that the whole purpose of our aggregates tax is to increase the use of recycled materials, with regard to meeting our environmental objectives. The cost to the Scottish economy of not improving our environmental use of finite resources is almost incalculable, which the member would do well to remember in asking about the cost to local authorities. As Lewis Macdonald pointed out, in order to assess the balance between how the UK Government imposes a tax and impost and the use of that revenue, we have to look at the budget as a whole. That is the answer that Lewis Macdonald gave and I still think that it was the right answer.

The real question for Mr Johnstone to answer is whether he is against the use of recycled aggregates material, given the cost to the economy and the environment that would ensue.

David (None, Lothians)

Order. The minister must not start asking questions.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I ask the minister to comment on the fact that cullet is being used extensively for road fill rather than as recycled glass. United Glass Ltd in my constituency has found the local authorities to be very tardy in responding to its proposal, which would significantly increase the recycling of glass. Will the minister undertake to work with the glass industry to ensure that local authorities do more to promote the recycling of cullet for glass bottles? Will he meet representatives of United Glass and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to examine how his department can help match the French and Dutch in effective recycling?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Yes. I am well aware of the potential for using recycled cullet in road building materials. I am disappointed that there has been tardiness in co-operation between United Glass and the respective local authorities. I am certainly happy for my officials to work with local authorities and private companies to try to bring them together.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many employees are officially low paid and what action it is taking to address the issue of poverty because of low pay. (S1O-6457)

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Around 100,000 people are entitled to rises as a result of the October 2002 increase in the national minimum wage. The new lifelong learning strategy, which I launched on 11 February, shows our determination to create a Scotland in which people have the knowledge, creativity and skills to participate fully in economic, social and civic life and enhance their earning capacity.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

That is rather inadequate. Is the minister aware that the number of Scots living below the official poverty line is now greater than it was five years ago and that the single biggest growth area is among the working poor? Will the Executive take the radical action that is required and introduce a proper Low Pay Unit-set minimum wage of £7.32 per hour for public sector workers to eradicate the scourge of low pay within the public services?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

In the past, Mr Sheridan has shown that he is happy to move between relative and absolute measures of poverty as and when it suits his argument. The first step towards the eradication of poverty in Scotland is the eradication of mass unemployment. We have taken that step. That must be built on by eradicating the lowest pay. We have done that by introducing the national minimum wage. The next step is to provide support for families in particular circumstances through measures such as the child tax credit. Next we must give Scottish workers the opportunity to increase their skills, so that we can aspire not only to full employment in Scotland, but to the most fulfilling employment that it is possible to provide for our people. That is our strategy.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The minister made reference to the eradication of mass unemployment. Is he aware of the findings of the Scotecon study at the University of Stirling—funded by the Scottish Executive—which reveal that Scotland has one of the highest rates in the industrialised world for the number of households with no one in employment? Does he acknowledge that although many families might be off the Government's unemployment statistics, that is not a reason to put them out the Government's mind altogether? When one in four households in Strathclyde has no one in employment, how can the minister say that he has conquered unemployment? Is it not the case that, for too many families in Scotland, Labour is not working?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Mr Wilson will no doubt also be aware of the labour market figures that came out earlier this week, which show further falls in unemployment and the claimant count to levels that have not been seen for almost 40 years. That gives us the opportunity to focus support on those who are furthest from the labour market and have the greatest barriers to overcome to access the opportunities that we have created.

