Scottish Parliament, 19 February 2003

420 contributions from 54 members. The official report.

Introduction

Time for Reflection

David (None, Lothians)

Good morning. To lead our time for reflection this week I welcome the Rev Marion Dodd, who is the parish minister of Kelso Old and Sprouston.

Business Motions

David (None, Lothians)

The next item of business is consideration of the weekly business motion. Motion S1M-3920, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, sets out the revised business programme.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees as a revision to the programme of business agreed on 12 February 2003— Wednesday 19 February 2003 after—

"2:00 pm Continuation of Stage 3 of Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill"

delete all and insert—

"followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

6:30 pm Decision Time"—[Euan Robson.]

[Motion agreed to.]

David (None, Lothians)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-3924, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, which sets out the timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during Stage 3 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, debate on each part of the Stage 3 proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion by the time-limits indicated (each time-limit being calculated from when the Stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when the meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress)— Groups 1 to 4 - no later than 1 hour 15 minutes Groups 5 to 12 - no later than 2 hours 35 minutes Groups 13 to 18 - no later than 4 hours 15 minutes Groups 19 to 21 - no later than 5 hours and 25 minutes Groups 22 and 23 - no later than 5 hours and 55 minutes Groups 24 to 30 - no later than 7 hours Motion to pass the Bill - 7 hours 30 minutes—[Euan Robson.]

[Motion agreed to.]

Fisheries

David (None, Lothians)

We move to the debate on motion S1M-3914, in the name of Ross Finnie. I invite members who wish to take part in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Members are aware that, to give effect to the various decisions that were taken during and after the December agriculture and fisheries council, the Executive has had to lay a number of statutory instruments. I want to stress that I considered it to be important that Parliament was in possession of those instruments before we had the debate, which is why I sought postponement of the debate until today. There will be further opportunities to discuss the detail of those statutory instruments.

In the debate, my aim will be to restate the underlying circumstances that we must address and which give rise to the need for the instruments. In laying out the principles behind each instrument, I will also explain why we think that the approach that we have adopted represents the best prospect for securing a sustainable white-fish sector for Scotland and for achieving sustainable fishing communities.

We must not forget the starting point. The scientific evidence shows that cod stocks are well below their safe biological limit and that haddock stocks, although they are in a better state than cod stocks, are nonetheless in poor condition. That scientific evidence led the European agriculture and fisheries council to adopt draconian interim measures that were aimed at conserving cod stocks. That is the background. I will now deal with the statutory instruments one by one.

First, there are the two restriction on days-at-sea orders, which are designed to give effect to the famous annexe 17 of the total allowable catch and quota regulations. Annexe 17 imposes limitations on the amount of time that fishermen can spend at sea. Our statutory instrument, which transposes a binding piece of EU legislation into domestic regulation, has been designed to set out the practical management arrangements that are necessary to enable fishermen to comply with the regulation and Scottish Ministers to have the powers to enforce it. We have not sought to gold-plate the EU regulation; on the contrary, we have tried to be as sympathetic as possible, while remaining true to its underlying spirit.

I am on record as saying that I am far from happy with the content of annexe 17, which I believe has a significant number of flaws. In particular, it does not allow sufficient commercial and economic flexibility and might have insufficient regard for safety.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I thank the minister for giving way. Yesterday, Ross Finnie and Elliot Morley said that they had achieved their objectives for the negotiations at the December council meeting. In the light of what the minister has just said, does he believe that he achieved the objectives that are necessary for the survival of the Scottish demersal fleet?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

At this early stage, I do not want to get into a disputatious argument. We did not say that we were content with the outcome of the white-fish talks. We said that, in large part, we had reached our objectives in relation to the negotiations on the common fisheries policy. That was made quite explicit.

Annexe 17 is intended to provide an interim regime. The political understanding was that it would be replaced by a substantive regime that would take effect at the beginning of July. With that in mind, we have been in continuing discussion with the Commission about the flaws in annexe 17. The Commission is committed to introducing some early changes to that regime, but it is not yet clear what form those changes might take. Although it seems to be likely that, initially, the changes will consist of amendments to annexe 17, the Commission has also restated its intention to introduce proposals for a substantive new regime.

What matters is the nature of the changes and their impact on our fishermen, rather than the way in which they are framed. Therefore, I acknowledge that, because annexe 17 has some flaws, the implementation order is less than ideal. I stress that modifications to the regime are likely to be proposed and that we will continue to press the Commission to make changes in some of the most obvious areas.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Should Parliament therefore reject the Sea Fishing (Restriction on Days at Sea) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/56) until the changes have been introduced by the European Commission? Given the Commission's track record on breaking its word, surely we should not trust it in this matter.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Parliament should absolutely not reject the order because—as I said in my carefully worded introductory two or three paragraphs—the regulation is, as it stands, a binding obligation on us to implement the regulation under the Scotland Act 1998. The fact that we are having discussions on subsequent regulations that will have to be adopted is different from our blatantly flouting the law.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

No.

I turn to the two domestic initiatives that constitute our response to the severe quota reductions and the days-at-sea regime. Those are also subject to Parliament's approval and to EC state aid approval. As members know, our response comprises two elements: a decommissioning scheme and a transitional support scheme. We have said that we are willing to spend up to £50 million on those initiatives, of which up to £40 million would be for decommissioning and up to £10 million for transitional support. I will say something about the rationale of that approach, the rationale for the balance of expenditure that we have suggested and the specific objectives of the two schemes. There will be further opportunities to debate the details of the two statutory instruments.

We have tried hard to take a long-term view and to marry that with some necessary crisis management. The long-term view is informed by the state of the stocks and the industry—it is important that we recognise and respond to the underlying biological and economic realities. As far as the stocks are concerned, it seems to us to be likely that there will, especially in relation to cod, be no rapid increase in quotas, which will pose some difficulties. The difficulties that the industry faces might persist for some time, but we have taken seriously the need to implement the scientific advice that there should be a reduction in fishing effort on the stocks. I make that point to illustrate that this is not only a discussion about the state of cod stocks but is—inevitably—a discussion about the scale of fishing activity more generally.

There are about 500 Scottish boats in the over-10-metre category which, to varying degrees, catch cod and haddock. Over the years, the number of boats has decreased to 500, but we must acknowledge that although that has happened, the boats' aggregate power, their efficiency and the amount of time that they spend at sea have all increased. We must therefore consider further reducing that amount of effort in order to safeguard our fisheries.

Given those choices, our view is that decommissioning is a rational economic response. Not only will a smaller fleet have the opportunity to survive in such conditions, decommissioning will mean the opportunities for those fishermen are enhanced. Conservation and economics suggest that decommissioning is one of the routes to pursue. I do not pretend that decommissioning will have no adverse impact. We are trying to secure rational and ordered, rather than chaotic, change. We want change that occurs before, rather than as a result of, stock collapse. Against that background, our decommissioning target is to reduce by some 15 per cent the Scottish fleet's fishing effort on cod stocks. We agreed that scale of reduction with the Commission as part of the December negotiations and we are now taking the steps to implement it.

We spent £25 million in our 2001 decommissioning scheme, which removed approximately 10 per cent of the fishing effort. We cannot do accurate calculations until we see the level of bids from those who might wish to decommission, but simple arithmetic suggests that another £40 million is likely to be required in order to remove a further 15 per cent of our fishing effort from those stocks.

In devising the scheme, we have set the eligibility criteria as widely as we can, which we hope will enable the widest range of bids. The scheme permits flexibility in the choice of vessels that can be approved and will also ensure that we can meet the reduction target, which is—as opposed to the decommissioning of a predetermined number of vessels—the key. The process of evaluating bids will subsequently ensure that we try to get that balance. I have no doubt that those who are engaged in the process will also try to ensure that the inherent flexibility in the scheme will allow them to make rational choices.

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

Will the minister comment on the revelation by John Farnell yesterday that there has been an application for €32 million for an emergency scrapping fund? Elliot Morley said yesterday that Scotland should not go cap in hand to Europe. Does that mean that the Scottish Executive will not apply for funding from the €32 million, although Scotland appears to be one of only three countries that would, given the 25 per cent reduction criteria, be eligible?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

As I understand it, the €32 million scheme has not been approved; that is part of an overall sum for which the agriculture and fisheries council has applied but has not received approval. If such a scheme were approved, the United Kingdom would consider the terms of that scheme and would apply if appropriate. No one has suggested otherwise.

I return to the decommissioning scheme. We do not have a predetermined number: the 2001 scheme achieved its objectives, so we are building largely on that model. We have made some changes; for example, we propose that vessels that are under 10 years old, some of which have been hit very hard and are in difficult circumstances, should be eligible. We also plan to ensure that those who will be worst hit by the days-at-sea restriction—whose effort must be reduced by 25 per cent or more—will be able to take advantage of the new changes to the regulation, namely the 27 per cent premium on decommissioning that will be permitted by the amended regulation. We propose to make 50 per cent of the aid available to those who plan to decommission their vessels immediately, on their ceasing to fish and surrendering their fishing licences. It is hoped that that will put some decommissioning money into fishermen's hands much earlier than would have been the case under the previous scheme.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister's comments are extremely worrying. I am sure that he is aware that there is unanimous opposition to the Scottish fisheries minister's spending £40 million on destroying the Scottish fleet. If there is to be any kind of decommissioning scheme, will the minister explain to the Parliament what will happen to the quota, given that it is the birthright of our fishing communities? Will he guarantee today that that quota will be taken back into the ownership of the Government and redistributed around the fleet, which is committed to the future of the industry, and that it will not fall into the hands of foreign owners?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

There were at least four questions there. The answer to the first question is that we are not proposing, as part of the decommissioning scheme, to include the purchase of quota. The purchase of quota is a matter that is dealt with purely on commercial terms, and it would not be prudent for the Government to do that. However, we are looking carefully at the rules and regulations that govern the transfer of quota—Richard Lochhead will be aware that those rules and regulations are complex and require a potential buyer from a non-UK source to have acquired licences. I understand that there are difficulties in that. We continue to monitor the market. We had discussions with other people in the industry about how that might be facilitated, but there is also the fundamental question of state aid support, and we await somewhat anxiously the ruling on the scheme that was previously operated in Shetland.

I move now to the third statutory instrument. We are providing up to £10 million for six months to those who will be worst affected by the changes. Once again, the detail of the instrument will be debated separately. It is a transitional measure, the aim of which is to allow the industry necessary breathing space so that individual owners can undertake rational economic planning. We were most concerned that they would, without any aid, be forced into impossible choices. We hope that the statutory instrument will also allow those who do not wish to decommission not only to assess and adjust their businesses, but to retain their crews. It will allow some flow of money to those who own the boats. In all of those respects, we hope that what we are offering will help to underpin the prospects of our fisheries-dependent communities.

We are still considering the varied responses to the consultation exercise that we undertook at rather short notice, but there is wide support for the general thrust of what we suggest. We consulted on how eligibility might be determined on the basis of a given level of dependency for vessel income on white-fish landings, and how aid might be distributed on the basis of vessel capacity units—VCUs—plus an amount for lost days.

We want to review and refine our approach in response to points that were made during the consultation exercise. In particular, we want to consider whether we have the balance right between the various ports, and in respect of particular fleets and individual vessels. We want to decide the level of targeting of the scheme and how tightly the eligibility parameters will be drawn; based on the consultation exercise, I think that we are inclined towards the introduction of a fairly tight approach. Finally, we want to decide the basis for the distribution of aid. We are thinking about a payment per VCU day and about combining separate elements, as I said.