We will continue to work with Whitehall colleagues. I met the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions earlier this week. We discussed the pathways to work project, which will move willing people from relying on inactive benefits into the labour market and will provide them with the necessary support that they need to do that, which they could not even have dreamed of 15 years ago.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am sure that the minister is aware that a significant majority of low-paid workers are women. That is partly because of their need to be flexible to meet their disproportionate care responsibilities and partly because of job segregation, which means that women's jobs are less valued and therefore lower paid. What steps are being taken to address the underlying inequality in the work force that creates the pay gap? I seek the minister's assurance that any strategy to address the problem of low pay will recognise the particular and pressing needs of women.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

We are fully engaged in the "Close the Gap" initiative, which is a UK-wide initiative. My colleague Margaret Curran and I have been involved in that. When we talk about improving skills and providing more opportunities for the work force, it is important that we pay particular attention to creating such opportunities for women. We can use a range of means to do that. For example, we have provided additional support for child care for those who study in further or higher education. As I have said, the enterprise networks have particular targets for helping women to start new businesses. It is pleasing that there has been significant success in that area.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Can the minister confirm that all employers in Scotland are meeting the minimum wage requirements? If that is the case, can he explain why Jobcentre Plus staff ask every employer whether they are prepared to guarantee such payments and register some surprise when people enthusiastically embrace the targets? What effect has the minimum wage had on poverty?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The Low Pay Commission is in no doubt that although the national minimum wage has not been the only contributor to the reduction in poverty that has taken place, it has been one of the most significant contributors. The national minimum wage is a powerful tool. We have to ensure that employers are aware of and are complying with the requirements of national minimum wage legislation because we had to wait a very long time for a minimum wage in this country. It is right and proper that we are always vigilant that it is being complied with.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to support out-of-school care provisions. (S1O-6454)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Earlier today I launched "School's Out", which provides information, examples of good practice and guidance to help to develop out-of-school care. I have asked local authorities to review local out-of-school care provision and to set targets, agreed with us, to meet shortfalls in provision by 2006.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

As the minister knows, a lot of good work is happening in the Stirling constituency. Will she give an assurance that long-term sustainability will be central in future policy making, especially for clubs such as Playhaven in Raploch, where parents need to be able to take advantage of education, training and work opportunities as part of the regeneration of that area?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I agree with Sylvia Jackson that sustainability is important. That is why sustainability is a central feature in our recommendations.

I also acknowledge the contribution that was made at today's launch of the document by Eilidh Brown, who is a young person who has used out- of-school care provision and who is in the public gallery today. Eilidh is from Peebles. She made it clear that she wants the provision that was available to her to be made available to the rest of her family and to other young people in the future. That is why we have made such a commitment to that in the document.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Is the minister entirely happy that some out-of-school care projects are very dependent on the vagaries of lottery funding? In view of the fact that lottery sales have decreased by over 5 per cent since last year, would it not be better for such projects to be funded from the education budget, so that more lottery funding would be available for sport and the arts?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

A range of funding provision is available for out-of-school care and additional funding has been made available through child care strategy moneys over the next three years. Money is also available through the changing children's services fund and through a number of other funding streams. The New Opportunities Fund has relaxed some of its restrictions so that some out-of-school care provisions are now able to secure three-year funding rather than the one-year funding that was previously the case. Out-of-school care provision makes a huge and welcome contribution to young people's involvement in sports, drama, the arts and a whole range of other activities.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what procedures it follows if a housing association becomes insolvent. (S1O-6412)

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The procedures for dealing with a housing association that becomes insolvent are set out in detail in schedule 8 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. They impose an immediate moratorium on the disposal of land or properties held by the landlord. The moratorium enables Scottish ministers—working through Communities Scotland as the housing regulator—to step in and work with all interested parties to develop proposals for the future ownership and management of the landlord's land and properties. The procedures are designed to secure their continued proper management within the housing association sector.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for her full answer. She will be aware that housing associations hold a funding pot for repairs and maintenance that is made up of contributions from residents, both tenants and those who have bought their homes. Will she give a guarantee today that such funds will not be lost if a housing association becomes insolvent?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am sure that, like many in the chamber, David Davidson is aware that we in Scotland have never faced the situation of a housing association becoming insolvent. That is largely because of the work of Scottish Homes, the powers of which were enhanced through the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and the creation of Communities Scotland. I am sure that I can give the guarantee that we could protect the moneys of tenants to ensure that proper works are carried out.