I want to make it clear that conditions will be attached to the scheme. For example, we will clearly expect those who receive such support to restrict their fishing days in keeping with the days-at-sea order. We will not pay transitional support to those who choose to fish additional days in the unregulated area, for example, nor will we pay transitional support to those who seek to diversify into other fisheries. We do not want to see a large diversion of fishing effort into nephrops or shellfish fisheries, for example.

We recognise that the downturn in the white-fish sector will also present difficulties for the onshore infrastructure. Therefore, for a transitional period of six months, we are prepared to fund 95 per cent—as opposed to the normal 75 per cent—of the costs to local authorities of providing emergency rates relief to affected fisheries harbours. We shall discuss the details of those arrangements with the relevant local authorities.

We have also asked the fish-processing sector to update the processors' action plan in order to build on achievements to date. More generally, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise already have in place in each area that is affected a range of initiatives to stimulate business growth and employment. Furthermore, local enterprise companies whose areas include affected fishing communities are urgently assessing the economic impacts of the cuts and will draw up local plans to ensure a viable future for the worst-affected individuals and communities. In the next few days, we will firm up the detailed transitional aid proposals and begin preparation of the detailed guidance and documentation that will be required for the scheme.

The two schemes—the decommissioning scheme and transitional support scheme—must be seen as a package. Our clear underlying policy objectives are to conserve stocks and to facilitate sensible restructuring of the industry, which cannot be achieved unless the main emphasis is on looking at both sides of the equation. The transitional support element is designed to complement decommissioning—it is not intended to undermine it by offering the prospect of continuing subsidy. That is not the policy objective and we hope that, through such an approach, the industry can make the sensible choices in each port.

I do not pretend that circumstances are not exceptionally difficult. Unwelcome uncertainty surrounds the whole programme, because we do not know what will ultimately emerge from on-going negotiations in Brussels. The Executive's clear aim is to negotiate a successor regime and amendments to annexe 17 as quickly as possible.

Unless we take the necessary steps to secure a recovery in fish stocks, the industry will have to adapt to significantly lower quotas for a number of years; I am sure that none of us wants that. The economic prospects will be significantly better if we take the short-term opportunity to restructure, which is why the Executive is providing a £50 million package. We hope that, in co-operation and collaboration with the industry, the necessary degree of restructuring will be promoted through decommissioning, and that the package will inject significant liquidity into the sector and provide the short-term transitional support that will enable those who are most affected to adjust to the changed situation. In conservation and economic terms, such things need to happen. Annexe 17 has forced the issue in an unwelcome manner, but I hope that the remedies that we propose are sensible in respect of conservation of our fishing stocks and, just as important, in respect of our fishing communities.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the Executive's commitment of up to £50 million in aid to assist fishermen, on-shore fisheries businesses and fishing communities throughout Scotland as a very substantial response to the outcome of the EU Fisheries Council in December 2002; welcomes the result of quota negotiations in the nephrops fishery and the progress made in reforms to the Common Fisheries Policy at that Council; endorses the need for sustainable economic development of Scotland's fishing industry and communities; recognises this can best be achieved through healthier fish stocks; acknowledges this implies further restructuring of the white fish sector; welcomes the provision of up to £40 million for further decommissioning; welcomes the provision of up to £10 million in transitional support to facilitate rational economic planning and adjustment by those who wish to remain in the sector; notes that such transitional support will be conditional upon, for example, non-diversification into other valuable fisheries, such as the west coast and North Sea nephrops fisheries, and supports the Executive in its negotiations to secure a more economically realistic EU legal framework initially through amendment to the current interim EU regulation and thereafter through a successor regime.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I welcome this long-overdue debate. For the past few weeks, Scotland's fishing industry and the white-fish sector in particular have had to come to terms with the most serious crisis that has befallen our fishing communities in living memory. Draconian quota cuts and an unworkable and dangerous days-at-sea scheme have been foisted on the industry. Our fishermen never imagined such a combination in their worst nightmares. Even the Scottish fisheries minister himself has described the measures as pernicious, inequitable, unfair and crude.

The deal that the UK Government supported at the tail-end of last year is anti-conservation, anti-fishing and most certainly anti-Scottish. We were told that Scotland need not worry about who led the UK delegation and that we need not be concerned that Scots fishermen did not have their own voice at the top table because our interests would be safeguarded by big influential team UK.

A few hours after the First Minister promised Scotland victory, we were left to pick up the pieces following yet another spectacular capitulation by the UK in Brussels. The UK's sell-out in the fisheries negotiations was but the latest in a long line that stretches back over the past 30 years of the common fisheries policy.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

What quota cuts would team Lochhead have accepted for the Scottish fishing industry?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I give the champion of positive contributions to debates my reassurance that the SNP would not have accepted this deal, the effect of which will be to destroy a large part of our fishing industry.

A couple of weeks after the deal, Ross Finnie came back to the chamber to defend the agreement. He told us how countries such as Denmark simply could not be shifted and that Scotland had, as usual, to take the brunt of the pain of the cutbacks in the North sea. Every other country except Scotland managed to get a deal that it could live with, despite the fact that Scotland is the most fisheries-dependent country in western Europe.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member take an intervention?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Let me continue a wee while.

Scotland's vital white-fish quotas were halved; Denmark managed to save its industrial fishery quota in the same week that some of its vessels were being arrested for illegal bycatches. Danish boats won 23 days at sea per month, whereas the Scottish white-fish fleet, which is the fleet that uses the biggest mesh in the North sea, was told that it would get nine days.

The predicted economic consequences for our fishing communities are dire. Buchan and Shetland in particular face massive economic blows. The west coast ports are extremely concerned about the potentially devastating impact of displacement on the prawn fishery. With prices already at a 20-year low, the last thing that the sector needs is more prawns being landed by displaced vessels.

Vessels that were frozen out of the deep-water fishery in their own backyards following last year's decision to hand stocks west of Scotland to the French are staring bankruptcy in the face now that their white-fish quotas have also been cut. In some form or another, the whole industry and every port is feeling the impact of the measures.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Richard Lochhead said that he would have rejected the deal, but how would he have built a qualified majority to overturn it? Even if he had built a qualified minority, the Commission would have taken emergency powers with the result that we would have had 80 per cent cuts right now.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The difference between the policy of the SNP and that of the Liberal Democrats is that Scotland would have had a champion at the top table not only at December's fisheries council but at every council over the past 30 years. Scotland would have had its own champion if we had been independent.

The reasons that I have laid out illustrate why it is so important that the Scottish Executive deliver an effective and appropriate aid package, but the Executive has been unable to get even that right. Ross Finnie compounded matters by announcing an aid package that offers little aid to our fishing communities and, if unchallenged by Parliament today, will simply aid the demise of Scotland's fishing industry.

In many debates in the chamber, MSPs from all parties have spent a lot of time informing the minister about the importance of the onshore sector, which includes not just fish processors but the service sector. However, it is difficult to identify any new cash for that sector in the package that has been announced. The minister said that he was listening, but it is clear that all our pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member give way?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Let me continue.

So far, there are few new significant measures for the processing sector. Without appropriate help, that sector will lose valuable supplies and skills and will struggle to cope with the costs of insurance and the sea fish levy. There is nothing for the hundreds of businesses that rely on servicing the white-fish fleet, which will be tied up for two weeks every month until July and may be decommissioned by the minister. At the very least, we should give all those businesses emergency rates relief.

The minister's decision to allocate up to 80 per cent of the package to destroying Scottish fishing vessels beggars belief. Other fisheries ministers help their fleets to weather the storm when times are tough; our minister fails to defend his industry during vital negotiations. His answer is to inflict two decommissioning schemes on our fleet in as many years. Other fisheries ministers returned from Brussels in December having seen off a threat to stop them from using European cash—our cash is being used to build new vessels for their fleets. Our minister returned to Scotland and announced that he wanted to use our cash to destroy vessels and kick our industry when it is down.

To rub salt into the wounds, the European Commission and the UK, which were the architects of the fisheries deal, are set to get off scot free because the £50 million aid package that the minister has announced is to be wholly funded from the hard-pressed Scottish budget. We have been taken for mugs—our European competitors must be laughing all the way to the EU bank. Why is it that, when other nations faced unprecedented fishing crises, Europe's purse-strings suddenly loosened?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Does the member understand that all money, from whichever Government source it comes, is taxpayers' money? The Scottish Executive is using taxpayers' money in the most effective way to deal with the real crisis that is on our doorstep.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister has hit the nail on the head. The point is that European cash is our taxpayers' money, which is why we should be getting it to help our fleet. Other states benefit from our taxpayers' money, but Scotland does not.

When the EU-Morocco fisheries agreement collapsed in 1999 and a large part of the Spanish fleet was left with nowhere to go, the Spanish Government applied for and secured a €197 million emergency aid package from Europe. That package was to help 450 boats in Spain. Today, €150 million is available from the same emergency fund. Why do the minister and his counterpart in London not apply, as the Spanish did, for some of that money to help Scotland?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Mr Lochhead said that our money goes into Europe. Given that Britain is one of three nations that contribute positively to Europe, does he agree that it is ironic that we do not receive support when we need it?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am happy to agree with that important point.

Elliot Morley came to the Parliament yesterday. He is clearly not only a dismal fisheries minister, but completely and utterly ignorant. He accuses Scotland of wanting to support a begging bowl culture by applying for money that is rightly ours. This man Morley is not the slightest bit interested in saving Scotland's fishing industry. Scotland's fishing communities deserve what they are entitled to. Ross Finnie must leave no stone unturned and demand the funding that Scots taxpayers sent to Europe in the first place.

The emergency aid should be devoted to a recovery plan, not to the redundancy package that the minister has produced. The decommissioning of a huge number of white-fish vessels will turn fishing ports into ghost towns. The minister must get the package right. Last week in Aberdeen, an economist from the Sea Fish Industry Authority told the Rural Development Committee:

"without intervention, many vessels simply will not be able to remain in business with a 30 to 40 per cent reduction in throughput, and so could not survive the impact of the short-term recovery measures."

He went on to say:

"it is clear that the recovery measures will result in thousands of job losses around the coast of Scotland and millions—if not hundreds of millions of pounds—of output being removed from the Scottish economy."—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 11 February 2003; c 4256.]

Yesterday, a representative from Eyemouth community council told the Rural Development Committee that the decommissioning of one more vessel in Eyemouth would be devastating for the town. Only a few years ago, Eyemouth had 60 boats, each with a crew of six, but today it has 35 boats, each with a crew of three.

If the minister gets his aid package wrong, those predictions will become reality. We must maintain a critical mass, both in the onshore sector and in the fleet. The service sector will be hit hard if the £40 million-worth of decommissioning proceeds—the minister's package will end up doing more long-term harm than good.

There might be a case for a decommissioning scheme, but only a limited, voluntary one. The industry and communities throughout Scotland are united in opposition to decommissioning on the scale proposed. There is also a real concern about what will happen to the quotas if the scheme goes ahead because the vessels, the licences and the fishing entitlements must be surrendered in one package. Ministers must produce proposals to prevent our quotas from falling into the hands of foreign companies and to ensure that only fishermen who are committed to the industry enjoy the benefits of the package. The right to fish Scotland's waters is the birthright of our fishing communities; no one must be allowed to stand in the way of that right.

The package is one part of the jigsaw. The other part is negotiating a better deal and ensuring that a proper cod recovery plan is produced to replace the devastating interim measures. We have to secure more quota for our fleet. The minister has to persuade the Commission to separate the management of cod from that of other white-fish stocks so that the haddock and whiting quotas can be increased.