If the member wishes to draw anything to my attention, I would be more than happy to look at it.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of the fishing industry and what matters were discussed. (S1O-6428)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I last met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 11 February, when the main topic of discussion was the implementation of the Executive's package of support measures for the industry.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

On that support package, if there must be some decommissioning of the white-fish industry, as the Scottish Fishermen's Federation agrees, will the minister accept that white-fish quota must be retained in Scotland's fishing communities? Given the fact that beef quotas are subject to a siphon, which means in effect that the Government owns the quota as a tradeable asset, does he accept that there must be a mechanism for the Government to purchase white-fish quota to prevent other European Union member states from buying that entitlement to fish?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Since the measures emerged I have always accepted that there were serious issues to be addressed in relation to quotas. The member is right to say that it was one of the issues that were discussed on Monday evening. He will also agree that it is an extraordinarily complex measure and, although I am grateful to him for drawing the potential parallel with the beef quota, there is a slight difference between that and a siphoning mechanism that deals with a very small percentage.

We await with interest the outcome of the European Commission's investigations into the Shetland Islands Council's quota purchase scheme. I expect that that outcome might emerge by the end of this month and it would help us to form our view as to how to deal with the quotas issue. We will continue to discuss with the industry how we can protect quotas.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Did the minister discuss with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation the fishing communities' strong views that the Executive's proposed package is balanced far too much in favour of decommissioning and that it is not a recovery plan but a redundancy plan? Will he accept that there is a need for flexibility in considering how that money is spent to ensure that we will have a fleet that can go to sea and bring back the catches that we all want?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

As a starting point, I have set out that there are two sides to the equation that have to be addressed. One is to deal with the conservation measures and the need for us to address the serious issue of conserving stocks in the North sea. The other is to address the need to have a sustainable fishing fleet. I believe that the Executive's £50 million package of measures is one of the largest that has been directed to an industry of that size. It is a real expression of the earnest will of the Executive to sustain the fishing industry. We can compare that amount with the cost of the last decommissioning scheme, which removed 10 per cent of the fishing effort. The target this time is 15 per cent so, by using very simple arithmetic, we can see how we have come to the balance.

We are discussing those matters, but I have reminded the member of our two objectives and I repeat that the £50 million that is being allocated by the Executive is a real statement of our earnest will to protect the industry.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The £10 million part of the package that has been allocated to transitional funding presumably covers the six months of interim measures that will, hopefully, end in July. Bearing in mind the fact that the European Union has rejected cod recovery plan proposals on more than one occasion in the past, is the minister confident that those draconian interim measures will end in July? What provision has he made if they do not?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am not in a position to speculate as to exactly what is going to happen in the new council. Even after the council had ended, I was conscious that there were going to be some difficulties. There are a number of options for addressing those difficulties and we began discussing those with the fishing industry on Tuesday evening. It is imperative that the Executive gets alternative proposals on the table and begins those discussions and we gave the industry an undertaking that we would.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met the management of Caledonian MacBrayne and what issues were discussed. (S1O-6407)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Scottish Executive officials meet the management of Caledonian MacBrayne whenever necessary, most recently on Monday of this week, when the future investment programme for Clyde and Hebrides ferry services was discussed.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The minister will be aware of the European Union regulations that encourage and require bids for public service obligation services to be at the lowest possible cost to the public purse. The evidence of the Deloitte & Touche report was that the removal of the frequency restriction on the Gourock to Dunoon ferry run would allow more sailings, more profit and so lower subsidy and greater competition. Given that, does the minister recognise that unless he removes the frequency restriction, he might be in breach of the EU regulations and might leave the Executive open to a legal challenge?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am afraid that Mr Hamilton is slightly out of date with developments. Some weeks ago, I announced that we will issue shortly a draft service specification for the Gourock to Dunoon service that will separate it out from the overall network. The requirement that the service should be let to the operator that provides the service at the lowest possible cost accompanies the requirement that the service should be compliant with the terms of the tender. In letting the service specification and the tender, it is for the Executive to define the terms of the tender. We will accept the bid that is compliant with the requirements of the tender and that comes in at the lowest possible cost.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