When the minister comes to negotiate, let him—for goodness' sake—learn lessons from December's fisheries council. Never again should we allow Elliot Morley, the UK fisheries minister, to lead on behalf of Scotland in negotiations. At the forthcoming important negotiations, Ross Finnie must take the lead. Elliot Morley can mislead and misrepresent as much as he wants, and as he did last night in the media when he said that the devolution settlement does not allow Scotland to lead European negotiations. He is wrong; he is misinformed; he is misleading the people of Scotland. The devolution settlement does allow Ross Finnie to lead negotiations. This Parliament has led negotiations in Brussels before, on education and health, so surely the man who is responsible for 70 per cent of the UK fishing industry should lead negotiations during the next few months to ensure that we save the future of Scotland's fishing industry.

I urge Parliament to support the SNP's amendment, and to support a recovery plan for Scotland's fishing communities and not the redundancy plan put forward by the minister today.

I move amendment S1M-3914.1, to leave out from first "welcomes" to end and insert:

"condemns the deal supported by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at December's EU Fisheries Council; agrees with the Minister for Environment and Rural Development that the deal is "inequitable, unfair and even crude"; rejects the scale of the decommissioning element of the Scottish Executive's subsequent aid package and calls on ministers to agree with industry representatives a recovery plan that includes appropriate assistance for the catching, processing and service sectors and ensures as

far as possible that the industry remains intact; believes that Her Majesty's Government and the European Commission should provide funding towards such a recovery plan; demands that the Executive and Her Majesty's Government renegotiate immediately the days at sea and quota cuts with a view to replacing these measures at the earliest opportunity with a management regime that promotes sustainability and protects the future of our fishing communities; urges ministers to ensure that Scotland's quota allocations only benefit active fishermen in Scotland, and recognises that the Common Fisheries Policy must be replaced by a policy that returns genuine control of our fishing grounds to the Parliament."

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In the Scottish Executive's motion, the word "welcomes" is repeated at least four times, but it is the wrong word—"laments" would be more appropriate. If it said that the Executive "laments the destruction of our once-proud Scottish fishing industry", it would be more apt. During the four years of the Parliament's existence, we have watched the fishing industry lurch from one crisis to another—crises not of the industry's making, but caused by the appalling common fisheries policy management which, as I have said before, hides behind scientists and blames the work force. Any other management that did the same would have been sacked long ago and replaced by something that managed the Scottish fishing industry properly. That is what must happen if the Scottish fleet is to have a future.

We cannot allow micromanagement from Brussels to continue. It has failed to protect fish stocks and fishing fleets. If ever there was an example of bad governance by Europe, the common fisheries policy is it.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

Could the member clarify whether the Tory party is proposing an immediate withdrawal from the European Union?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Certainly not. I did not mention withdrawal. We should like to see national control by all member states of their own waters.

The Scottish white-fish fleet which, despite doing more to adopt conservation measures than any other fleet in Europe, is being driven into the ground as the prime scapegoat for the collapse of the cod stock to satisfy Franz Fischler's obsession with his cod recovery plan—a plan that was simply a footnote to his common agricultural policy plans. The deep-sea species fiasco should have been a warning. Franz Fischler said that total allowable catches and quotas were the wrong way in which to manage the industry. Two days later, he introduced TACs and quotas that left Scotland with about 2 per cent of the deep-sea species in their waters; he gave 80 per cent to the French.

Yesterday's Rural Development Committee meeting, in which we questioned the UK fisheries minister, Elliot Morley, gave me no reassurance at all. It rather deepened the gloom, because he, too, seems hidebound by science and is obviously more impressed by European institutions than by any of the inside knowledge and practical experience that he would benefit from if he only listened to people in Scottish fishing communities.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In a moment.

It was interesting yesterday to hear John Farnell—one of Fischler's chief assistants—saying that TACs and quotas are possibly not the right way in which to produce a sustainable fishing industry. It has taken 30 years to work that one out.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Mr McGrigor is obviously suggesting that we should ignore the science—

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am not suggesting that.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea includes our own scientists at Aberdeen. Is the member also suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with what they are doing?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In his evidence to the Rural Development Committee the other day, Professor Tony Hawkins did not seem to respect much of the science that had been carried out. Indeed, it is a question of how the science is interpreted. However, I will address that point later when I talk about the hake recovery plan.

The fishermen themselves are turning against TACs and quotas. After all, although the Scottish demersal sector has a very good percentage of quotas in haddock, cod and whiting, there is no point in having them if the fishermen are not allowed to catch the fish. Furthermore, there is no point in Mr Morley and Mr Finnie congratulating themselves on having secured another 10-year derogation for six and 12-mile limits, relative stability and the Hague preference if no decent Scottish fleet is left to take advantage of them.

I welcome the Scottish Executive's £50 million aid package; however, four fifths of it is targeted at decommissioning, which is a gross imbalance by any standards. Fishermen want to fish. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation is appalled by the proposal, and Elliot Morley would not answer my question about the number of vessels that he expected the Commission would want to be decommissioned in return for extra days at sea.

The Commission itself acknowledges that the practical operation of the days-at-sea scheme is flawed. It is compromising safety, making working conditions hell, and not giving the fishermen time to catch their very limited quotas. The Executive must call on the Commission to entertain claims for time lost due to bad weather. Moreover, time lost during long transit passages should be refunded to vessels that are able to demonstrate that their gear was not used during the passage. Less powerful vessels should be permitted to transfer their days at sea to more powerful vessels based on kilowatt days.

However, despite all the arguments over days at sea, the main problems lie with the quotas. Vessels will have to increase their income in order to survive, which can be done only through taking on other vessels' quotas. Will the minister tell us what has happened to the quotas that belonged to vessels that were decommissioned in 2002 and whether those quotas can be used now? Even if vessels receive a larger quota, they must be allowed the time to catch it safely, and a scheme must be evolved that allows them to do so.

As it appears that the so-called interim measures might go on well beyond July, the minister must tell us about his contingency plans if that happens. For example, is it possible to increase the allowable catch for haddock and whiting by fishing in areas that have very few cod?

As for the science, it would appear that it is interpreted in different ways to suit different people. Draconian measures have been brought in for cod, but why has there been an 11 per cent increase in the TAC for hake when the science suggested that there should be a virtual moratorium on catching that stock? Is it because the Spanish like catching hake? Indeed, what has happened to the hake recovery plan?

Scotland seems to have been singled out to carry the can for the failure of the CFP. That is simply not good enough. It is time for members to stand up for our fleet and to stop giving tacit support to bad decisions that are made miles away in Brussels. Geographically, Scotland might not lie in the heart of Europe, but Peterhead and Fraserburgh sit in the heart of Europe's richest fishing grounds. It is time to realise that only with the national and local management of UK waters can we save the Scottish fishing industry and the people who depend on it.

I move amendment S1M-3914.2, to leave out from first "welcomes" to end and insert:

"recognises that the results of the EU Fisheries Council in December were disastrous for Scotland; notes the severity of the crisis now facing the Scottish fishing industry; believes that the effects of the conservation measures already taken by Scottish fishermen have not been taken into full consideration; further notes the Scottish Executive's £50 million aid package but questions the balance of allocation between decommissioning and transitional funding, and notes that the Common Fisheries Policy of collective management has been disastrous for the Scottish fishing industry and must be replaced and that only a move to national and local control will bring sustainability to the Scottish fishing industry in the future."

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

The solitary point of agreement between Richard Lochhead and me is that the white-fish industry is undoubtedly facing its greatest crisis for a generation. However, there we part company. It is clear that any decisions that are made now must focus on ensuring that the Scottish fishing industry can survive and be sustainable in the long term. However, that cannot be done by ducking hard decisions or even by denying the science, which is something that those who oppose the EU's harsh but necessary decisions often appear to do.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

No—I am not even out of my first minute yet.

Once again, the SNP has come to the chamber with no real answers and the same old arguments about the constitution and who leads the delegation. What is really at stake is the future of the Scottish fishing industry, and that is what we should be concentrating on. It is clear that white-fish stocks have been in a long-term downward trend for many years. It is uncertain whether North sea fish stocks will ever recover. No one particularly wanted the recent EU settlement, but drastic action had to be taken to ensure a long-term viable, sustainable North sea fishery.

Currently, there is high cod mortality because the cod are often caught before they are mature enough to spawn. That situation is not sustainable. The marine laboratory in Aberdeen indicates that only one in 20 cod will survive to maturity at the age of four. John Farnell, of the European Commission fisheries directorate-general, made it clear in evidence to the Rural Development Committee yesterday that the new regime, which cuts fishing effort by only 65 per cent, is a higher risk one than that which is sought.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Elaine Thomson said that it is important that the white-fish fleet survives. How will the fleet survive if every time a minister does badly in negotiations in Europe he comes back with a decommissioning scheme that will destroy part of the fleet?

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

I am just going to move on to what really happened at the European negotiations, which was made clear to Mr Lochhead and others who attended the Rural Development Committee meeting yesterday. Mr Lochhead has accused Scotland and the UK of being unable to win over enough EU countries to support our position. One answer to that accusation is that European countries such as Sweden and Germany wanted to adopt either the original European Commission proposal, which was to have a complete ban, or the next proposal, which was to have an 80 per cent cut in fishing effort. Scottish ministers opposed, correctly, both those positions.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Elaine Thomson referred to Sweden and Germany. Can she advise me what fishing stocks those countries have and what has happened to their stocks?

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

Both those countries are involved in fishing and, as they are part of the EU, they have a right to be involved in discussions on fishing. The proposals for a complete ban or an 80 per cent cut were opposed by both UK and Scottish ministers because they would undoubtedly guarantee the end of the Scottish white-fish industry, which would have consequent devastating effects on fishing communities around Scotland. The Executive has given clear support to the fishing industry to ensure that it has a long-term future. The further decommissioning and transitional aid, which will be supported by the £50 million, will allow those who remain in the industry to work for 15 days a month as opposed to the original proposal—

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

No. I am running out of time.

The original proposal would have allowed fishing for only eight days a month. It was also made clear yesterday that the European Commission is willing to work with the Scottish Executive and others to modify and make more flexible the days-at-sea rules, so that consideration can be given to boats being in port for safety reasons.

Overfishing is the main reason for the current crisis, but that has undoubtedly been made worse by decades of failed fisheries management under the previous CFP. The new CFP contains almost everything that the Scottish fishing industry, the Executive and the Parliament seek and it should be welcomed. In particular, we should welcome the opportunity for increased local control, with regional advisory councils.

The fishing industry consists not only of boats at sea, but of fish processing and other ancillary industries, which employ thousands of people. About 1,600 people work in fish processing in Aberdeen alone. Danny Cooper and Robert Milne, who are in the public gallery, have often said that when the herring fishing closed in the 1970s, fish processing was given no support, so it collapsed. The result was that markets and businesses were lost and to this day we do not eat much herring, which is the kind of fish that forms part of the healthy eating lifestyle that the First Minister urges us to adopt.

I ask the minister to ensure that urgent attention is given to how best to support the onshore processors. They, too, are part of a sustainable fishing industry. As part of that, we need to concentrate on maximising the value of fish products and on ensuring their quality. Recently, I learned that one of the UK's largest supermarkets buys fish from a north-east fish processor. That is fine, but it insists on using imported fish because the quality of Scottish fish is poor and inconsistent. That is a ridiculous situation and I ask the minister to consider what we can do to raise the quality of our fish and support the fish processors and skippers who want to deliver that step change in quality.

The Labour party believes that the Scottish fish industry has a sustainable future, welcomes the Executive's commitment and support for that industry and supports the motion.

David (None, Lothians)

This debate has to end at 11.30 and the two opening speakers were well over time because they were both generous in giving way. I must therefore be strict on timing if everyone is to get a chance to speak in what is an important debate for the people whom the members represent.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

When I first came to Parliament, on 13 June 2001, it was to stage 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I made my first speech the following day, in a debate on the subject of fishing, and said:

"Taking too many boats out of the industry now will benefit only other countries' fishing industries."—[Official Report, 14 June 2001; c 1670.]

Today, our money is building Spanish boats and destroying our boats. Yesterday, Elliot Morley claimed as a victory the fact that the money being spent by the Spaniards must be spent by 2004 whereas, previously, they had to spend it by 2006. There is no reduction in the money, however, which means that Elliot Morley claimed as a victory the fact that the Spaniards must build their fishing fleet up even faster. The extremity of the situation in which our industry is in is perfectly illustrated by that difficulty.

There might be many ports around Scotland in which fishermen are happy with the EU result—I know of some—but the disastrous operation of the CFP will ensure only that their turn for misery has been postponed. We must not indulge in triumphalism because some local interests have a temporary victory. Ministers claim success in the renegotiation of the CFP and it is true that relative stability has been preserved, the Shetland box has been maintained and the Hague preference is continuing, but that is the case only for the time being. There are no guarantees and there is no permanence. The CFP remains absolutely and fundamentally flawed.

In 1975, I campaigned against our entry into Europe on the terms that condemned us to policies such as the CFP and, today, I believe that the CFP must be ended and that we must be out of it.

We must not allow ourselves to be blinded by science. As I said to Elliot Morley yesterday in the Rural Development Committee, there are many sources of science. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea is the paramount source, and Scotland contributes to it. National fishing reports provide evidence to the EU but, in many cases, that evidence is flawed—as we know, the Danes' industrial fisheries bycatches report grossly under-reported the white-fish bycatch as it was based only on the evidence of arrests in the last three months of the year. We must bear in mind the fact that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs released a report that showed that stocks of cod and haddock are separated to an adequate degree in the North sea.

We have to acknowledge that our view of the sea's ecology is akin to the knowledge of a room's contents that would be gained by looking through the keyhole. We have an incomplete understanding of what is going on. Our data are incomplete. To question the science is to question whether it can predict what will be, not to quarrel with what is seen. We must open the debate about the nature of extrapolation from the data that are known and about an environment with imperfect data and hidden variables. The Icelanders and Faeroese have used science differently and with huge success.

On 14 June 2001, I said:

"fishing is not just another industry. It is a way of life and a staple for many communities".—[Official Report, 14 June 2001; c 1670.]

Responsibility for fishery management must be delivered to those communities, which will then succeed or fail on their own efforts. The CFP has failed and must be ended in its present form.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The appalling, unfair and discriminatory outcome of the December fisheries council is already hitting the fishing industry in my constituency very hard indeed. Grotesque uncertainty exists about the present position. Crews, agents and local fisheries managers are trying to run an industry for which there are few details and less hope. For many Shetland fishermen, after a promising 2002, the outcome of the fisheries council in December was a body blow.

I welcome the Minister for Environment and Rural Development's work in meeting fishermen from my constituency and the fact that the First Minister met the fishing industry on Monday in Scalloway. However, current fisheries policy, which is forever being micromanaged from Brussels, gives fishermen an impossible choice: bankruptcy or breaking the law. That is the reality of the present position, and why I oppose the arbitrary and artificial balance to the £50 million package that has been announced. I recognise a change of position, in that fishermen will be compensated through tie-up moneys where Europe has imposed a mandatory period in port. That is welcome, but it will not be enough unless the support is of sufficient value that boats will actually use it.

I suggest a simple formula that targets those boats and crews that are most in need and most disadvantaged by the present appalling position. Unless enough resources are applied to transitional support, boats will not take it and the results will be threefold.

First, those who are unfortunate to be decommissioned will face bankruptcy.

Secondly, many will fish regardless of the rules. They will fish north of the 61 deg line, but there will also be displacement. I agree with the remarks on displacement that have been made by Alasdair Morrison and George Lyon. We need to seek to avoid it, but there can be no doubt that it will happen unless the transitional support is adequate. To argue that there will be no displacement under the current package shows a fundamental misunderstanding.

Thirdly, imports of fish, which Elaine Thomson mentioned, will increase. Prices will remain as depressed as they have been in recent weeks around Scotland's fish markets. A Whalsay skipper who spoke to me on Saturday said that 300 boxes of good fish that were caught this week and landed into Lerwick on Friday were worth a gross of some £11,000. A week before Christmas, the same quantity of fish landed into the Lerwick market grossed £16,000. There are some serious issues with imports and the situation will get worse.

I fear that too many bureaucrats have no idea about the reality of the position that fishing communities around Scotland face.

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

I listened with interest to Tavish Scott's radio interview yesterday morning, during which he acknowledged that the pre and post-negotiation processes in Europe were part of the problem with getting the best deal for Scotland. Does he not acknowledge that Scotland could get the best deal by leading in the negotiations in its own right—with its own people in the process from the beginning, negotiating hard all the way beside colleagues in Europe?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am really not interested in the Scottish National Party's constitutional nonsense. I am interested in finding the best deal for the Scottish and Shetland fishing industry. I am sick to death of wasting time on facts that do not matter. I am interested in finding a common fisheries policy that works, because the present one does not work. If the SNP had been leading in the fisheries council, it would have achieved nothing more than an 80 per cent cut in quotas. I will take no lectures from that lot on the issue.

The choice is stark: enforced bankruptcy or breaking the law. The director of conservation policy in the European Commission's fisheries directorate-general yesterday told the Rural Development Committee that the common fisheries policy had failed. However, the European Commission wants to continue to micromanage the industry. Yesterday, the Commission suggested six detailed points of change to the interim measures so as to alter the draconian days-at-sea rules. They are more of the same, however, and the policy is still to micromanage. That must change.

Unless decisions are made locally and quickly, fishermen will increasingly ask, as they are asking now, "Why are we in the common fisheries policy?" I am not prepared to accept the outcome as it stands at the moment; I trust that the Government is not either.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

As I have said before, I come from a fishing family. Some members of my family went to sea—some were skippers; others were fish buyers; others were processors; one had the ice plant in Aberdeen. A community is at stake. This is not just about those who go to sea. What about those on land who support them? We must consider the issue in a more holistic manner, and we should not get bogged down in silly constitutional squabbling. We need firm, sustainable action. We must ensure that we have a sustainable fleet that will secure jobs onshore in a sustainable manner. That is what the focus of the debate should be at this time.

Forty-four thousand jobs are involved in the sector, and they are not all at sea. Once again, I was disappointed to receive in the form of a parliamentary written answer this week a rejection of a plea to have a task force go in and examine the economies involved. I have asked five ministers now, and I have had five rejections, although one minister at least took things part of the way, and a scheme led by the local enterprise company and involving local businessmen was set up. However, that scheme failed at the last minute.

We must start considering not just the arguments over the nonsense arising from the European fisheries policy and how Europe is meddling in the industry, but what we in the Scottish Parliament are doing to support our fishing communities. That is a large part of the debate; it is not just about the days-at-sea rule and the fact that policing is uneven. Our people are well disciplined, and we are sending out another fishery protection vessel. What will that vessel be doing, however? Does the contract that governs it enable it to sort out the foreign fishermen? I am not so sure about that. Is the vessel just another stick with which to beat our own crews?

EU aid is being allocated in several different forms, and I cannot believe that the Government down south in Westminster has not got the courage to take back some of our taxpayers' money to help the fishing communities. This is not just about helping fishermen or fish processors; it is about helping communities. If ever there was a need for the European Union to deliver, it is in the form of community support. Members have asked about rates relief. That, too, is not just for the fish processors; it is for all the businesses that are involved in this temporary situation.

The minister did not make much comment on the iniquitous industrial fishing. It is scandalous that that is allowed to go on—that has been mentioned in debate after debate—yet it is still not viewed as an issue. Elaine Thomson mentioned the quality of fish, which is an interesting point. A lot of work is being done on that, and quality is improving, but will we have any markets left to handle fish and to encourage landings anyway?

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Mr Davidson mentions industrial fishing. No wonder the Danes could walk away from the fisheries council talking about valuable results. The fish are starving because of industrial fishing, which is why their quality is reduced.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

My first members' business debate after Her Majesty opened the Parliament was on the fish processing industry, and I will finish by making some points on behalf of that industry, which is vital to the economy of the north-east of Scotland.

The fish processors need transitional aid. They need assistance with rates; employment grants at times of fish shortage to retain skilled staff, who are hard to come by; help to insure premises, as the new insulation with composite panelling gives rise to increased fire risk; increases to the financial instrument for fisheries guidance—FIFG—funding for premises and plant; and help to downsize and move from larger to smaller premises, so that they may be sustained, as it is not possible to operate a small-turnover business in large premises. If fish processors are to restructure, we cannot leave them out of our considerations. I have not yet heard anything firm from the minister, other than, "Let the marketplace prevail." That is not good enough for the fish-processing sector, which is vital for jobs onshore.

We need a more holistic approach to this exercise, which is not just about those who go to sea; it is about those who support them and those who work onshore, and all the other industries that are based in their communities. It is about time that the debate took note of that.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Thank you for allowing the representative of a southern, land-locked constituency to express views about the on-going fisheries debate.

The fact that no fishing fleet sails from Kilmarnock—the Kilmarnock water is too small even for a rowing boat—does not mean that my constituents or I cannot have a view on the current state of the fishing industry. Indeed, I may be able to view the matter more clearly because my constituents' livelihoods are not at stake. Fish is also a major part of the diet of people throughout Scotland. Today Cathy Jamieson, the Minister for Education and Young People, is seeking to ensure that every child has access to fish at school at least once a week.

Clearly, the changes to sea fisheries are problematic. The Minister for Environment and Rural Development has made clear the Executive's commitment to help the communities that are affected by quota changes to adjust to the new realities. However, we must now proceed to examine how our fishing industry can be improved and made more valuable. There is no point in the Opposition attacking what happened at Brussels or elsewhere while failing—as usual—to come up with an alternative to progress the fishing industry in Scotland. We must reconsider our market targets and move away from a high-volume fishery to develop an even higher-quality fishery.

My statement that I have no direct constituency interest in the matter was not quite accurate. Earlier this week, I met representatives of a small-to-medium-sized Kilmarnock-based company, OWL Water Solutions Ltd, which drew my attention to problems that fishermen face in maintaining the freshness of their catch. I am advised that, on a 10-day trip, the fish caught on day 1 are much less valuable than the fish caught on day 9, because their quality deteriorates in the fishing boat's hold during the trip.

OWL Water Solutions has developed a product that has EU approval for use in drinking water and as a biocide. Early trials with the product have shown that it can maintain the freshness of the catch throughout the trip. As a result, fishermen may get the same high price for their entire catch. Later this year more extended trials, supported by Seafood Scotland, will take place.

There are some regulatory problems with the French—when are there not? However, using the new system there is the prospect of increasing substantially the value of the Scottish catch, which would go some way towards offsetting the loss of income that is caused by the decrease in quotas.

I am talking about a Scottish product, developed by a Kilmarnock company, which is being manufactured in Greenhills in Beith—in the constituency of the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development. It has the prospect of assisting the painful regeneration of the Scottish fishing industry.

I call on the minister to investigate this and other projects that have the potential to improve and aid the industry. Ministers should consider ensuring that trials are accelerated, to see whether the system could be made available to the whole fleet. They should hold discussions with their Westminster colleagues to ensure that the Scottish fleet is not further penalised by spurious rules that create export hurdles in specific countries that are substantially higher than those that the European Community sets.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Having been the elected member for Moray since 1987, either at Westminster or in the Scottish Parliament, I do not come from a land-locked constituency. I want to talk from the heart about the implications of this deal for fishing constituencies.