When will the consultation on the draft specification for the Gourock to Dunoon route begin?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We expect to begin that consultation shortly. We will have to ensure that the necessary amendments are made to the wider draft service specification, as well as prepare the current draft service specification for the Gourock to Dunoon route.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

On the restriction of services, I point out that young people who use public transport are particularly disadvantaged if the Gourock to Dunoon ferry does not operate into the late evening. I ask him to examine whether it is the passenger aspect or the vehicle aspect of the ferry service that the European Commission wishes to restrict with the new contract. If it is not the passenger aspect, will he consider how he might deliver public transport later into the evening for young people in Dunoon?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The point on restrictions is similar to the one raised by Duncan Hamilton. It was made clear in our most recent discussions with the European Commission that a proposal that was founded on the existing restrictions on the service would be more likely to survive any challenge that might be made by a third party. That advice and the discussions that we had drew us to reach our conclusions and to produce the proposals. Clearly, we will take into account the need for public transport services on the route when we produce the final service specification.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its policy is on promoting access for disabled people to public transport. (S1O-6430)

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The Executive is committed to an accessible public transport system that allows people with disabilities to enjoy the same opportunities to travel in Scotland as other members of society. To achieve that, we will work with public transport providers and others to improve access to services and facilities across Scotland.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Does the minister share my concern that Prestonpans, Longniddry, Drem and many other railway stations are still not accessible to passengers with physical disabilities? Railtrack Scotland has told me:

"The funding of fully compliant accessible stations is the on going subject of discussion involving Network Rail, Train Operating Companies, the Strategic Rail Authority and the Rail Regulator Office."

Does he agree that those on-going discussions must not be allowed to go on indefinitely? How about applying a bit of coercion, as well as incentives, to let disabled Scots travel by rail?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I agree that we expect the providers to sort out whatever differences they have to sort out, and to make the facilities accessible. On coercion, there is the ultimate coercion of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We expect providers to understand their obligations under that. On occasion, we have received applications to fund such improvements, through the public transport fund for example, and we have looked positively on many of them.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It goes without saying that there are barriers in the way of people with wheelchairs. We need to do something about that soon. With the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 due to be fully implemented in 2004, what action has the Executive taken to ensure that public transport is also fully accessible to people with learning disabilities, hearing difficulties and sight problems?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The DDA covers all forms of disability, not just wheelchair use. Three sets of regulations have added further detail to that, including the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998, and other regulations that cover buses and so on. I believe that there is still some discussion around the final form of the regulations covering taxis, but in all cases those disabilities should be addressed. One support in aid that we have is the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland. We look forward to its first annual report towards the end of this month, and we will take up its suggestions.

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There are plans to replace existing rolling stock over the next few years. Has there been any consultation on the iniquitous design of many railway carriages, which makes it difficult for normal pedestrians to get on and off the train, irrespective of people who are disabled? Have there been any specific discussions with the authorities on the matter of a redesign? Most foreign railway carriages, in particular those on the continent, are far superior to the ones that we have here.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The new rolling stock will have to meet the new Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998. If anyone is aware of a continuing difficulty, I am happy to be made aware of it. The fact is that the new rolling stock should be as accessible as is rolling stock anywhere else in the world.

First Minister's Question Time

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-2493)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I plan to meet the Prime Minister in the next few days and we will discuss a number of important issues. [ Interruption. ]

David (None, Lothians)

Order. There should be no interruption from the public gallery. [ Interruption. ] Order. The people who are creating a disturbance will leave the gallery. I will allow injury time, as we have lost a minute. [ Interruption. ] Let us settle down. I want to hear what is happening on the floor, not upstairs.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Today, the First Minister met chief constables to discuss domestic security, and I welcome those discussions. Does he accept the concern in our community that a unilateral strike on Iraq might increase the risk of a terrorist attack in this country?