Every year, in November and December, we go through the ritual of preparing for the December fisheries council. I have been through many bad times in those debates at Westminster, knowing that our fishermen would end up with a bad deal in their Christmas stockings. However, this deal is the worst that I have seen in all the years that I have represented my constituency.

I draw attention to a point that was made by the North East Scotland Fisheries Partnership in written evidence given to the Rural Development Committee yesterday. It said

"There is no doubt that the latest proposals from the Commission spell economic disaster for the North East of Scotland."

The partnership also mentioned what the scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries has done. It said

"The experimental nature of this work combined with the lack of robust economic data on the North Sea demersal fleet undoubtedly raises serious questions regarding the reliability of the economic analysis. The economic advice available to the Commission is incomplete and out of date."

It is an insult to our fleet to use incomplete data.

If environmental impact assessments are done for many of the issues that come before Parliament, why should not a social and economic investigation be undertaken into the realities of what is facing our fishing communities? The deal has created such anger in our communities. The fleet in Europe that has done the most for conservation is bearing the brunt of the penalties that are being brought in by Europe.

In my area, women have formed their own version of the Cod Crusaders. In Moray Makes Waves, those women are showing the anger and frustration of their communities. We must remember that they are concerned not just about the present, but about the future. We must take into account the fact that young men in my area follow not only in their fathers' footsteps but in those of their great-grandfathers. They operate small family businesses and we owe them a great debt and should show our loyalty to them.

We are not prepared to turn our coastal communities into an industrial heritage museum trail. One of the biggest tourist attractions in Moray is watching the fleet plying to and fro. The highlight for many people was to turn up at midnight when large numbers of boats were coming in and to see what it was like when the fishermen came home and were greeted by their families.

I ask Ross Finnie—as I did yesterday at the Rural Development Committee—whether, in the March council, he will again raise the issue of fixed quota allowances, because it is important to retain FQAs in Scotland. Will the minister also pursue the issue of whether national quotas will remain in force? Mr Farnell said that they would remain for the foreseeable future. That needs to be clarified.

I want more progress to be made on the issue of industrial fishing, which is a disgrace. Industrial fishing is destroying the food chain and that impacts on all our stocks.

The minister said that the deal was pernicious and that means that we must get rid of the common fisheries policy.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I am keen to ensure that a west coast perspective is given in this morning's debate. We are all agreed that the CFP is fundamentally flawed. We also appreciate what Ross Finnie and Elliot Morley are now doing within the new and emerging structures. They are trying to work within those new structures to ensure the best deal for Scotland and the United Kingdom. We all appreciate that the old way of doing business—the annual bun-fight in Brussels—was not in the best interests of the Scottish fishing industry, and certainly not in the interests of those of us who genuinely want to support our fishing industries.

I am always amused when I come to the chamber for fishing debates and listen to a politician who portrays himself as the foremost authority on fishing not only in the Scottish National Party but right across the political spectrum—Mr Lochhead. A week ago yesterday, at an interesting, informative and constructive evidence-taking session in Aberdeen, Mr Lochhead started berating a witness, telling him that he represented a Government-sponsored agency. The bemused witness responded that the industry sponsors his agency and pays for research and wages. How can we possibly take Mr Lochhead seriously when he does not have a grasp of the basic details of the industry?

This cannot be an easy debate for the nationalists, who, for months, have been berating Ross Finnie and Elliot Morley. Both ministers sat in this chamber yesterday and were cross-examined for two hours. Answer after answer showed the flaw in the nationalists' infantile posturing. The nationalists are bereft of ideas and bereft of policies. Yesterday was an interesting lesson.

I turn to the west coast of Scotland. Over the years, the Western Isles fishing industry has diversified in relation to the stock and marketing opportunities that are available. Our fleet of 320 vessels, which employs around 700 people at sea and a further 200 in the processing sector, will largely be unaffected by the decisions that were taken at the crucial talks at the end of last year, but although we are not directly affected by the outcome of those talks, there are other matters that could lead to the destruction of our conservation-led fisheries.

I was grateful and relieved that the Scottish and UK fisheries ministers recognised yesterday the importance of putting in place a number of measures to protect our nephrops fisheries from potentially ruinous methods of exploitation. I urge Ross Finnie to put those methods in place as soon as possible, because the one great concern on the west coast is that we will see the displacement of fishing effort from other parts of the United Kingdom and from the north-east of Scotland.

When we talk about protecting our fragile fishing communities, we must ensure that our actions target the fragile fishing stocks, because without such action we will have no communities, workers, fishermen or processors to protect.

There is another issue that I want to raise in relation to decommissioning. The clearly stated view on the west coast is that the scheme must take out those who have the greatest impact on the white-fish sector, with the emphasis being placed firmly on effort rather than capacity. We know from bitter experience that in previous decommissioning schemes, vessels that had a low or negligible impact were removed. We all appreciate that that did not represent value for money, nor did it represent a favourable outcome in relation to the amount of fishing effort that was left in the sea.

In conclusion, and from a west coast perspective, I believe firmly that we must learn lessons from the disastrous management of our white-fish stocks over the years. We must take note of early warnings. As was stated at the Rural Development Committee yesterday by a number of witnesses, the time to put in place good management measures is when things are going reasonably well. In relation to the west-coast fishery, that is now. If we do not do that, we will create problems for the communities that we represent.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I was elected to the House of Commons in 1992. My maiden speech in that chamber, following failure to get into a debate on Europe and Maastricht, was in a fisheries debate. At that time, my interest was in prawn fishing because it affected fishermen on the west coast, and in particular on the Clyde estuary. Then, we were arguing against scientific evidence that suggested that prawn stocks were in decline. We had that argument continually over the years that I was in Parliament. Each time, we found that quotas were cut initially then restored before the end of the year.

We found that the evidence from the fishermen was the best scientific evidence that was available. The fishermen knew that prawn stocks were okay and they were able to monitor them. They were able to self-regulate, which they did in a number of ways. In the Clyde estuary, they did it by establishing a block on weekend fishing and by changing net sizes. They did that in co-operation with the Government.

Alasdair Morrison said that it is good to see a change. It was also stated that this settlement is perhaps the best settlement that we could get. Over the period in which I have been involved and have shown interest in the fishing industry, this is the worst settlement that we have had. Quite honestly, it is unsustainable for the Scottish fleet.

Jamie McGrigor talked about the scientific evidence. It seems to me that scientific evidence is always time based; it is always based on past findings, not on the present. It is astounding that when we examine the scientific evidence we see that the scientists have not even recognised the importance of the feedstock to the cod stock in the North sea. For goodness' sake, if the fish are to recover, surely we should protect their feedstock, yet the European Commission and the agreement that ministers have signed up to have not allowed that to happen.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am sorry; I do not have time.

In the past, the industry showed that once it had signed up to such agreements, it stuck to them. It implemented agreements through regulation and the use of our fishery officers. In his term in office, the minister has presided over a 25 per cent cut in the fleet's size. A week or two ago, I asked the minister whether he would cut the number of regulatory officers. There are fewer British fishermen to regulate, so why do we need to maintain the number of fishery officers? The answer was that the Executive had no intention of cutting the number. Why do we need those officers? They seem to over-regulate our own fishermen.

If the draconian measures go ahead, I have no doubt that some stock will be preserved, but the Scottish fleet will be destroyed. The people who will gain from our preserving the cod stock will be the Spanish, who have built their fleet on British taxpayers' money. That must end. I go along with Jamie McGrigor's suggestion that it is time for national and local control of our fishery waters.

Change must take place in Europe. The Labour Government was elected on the basis that it would be at the centre of Europe, but we are now very much on the periphery of Europe. That must change. Perhaps the only way to change the situation would be to take a stand, as the French did by challenging the lifting of the beef ban in the European courts. Perhaps we should step back from immediate compliance and delay implementation until the measures have been tested in the European courts.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Like Alasdair Morrison, I speak on behalf of the west coast fishing industry. I make clear its appreciation of the minister's efforts in Brussels on its behalf. The proposed 5 per cent cut in the prawn quota was fought off and the 25-days-at-sea rule leaves the industry in my constituency largely unaffected by the deal.

However, prawn fishermen on the west coast have two major concerns. Alasdair Morrison touched on one: displacement. There is huge worry that unless the short-term transitional relief scheme keeps boats tied to piers, white-fish boats will massively overfish prawns with unused quotas held by producer organisations. I already hear reports from Kenny MacNab of the Clyde Fishermen's Association and others of up to a week's delay in getting prawns into processors because of the quantity of prawns on the marketplace.

The worry is that displacement is happening as we speak, so it is vital that the transitional aid scheme delivers boats that are against piers rather than fishing prawns in our waters. It is vital that the transitional aid scheme works and that the west coast prawn fleet does not end up paying the price for the measures targeted at the white-fish fleet.

As the minister said in his speech, a rapid increase in the quota for cod or haddock is unlikely, so it is vital for the long-term sustainability of the whole Scottish fleet—which includes west coast and east coast fishermen, and not just the white-fish sector—that the Executive's decommissioning scheme works. We need to ensure a better balance between effort and stocks. Unlike Mr Lochhead, west coast fishermen fully support decommissioning. He did not speak for the whole fishing industry when he said that it was unanimously against decommissioning.

Another concern among my prawn fishermen is the anomaly that has resulted in twin-rig prawn trawlers being caught by the 15-days-at-sea rule. That was never the European Commission's intention and I understand that that has been formally acknowledged. I welcome the minister's consultation on a solution to the anomaly and I urge him to choose option B—the administrative solution—which is the right way to proceed.

I will now deal with the SNP's position. This morning, we sat and listened to Richard Lochhead in the hope that we would hear something constructive or even something sensible, but we heard neither. He said that he would have rejected the deal, in the very unlikely event that he would ever represent the Scottish fishing fleet, and would have voted with the Swedes and the Germans, who, by the way, were opposed to the deal because the measures did not go far enough—they wanted the cod fishing effort completely shut down. He would have voted with them, thereby allowing the Commission to take emergency powers and to implement its original proposals, which were an 80 per cent cut in quotas and only seven days at sea. That would be the reality if Richard Lochhead had been representing the industry in Europe. That is what the SNP policy really means.

The SNP also says that it would refuse to implement the decommissioning scheme. We all know what that would result in. It would trigger another 15 per cent cut in days at sea—another two days off the allowable days at sea. The SNP's policy would mean further cuts in effort for the Scottish fleet.

The coalition Executive has backed the sustainable future of our fishing industry with £50 million. What is the SNP policy? Not a penny more. So much for fishing being at the heart of SNP policy. Is it any wonder that the fishing industry is putting up a fishing candidate against Mr Lochhead?

I have attended many agricultural council meetings in my time and never before have I witnessed an Opposition spokesman, whether Tory, Labour or Liberal Democrat, turn up at a council meeting in Brussels and proceed to undermine and stab in the back a minister battling hard for the future of our fishing communities. I know that Mr Swinney is not in the chamber, but I say to him that it is time that he decommissioned his fishing spokesperson, because he is a disgrace to his party and a disgrace to Scotland.

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

Before I call Christine Grahame, I point out that the two remaining speeches from her and from Mr Smith should be about three minutes.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

That last speech rather reminds me of the phrase:

"full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

I will quote from Franz Fischler's open letter to the fishing industry. He said to the fishermen:

"We are not forcing anyone to scrap their boats or to give up fishing. We are making an offer to those fishermen who can no longer make a reasonable living from fishing to leave the industry, in dignity and with appropriate ... support."

He went on to say:

"I am convinced that it makes no sense to spend money with one hand for scrapping vessels and with the other to finance new ones."

Well, well. He finishes the letter by saying "Best regards". That man had no regard for the fishing industry.

I have some other quotes. As Margaret Ewing said, communities are being destroyed. In Eyemouth, two years ago, £5 million was spent on the harbour and an ice plant. A recent report from the Liberal Democrat-led Scottish Borders Council said that, on that basis, between 500 and 600 jobs are being threatened by the recent draconian proposals that are being proposed as part of the CFP.

I will quote what fishermen and the people working there said in an article in the Daily Mail on Saturday 25 January. Robert Mitchell, boat welder, said:

"These latest cuts are bound to affect boat building, and what really gets to me is the way we let all the foreign trawlers into our waters.

My wife packs prawns and she makes more money than I do but, of course, her job will be affected too."

Robbie Walker, fish auctioneer, said:

"My hair is going to turn grey very quickly this year, because it's make or break now."

Robin Aitchison, ice plant boss, said:

"The ice factory is owned by a co-op of fishermen and was built about the same time as the new harbour two years ago. The cuts are going to devastate the whole thing. The boats will keep taking ice as long as they go to sea but will it be worth while to keep this going. I was a deep-sea fisherman for 12 years. It runs right through my life."

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No. I have only three minutes.

Graham Dench, charity worker, said:

"Scots fishermen tend to be different from English; they have a lot of pride here and a determination to sort their own problems out.

Men have been going to sea for seven days and coming home to find they've lost money and are further in debt."

The quotations go on and on. Johnny Johnston, harbour master, said:

"The harbour is the hub of the community and if nothing's happening there, nothing's happening in the town."

We are talking about the destruction of Scottish communities. Elliot Morley suggested yesterday in the Rural Development Committee that we should treat the situation as just another major industry closure. It is that, but it is more; it is a fatal blow to our sea-coast communities and their way of life. The Executive does not understand that.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Like my colleague George Lyon, I will say a few words about the prawn industry. The prawn industry is vital to the fishermen in Pittenweem in my constituency.

There is no doubt that the EU regulations that we are required to implement are illogical, inconsistent and, in some cases, anti-conservation. There are good conservation reasons for a nephrops fisherman to use 100mm mesh rather than 80mm mesh. The fact that the larger mesh allows more juvenile fish to escape will enable him to produce a product that is of better quality and higher value and will allow him to conserve his limited quota. It makes no sense that a nephrops fisherman should be penalised for such a practice by having fewer days at sea to fish. The regulations should be about what is fished, not how it is fished.

Like George Lyon, I welcome the Scottish Executive's efforts to find a way round the problem through its consultation paper. Even at this stage, the European Commission should recognise its folly and change the regulation in question. If a boat goes out from 5 in the morning until 5 at night, that counts as one day at sea, but if it goes out from 5 in the evening until 5 the next morning, that counts as two days at sea. That regime will have an impact on the prawn fishery, which tends to fish overnight. The system of measuring time from midnight instead of considering logically the number of hours that are spent fishing means that the prawn fishery will lose a day at sea per week. I hope that the EU will reassess that nonsense rule.

My main concern for the fishery in Pittenweem relates to displacement, which has been mentioned. There has already been an impact on the price of prawns as a result of displacement. That will affect the income that is available to the fishermen in my communities, who will not be able to get such good value for their product. In addition to the issue of using up existing quota, there is a genuine threat of illegal fishing for prawns. There is a serious danger of black fish being landed. Although the EU was warned about that being a side effect of its regulations, it seems to have ignored the warning. I hope that the issue will be addressed.

Quota will be used up early. When the quota that is unused by some of the producer organisations is used up, less quota will be available to the fishermen in my area, who do not have an allocated quota. They use up what is available. They will lose out towards the end of the year.

There will also be an impact on onshore industries, such as engineering, marketing and processing. Most of the processors require white fish from somewhere in Scotland. I hope that the Government will consider extending the emergency business rates relief scheme. Such a scheme was used during the foot-and-mouth crisis. That would help businesses that suffer from severe financial difficulties as a result of the regulations.

Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies are beginning a local economic impact study of the effect of the EU rules. They must be told to get a move on with that. If a study is produced in six months' time, that will be too late. Businesses that needed support will have gone to the wall.

I welcome the extra £50 million in support that Liberal Democrat ministers in the Executive have secured for the fishing industry. We must ensure that there is an appropriate balance between funding decommissioning and providing transitional relief. It is no use having decommissioning or transitional relief schemes if no one takes them up because the balance is not right.

Let us be clear—without Liberal Democrats in government in Scotland, there would have been no £50 million package and there would have been no £10 million to support transition.

I support the motion.

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

We move to winding-up speeches. We must reach the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill by 11.30, so speakers should stick to their designated times.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

There can be no fishing industry if there are no fish. We can blame the situation on the common fisheries policy, as the Tories do, even though they signed up to it. We can blame it on the fishermen's reluctance to sign up to conservation measures in the past, as the environmentalists do. We can blame it on the scientists, as the Tories do. We can blame it on the foreigners, as the Tories and the SNP do. We can blame it on the minister for not announcing on his return from Brussels that he had negotiated another 100,000 tonnes of cod for the North sea, which would be swimming past Peterhead at any moment. That is what the SNP's position seems to be.

The minister and his UK counterpart did all that was possible at the time. The initial European Commission proposal would have closed down the fishery, but they clawed back significant concessions.

We have a last chance to save our fish stocks and, therefore, our fishing industry.

First, it is important to ensure that there is a fishing fleet left to grow and develop when the fish stocks have recovered, and I ask the minister to address that. We must also do our utmost to preserve unused quota entitlement in Scotland. It is a tradeable asset, which Highland Council, for example, would like to acquire for future times. I am aware that the Executive is pursuing in Europe whether it is possible to organise such schemes.

Secondly, we must have unanimity of purpose between fishermen's organisations and the scientists. They must get round the table together and work out the way forward for the industry.

Thirdly, we must have financial support for fishing communities in this dire time for them. That financial support should not be for the owners of the boats alone, but for the crews, the support industries that supply fishing gear, the quayside workers and the fish processors who have to find other suppliers. For fishing communities, the situation is the equivalent of the closures at Motorola, Ardersier and the Jaeger factory in Campbeltown.

We must also ensure that cutbacks in the white-fish catch do not mean that there is displacement pressure to the detriment of the fragile inshore fisheries on the west coast, as Alasdair Morrison pointed out.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member give way?

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you, but no. I have very little time.

I am pleased to see in the Executive's motion that support packages will be conditional on avoiding the situation I described. We do not want one sector of the industry to survive at the expense of another, and I ask the minister to keep a close eye on what happens there.

I make a special plea for the processors, who have often been neglected in the equation. I have raised the matter in debate before. As Elaine Thomson said, they are considerable employers in the north-east of Scotland, and they might need transitional help until they find new sources of fish from abroad.

We all pray that the stocks will recover and that we will still have a fleet to fish them. However, I end by offering my congratulations to a Wester Ross community that has received a prestigious international marine conservation award, never before won in this country. The award is for the prawn creelers of Loch Torridon, who came to an arrangement with the prawn trawlermen whereby the creelers fished the loch and the trawlers worked further out. The scheme has meant the preservation of young prawns and egg-bearing females. The whole fishing industry should take a lesson from that extremely important initiative on the west coast of Scotland, because it represents the way forward.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In opening, it is appropriate to refer once again to the fact that the debate takes place rather later than many of us would have liked.

When the minister made his opening statement, it seemed obvious that he regards the debate as something of a pre-debate on the statutory instruments that he has introduced to implement the cuts that were negotiated in Europe. I am disappointed that that has been allowed to happen. Some six weeks ago, a statement was made in the chamber, and members should have been allowed to debate the matter then. At that stage, views from every corner of the chamber could have been expressed when there was still an opportunity—to some extent—to influence the drafting and ultimate implementation of the regulations.

I am disappointed that the minister seeks to talk about the statutory instruments when we have so much more to talk about in relation to the fishing industry, as we will have in the months and years to come. I am also disappointed, because the fishing industry, above all else, used to bring about consensus in the chamber. We all knew what the problems were and how difficult they were to face, but there was always a willingness to concede and to find consensus across the political divides. Today, we have witnessed the first manifestation of the polarisation of political argument, with the unfortunate results that that has for the fishing industry. We can no longer deliver what we want to deliver.

I mention in passing that the fishermen have decided to seek direct representation in the chamber, and have formed their own organisation to stand candidates at the Scottish election. I quote briefly Dr George Geddes, vice-chairman of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association:

"It may well be time to put people into the parliament that will actually deal with these issues. There has got to be a stand against this because this parliament is letting us down badly in all areas. When this parliament was set up, I honestly believed it was going to be a positive thing for Scotland. But the fishing has been let down tremendously badly by this parliament, and the people in the Scottish Parliament, I honestly believe, lack the knowledge about the fishing industry."

Unfortunately, I must criticise Mr Geddes for criticising the Parliament directly; many of the actions at which he expresses dismay are not the Parliament's but the Executive's.

The Opposition has been consistent in its defence of the fishing industry, but it has become ineffective. That is partly due to the necessity for party-political posturing. The election is just around the corner, which is why we see the spectacle of the leader of the Scottish National Party, Alex Salmond, leading delegations and marches along the street outside. [Interruption.] It is interesting to hear calls from members on the SNP benches that he is not the leader. It is they who continually and repeatedly raise the issue of who leads delegations to the European Union.

They should concern themselves with who leads delegations to the Scottish Parliament.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the member accept that Alex Salmond represents the most fisheries-dependent constituency in the whole of the UK, not just Scotland? It used to be a Conservative constituency, but the Conservatives were chucked out because they betrayed the Scottish fishing industry in Banff and Buchan year upon year.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Indeed, Alex Salmond represents his constituency and the fishing industry very effectively—more effectively, perhaps, than Richard Lochhead, who has consistently worked himself into a position in which he becomes difficult to believe and hard to understand.

A party that says that it believes in the EU and in independence in Europe deems that its policy on fishing matters is for Richard Lochhead to go to the EU and behave towards Europe in a way in which we have only ever seen Margaret Thatcher behave. I support that mission, but the image of Richard Lochhead smashing his way round the EU with a handbag does not appeal to me at all. I do not think that it appeals to many in the Scottish fishing industry either.

The real problem is that, when Margaret Thatcher used her muscle in Europe, she had the support and authority of the whole of the United Kingdom. It looks silly for someone such as Richard Lochhead, representing Scotland alone, to attempt to use that type of bullying tactic, and I suggest that it would have got us rather less out of Europe than even the minister has done for us.

The Conservatives are convinced that there is no longer a future in the current common fisheries policy. It must be renegotiated and it must deliver local and national control, or we have no future within it.

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

I am still not entirely sure from Alex Johnstone's speech whether he intended the comparison of Richard Lochhead to Margaret Thatcher as a compliment or an insult. Perhaps we will hear about that later.

There is no doubt that the Scottish fishing industry faces its greatest-ever crisis. This should be a serious debate and, from time to time, there have been serious contributions. When I came into the chamber yesterday before the Rural Development Committee meeting, I met one of the skippers who are looking bankruptcy in the face, not next year but this year, unless we can do something to ameliorate what the minister has admitted is a disastrous deal for the white-fish fleet. There are two questions that we should be asking in this debate: first, what assistance is required to secure the survival of the industry; and, secondly, how the December deal can be improved in a way that works towards that end. I wish to address those two serious matters in a considered fashion.

It is absolutely clear from the responses to the Executive's proposals that the industry does not back the split between social measures and decommissioning, which is weighted far too much towards decommissioning. I cannot think of any organisation that has supported the measures. When the minister winds up the debate, will he say whether he will proceed with the scheme despite the overwhelming opposition of the industry, or will he follow the excellent advice of the lady who spoke at time for reflection and admit that mistakes can be made? Does he believe that it behoves us to improve matters while we still can?

Looking at the wider scene, even if the decommissioning goes ahead, will not we be using money from Scotland—perhaps also from Europe—to destroy our fleet, while European money is being used to create a second armada for Spain? Richard Lochhead mentioned that problem, which was not ended by the current council, but was merely deferred to 2004, by which time the money must be used. The Spanish are building boats twice as quickly as they previously were. It is no surprise that, on 22 December 2002, Le Monde quoted the French fisheries minister, Hervé Gaymard, as saying during a press conference that the French fleet is practically unaffected. Are we really saying that we will proceed with a plan that everyone in the industry seriously believes puts the Scottish fleet's survival in jeopardy? I implore the minister to think about that.

The second serious matter is days at sea. Carol MacDonald, who is one of the Cod Crusaders, has given evidence to the Rural Development Committee. I think that she speaks for many people. She said:

"God forbid, but with the weather that they have to endure, a vessel and its crew might fall prey to unexpected storms at sea. However, they would have no time to dodge such a storm because of days-at-sea restrictions."——[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 11 Feb 2003; c 4272.]

I have mentioned in every fishing debate in which I have spoken that fishing, unlike virtually every other industry, is a profession in which people's lives are at risk every day. Every day, wives wait to hear whether their husbands are okay. Are we going to create further risks with days-at-sea restrictions? The Scottish Fishermen's Federation and others have made many excellent suggestions as to how things can be at least ameliorated. Even if one does not wish to say that all of us here may have blood on our hands, which is what people feel, it is absolutely essential that the days-at-sea proposals are—

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Does Fergus Ewing recall that, back in the early 1990s, a Conservative Government came up with a days-at-sea restriction plan? The Labour party, the Liberals and nationalists spoke against it, as other Conservatives and I did. The Tories backed off because of issues relating to health, safety and impracticality, to which Fergus Ewing has referred. Why should not we back off now?

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

I do not remember that plan, but I am pleased that the Tories backed off.

I want to turn to the serious issue of European finance—I am afraid that the minister dodged that issue. I understand that the figure of €300 million, which John Farnell quoted yesterday, is wrong—the figure should be €200 million, of which some €150 million is available. From research, we know that when the Spanish fleet was prevented from fishing in Morocco, it received €197 million and that 32 per cent of that deal was used for the social fund, rather than the 20 per cent that the minister mentioned. In his closing remarks, will the minister say whether the Scottish Executive will apply for some of that money—yes or no? He said that he would consider doing so, but that is not good enough. If we do not apply for it, the whole £50 million will come from the Scottish Executive's budget, even when money is available from Europe and when it seems extremely likely that the budget line will be approved—I refer to the emergency scrapping fund—which Mr Farnell confirmed to me yesterday. He also confirmed that Scotland would be one of the few countries that would be eligible because of the 25 per cent reduction criteria.

There has been much, rather simplistic, talk about the science, but it is clear from the evidence that Tony Hawkins gave to the Rural Development Committee that particular aspects of the science can be called into question. He told us that

"the evidence on which the Commission based the ranking of the different fisheries was poor and uncertain."—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 11 February 2003; c 4260-1.]

Tony Hawkins was the head of Fisheries Research Services when Mr Finnie took up his job as a minister. Given the fact that the ultimate authority has said that the evidence can be questioned, I believe that we should do so by seeking extra quota for haddock and whiting. That is what we need to do but has the minister done it? If not, when will he do so?

Let me conclude. The Prime Minister intervened in the negotiations at the stroke of midnight. Why did he not intervene before? Had he done as his counterparts throughout Europe did, I do not believe that we would be in the sorry state that we are in now. I simply do not believe that the Prime Minister has a heartfelt commitment to the Scottish fishing industry.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Today's debate has at times been interesting. Some contributions have been valuable and others less so. Phil Gallie admitted that he had not been allowed to speak in a Maastricht debate but had spoken in the next debate. I am still puzzled as to whether he gave us that old speech. However, let us move on.

The two issues that we need to get to grips with have been rehearsed in different measures and in different ways by those who have contributed to the debate. The first issue concerns the science. We have heard that different people, including the most recent head of the Fisheries Research Services laboratory in Aberdeen, take different views. However, the fact remains that the investigation into cod stocks in the North sea is—in a science that all the scientists agree is difficult to pursue—one of the longest pieces of investigation into any stock in the North sea.

I do not say that the science is perfect, but we must face up to the reality. When an internationally accredited body using internationally accredited procedures makes a recommendation based on evidence that shows that the cod stock is below its biological limit, we cannot credibly say that we are taking our ecological responsibilities seriously if we seek simply to dismiss that evidence.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I will take an intervention after I have made one further point.

One of the most alarming features of the recent debate has been the disconnection between the scientists and our fishermen. We must recognise that it is not good enough simply to try to trade off one against the other. We cannot, as some members have suggested, simply substitute the scientists for the fishermen, because the European Commission and others would simply say, "They would say that, wouldn't they?" There is a need for us to bridge that gap. We need to bring the scientists and the fishermen more into line and get them to co-operate so that the decisions and the scientific advice can be better informed than may have been the case in the past.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I absolutely agree with what the minister has said. However, does he understand the frustration of fishermen, who see that although they return information on discards to his department, which sends it on to Brussels, people in other EU member states do not?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I wholly agree. I am perhaps even more concerned that there may be a slight assumption that we are the largest contributor to the discard problem. However, that is not the point that I want to make.

We run a serious risk of arguing a false case unless we build and improve on the science. We cannot play ducks and drakes with the science and say that of course we realise that it is important but then proceed to advocate a case that tends to ignore that science. That is an important point.

The second issue that we are dealing with is the reality of annexe 17, which emanated from the fisheries council. Many members have mentioned the need to improve annexe 17 and to get rid of its most serious anomalies. Fergus Ewing mentioned safety at sea; I hope that the Commission is honest and earnest on that matter. When the Commission created the wording of annexe 17, it knew exactly what it was doing. The concerns about safety at sea as a result of the inflexibility of the days-at-sea policy, which puts serious constraints on fishermen, were raised with the Commission during the five-day negotiations. I am sorry that it has taken the Commission the time since the negotiations to recognise that argument's validity.

We must face up to the body of scientific evidence and to annexe 17. That takes us back to the fundamental problem, which, if we are honest, we all face: we must try to square the circle of achieving sustainable fish stocks and sustainable fishing communities. The Executive's response recognises that, if we are serious about tackling the difficulties of stock recovery, any package of measures must have an element of decommissioning. I do not back away from that, but I do not suggest that we must destroy the whole fleet or even half the fleet; I suggest that we must see the decommissioning scheme as part of the conservation measures to reduce fishing effort and the fishing mortality rate for cod by 15 per cent. That does not represent a 50 per cent reduction; nor does it represent the destruction of the fleet.

I hope that the way in which we have structured the arrangements will allow the widest possible range of vessels to be considered. We have extended the decommissioning arrangements to cover vessels that are under 10 years old and we have extended the premium for vessels whose effort will be reduced by 25 per cent or more. That is a sensible response to the conservation element of this two-sided equation—we must deal with conservation and the needs of our communities.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister confirm that the decommissioning scheme is not about conserving fish stocks, but is an economic measure to help fleets through difficult times? Does he accept that there are ways of helping fleets through difficult times other than destroying them? Destroying the fleet means that, when stocks recover, there will be no fleet to take advantage of that?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I do not accept the basic proposition. We cannot ignore the internationally recognised calculation that reducing effort increases stocks. With due respect to Mr Lochhead, he is in danger of ignoring the scientific evidence on cod stocks.

The other element of our response is the transitional aid scheme, which is a substantial package that is aimed at supporting the greatest number of people. Alasdair Morrison, George Lyon and Iain Smith raised the issue of displacement into the nephrops fishery. I can only repeat that we intend to put conditions in the transitional relief scheme that will act as a disincentive to people who seek to move into that fishery.

Much mention has been made of the processors, who have, in recent years, rightly been the major recipients of the FIFG moneys—the industry has received about £30 million in the past six years. Curiously, the industry did not expend all the money that was available to it through the white-fish processors action plan. Last summer, I made the offer—which I have repeated—that, if the processors produce further proposals, we will build on that action plan.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister is determined to use the bulk of his aid package for decommissioning, but he has also said that it is unlikely that there will be new fishing opportunities for the Scottish fleet after 1 July. Will his package result in the Scottish fleet going bankrupt after 1 July?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I do not accept that. We are offering a balanced proposal that tries to meet the realities of the situation. We have tried to address the various elements of the industry, as well as to focus aid on the fish catching sector. That ensures that fisheries crews are retained and that there is a spin-off effect for the wider communities in which those fisheries are located.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

No.

We must take the issue seriously, and it is not credible for the SNP to talk about being concerned about the science and then effectively to ignore scientific advice when it makes proposals. It is not credible for the SNP to compare our position with that of other countries and to try to pretend that it could get us a better deal. The only country with scientific evidence for the closure of the North sea was the United Kingdom—the SNP should square up to that fact, and not be dishonest about it. It is not credible for the SNP to recite a litany of problems facing the industry. We all understand and recognise the problems. It is not credible for the SNP not to make one single concession to the need for a sustainable fishery and sustainable fishing communities.

The issue is very difficult. It starts with the state of our stocks in the North sea and it impacts hugely across all our fishing communities. The Executive's response of providing a package of up to £50 million is credible and realistic and recognises the need to take the issues of conservation and supporting vital fishing communities seriously. I support motion S1M-3914.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We come now to the proceedings for stage 3 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. Members will require the bill, as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list of amendments and the groupings list. In accordance with recent practice, I shall allow two minutes for the first division and reduce the time thereafter to one minute's notice for the first division in each group.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Amendment 11 is grouped with amendments 82 and 83.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Section 1 of the bill will introduce a number of new sections to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 relating to the new order for lifelong restriction and the associated risk assessment provisions. New section 210C of the 1995 act deals with the preparation of the risk assessment report. A list of requirements that the risk assessor must follow when taking account, in the risk assessment report, of any allegations of criminal behaviour, whether or not that behaviour resulted in prosecution and acquittal, was inserted by an amendment at stage 2. The amendment reflected the Justice 2 Committee's concerns that the use of such information should be properly regulated.

We confirmed to the Justice 2 Committee on 5 February that we would accept the intention of the change introduced at stage 2. However, we must ensure that there is consistency between the relevant provisions as they now appear in the bill. That is the purpose of amendment 11, which will ensure that, where information about criminal behaviour is to be used in the risk assessment report, the assessor is required to explain the extent to which that behaviour has influenced the risk assessment.

Amendments 82 and 83 try again to implant extracts from the MacLean committee report into the statutory risk criteria—set out in new section 210E—that will be used to assess an offender's level of risk. As the Parliament knows—indeed, members have supported this—the new high-risk offender strategy is based extensively on recommendations in the MacLean committee's excellent report. However, as we tried to explain to Duncan Hamilton when he tried unsuccessfully to introduce identical changes at stage 2, we do not believe that the MacLean committee intended that the wording of the relevant recommendation should be adopted verbatim in the legislation. The MacLean committee was providing a steer in that respect. We believe that the construction of the risk criteria in new section 210E will achieve what the MacLean committee recommended and the agreed objective of providing an understandable and workable measure that the court can use to establish whether an offender is high risk.

We recognised the concerns that were expressed at the earlier stages of the bill's passage that the risk criteria as drafted were too wide and could have had the effect of drawing offenders who are not high risk down the risk assessment route and potentially into the new order for lifelong restriction sentence. We acted and lodged amendments to the risk criteria at stage 2 to tighten them up and to ensure that they are fit for purpose. The Justice 2 Committee accepted those amendments and I believe that, as a result, we now have an improved set of criteria.

Duncan Hamilton failed to persuade the majority of the committee to accept his proposed changes to the new criteria when he lodged identical amendments at stage 2. Roseanna Cunningham has now lodged the amendments again. We do not believe that the suggested rewording is an improvement or that it will achieve what we are all agreed should be a set of tight criteria. Indeed, as Richard Simpson said during the stage 2 debate on the same proposals, there is a real concern that the revised wording would have the reverse effect and throw open the criteria once again. In fairness, I know that that is not what Roseanna Cunningham wants.

We are confident that the construction of the criteria that now appears in the bill is the best way of achieving the agreed objective. The criteria are understandable and workable in law. Most important, we have had no indication from the judiciary, who will apply the criteria, that they present any problems or that there might be difficulties in comprehending their purpose.

I move amendment 11.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

The SNP has no difficulty with amendment 11. However, we want to raise the issues that amendments 82 and 83 encompass. Although I accept the minister's comments about what happened at stage 2, I understand that the committee's decision fell to the convener's casting vote. That does not suggest that the committee had an overwhelmingly strong opinion one way or the other on the matter. As a result, it is worth taking a more detailed look at the arguments that were made at stage 2.

Effectively, we are suggesting that detail from the MacLean committee report should form part of the bill in order to narrow and clarify the risk criteria by which orders for lifelong restriction are assessed. Section 1 introduces orders for lifelong restriction into law and lays out the whole procedure in that respect. Amendments 82 and 83 seek to change the wording of the risk criteria.

We know that the MacLean committee proposed orders for lifelong restriction, although in fact they were first suggested by the SNP some years before the committee was set up—indeed, I recall raising the issues at Westminster. At stage 1, the Parole Board for Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland expressed fears that the risk criteria were too broad. As a result, the Executive lodged amendments at stage 2 to restrict the original outline. Amendments 82 and 83—as I said, the same amendments were moved at stage 2 but were rejected on the casting vote of the convener of the Justice 2 Committee—would introduce into statute the precise risk criteria that the MacLean committee proposed.

New section 210E states that the risk criteria are

"that the nature of, or the circumstances of the commission of, the offence of which the convicted person has been found guilty either in themselves or as part of a pattern of behaviour are such as to demonstrate that there is a likelihood that he, if at liberty, will seriously endanger the lives, or physical or psychological well-being, of members of the public at large."

Amendment 82 would replace the words

"is a likelihood that he"

with

"are reasonable grounds for believing that the convicted person".

That terminology has been used frequently in criminal-law legislation and is absolutely acceptable. I do not understand the objection to it.

Professor David Cooke of the British Psychological Society said that it was not clear what the word "likelihood" would mean in this context. He asked whether it would mean more than 50 per cent or 95 per cent likely, for example. There is a question mark over how "likelihood" would be construed, whereas courts and lawyers would be better able to understand and consider the phrase "reasonable grounds". "Likelihood" is a much vaguer term, which is not usually used in law. The terminology that we seek to introduce is a test with which courts are far more familiar, so I believe that members should consider it.

Amendment 83 would replace the words "seriously endanger" with the phrase

"present a substantial and continuing risk to"

before the words

"the lives, or physical or psychological well-being, of members of the public at large".

The Parole Board for Scotland said in evidence at stage 1 that it hoped that the bill would make it clear that orders for lifelong restriction should be imposed only in cases where psychological factors were identified that indicated a high risk of someone seriously reoffending.

Except in the most extreme circumstances, indeterminate sentences are incompatible with proportionality, so there is an argument about whether the concept of "seriously endanger" complies with the notion of extreme circumstances. Amendment 83 would place the emphasis on the criterion of the continuing nature of danger to the public. It is not proportionate to place an order for lifelong restriction on someone who might pose a serious threat at one point, but would not do so for the rest of their life. Neither of the issues that are raised by amendments 82 and 83 was properly addressed by the ministers at stage 2. The committee was split three-three, so it is important that we return to the arguments.

The minister's position at stage 2 is similar to his position now, which is that the Executive believes that it has provided in the bill accurate legislative interpretation of the relevant MacLean recommendations. Instead of the recommendations being interpreted, we would prefer them to be included in the bill in the way that we suggest. Given the concerns that have been raised by organisations such as the Parole Board for Scotland and the Law Society of Scotland, we should seriously consider including the MacLean recommendations in the bill.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

It is fair to say that the issues for consideration in the first two groups of amendments have caused genuine and general anxiety. We all acknowledge the potential dangers that those who are convicted of serious violent and sexual offences might pose on their release. We also acknowledge that, although the proposed orders for lifelong restriction are draconian, in many instances they have to be so.

It is also fair to say that the Minister for Justice has acknowledged the concerns that were articulated in earlier discussions and debate about the quality and extent of the evidence that would be necessary to obtain an order for lifelong restriction. In an ideal world, I would prefer the same criterion for evidence as would apply in a criminal court—evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt. However, I acknowledge that that is not always possible in the real world. I accept Jim Wallace's view that evidence would not be restricted to the apocryphal or to evidence that is provided by—as he said amusingly—somebody's granny. Evidence would have to be backed up by hard facts. I take comfort from the fact that not only would that be done on the basis of professional assessment, but a judge would make the eventual decision. Accordingly, in recognition of the fact that the safety of the public must be our principal concern, we are prepared to accept section 1 as it would be amended by amendment 11.

Amendment 82, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, would set a higher standard. Our view is that the phrase "reasonable grounds" is more satisfactory than the term "likelihood". Accordingly, we will support amendment 82.

Amendment 83 presents a slight difficulty. I appreciate that the amendment's wording is lifted from the MacLean report, but I do not think that the wording of section 1, as amended by amendment 11, would be inadequate. Therefore, I regard amendment 83 as unnecessary.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I welcome the many changes that the Executive made to section 1 mainly because of the comments in the Justice 2 Committee's report. The section deals with orders for lifelong restriction. It is fair to say that the committee was concerned about the full operation of the provisions and spent a considerable time on the section. However, not so much attention was spent on the issue outside the committee and the Executive, which is a pity, because, as a result of the MacLean report, we are about to make provisions for a new, lifelong sentence that will involve the assumption of wide-ranging powers to deal with serious and violent offenders.

In essence, the court can move for an assessment to be conducted by the risk management authority—a new body—if the offender meets certain criteria and there is a likelihood that, if at liberty, he would seriously endanger someone else's life.

The issue that Roseanna Cunningham brings to the Parliament relates to the wording that should be used in the bill. That is fair enough. Parliament should have another chance to assess the wording. It is fair to say that the committee was torn on that issue and that the decision to support the Executive relied on my casting vote.

It is important to recognise that the risk management authority is crucial to the determination of how the provision will operate. For the second time, the Parliament will be allowing the use of non-conviction information, which is a risky path to go down. We should take note of what is happening. People will be using information that might not necessarily be objective to decide whether an offender is likely to commit an offence. The committee has made it quite clear that what the minister referred to as the important standards and the quality of the risk management authority are the most important elements of the provisions.

The Executive is now amending an additional provision that the Justice 2 Committee inserted into the bill. I can accept amendment 11, as it is merely another way of saying the same thing. However, it is crucial that we stress in the bill the fact that the risk management authority has to give weight to non-conviction information that it is using to impose a lifelong sentence. The quality of that assessment is crucial. We must constantly review what the risk management authority is doing. We must be sure that it is operating to standards that ensure that people's human rights are adhered to.

The committee debated the nature of the risk management authority and its arm's-length status with Richard Simpson, who was the Deputy Minister for Justice at the time. I would like an assurance that Parliament will be able to review the decisions and the framework of the risk management authority. That is important because, although the authority will be an arm's-length body, it has to be accountable, as its decisions will impose a restriction for life on people who are deemed likely to offend again.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Amendment 11 provides better wording than that which the Justice 2 Committee provided in its stage 2 amendment. Amendment 82 comes down to a question of balance and it is for the Parliament to choose which way the balance should go. However, I prefer the wording in the bill to the wording that amendment 83 would provide. I have difficulties with the word "continuing". Some risks are intermittent but nevertheless seriously endanger lives. Therefore, it should be possible for the court to take into account the fact that, in some circumstances, some serious offenders—given the stimulus of alcohol, for example, which is freely available in the community—will commit further serious offences. That is not a permanent risk; it is a risk associated with behaviour that would occur if an order were not imposed. I urge members to reject amendment 83.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

On amendment 82, we believe that the word "likelihood", which the bill uses, is acceptable terminology. It is a recognised phrase in law and it is understandable. On amendment 83, we believe that "seriously endanger" is stronger than "present ... a risk".

Our policy is that the package will apply to the high-risk offender throughout his life. Our measures have addressed the concerns of the Parole Board for Scotland and the British Psychological Society. Neither body has made adverse comments on the amended provisions that we introduced at stage 2.

Amendment 11 agreed to.

[Amendment 82 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

There will be a division. Members who wish to support Ms Alexander's amendment should press their yes buttons now.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

What did I say?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

You said, "Ms Alexander's amendment", Presiding Officer.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am sorry. The tongue and the brain are obviously not in sync this morning. The amendment is in Roseanna Cunningham's name.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 39, Against 62, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 82 disagreed to.

[Amendment 83 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 25, Against 76, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 83 disagreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Amendment 12 is grouped with amendments 13 to 15, 84 and 17.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Sections 8 and 9 of the bill deal with the preparation, implementation and review of risk management plans. The provisions include a power for the risk management authority to direct a lead authority to take steps to bring any version of the risk management plan into line with the agreed standards. Although we do not expect the RMA to have to exercise that power often, the power has to be available in respect of the initial plan and any amended plan. We believe that it is important to ensure that the RMA has all the necessary powers to ensure that risk management plans are implemented. The Justice 2 Committee shared that view.

Amendment 12 is a minor drafting amendment to section 8(7) to make it clear that the right to appeal against any direction given by the risk management authority under section 8(6) applies to the lead authority and to any other person with duties under the risk management plan. It also ensures consistency with references to any "other person" in sections 8 and 9.

There is currently no way in which the RMA can address the situation—albeit highly unlikely—in which a risk management plan is not being implemented. That potential gap was spotted by the Justice 2 Committee during its thorough scrutiny of the bill, and I acknowledge with thanks the committee's helpful contribution.

At stage 2, Richard Simpson said that he would lodge an amendment to enable the risk management authority to act when it was clear that a plan was not being implemented without reasonable cause. He stressed that we wanted to ensure that any amendment was in tune with the rest of section 8 and reflected the balance of the relationship between the RMA and the lead authorities. I confirmed in my letter of 5 February that we would be lodging amendments to achieve that.

Amendment 13 will give the RMA the power to direct a lead authority or any other person to implement a new risk management plan where they are failing without reasonable excuse to do so. The amendment also provides a right of appeal against the RMA's direction on the ground that it is unreasonable.

Amendment 14 will give power to the RMA to set the time limit within which an amended plan may be required. Those provisions are the same as the ones that are already provided under the bill for circumstances where the risk amendment plan has not been prepared. Amendment 15 amends section 9(5) to clarify that intention.

At stage 2, the committee accepted an amendment requiring the Parole Board for Scotland to have regard to a risk management plan on each and every occasion when it is considering the case of an offender who has an order for lifelong restriction. That requirement now comes under section 35A.

Amendment 17 removes a provision in schedule 1 that has become redundant as a result of amendments at stage 2.

Section 13 details the risk management authority's statutory accounting and annual reporting functions. Roseanna Cunningham's amendment 84 seeks to make specific provision for the risk management authority to include an account of any directions given to it by the Scottish ministers under their powers detailed in section 12. As we said at stage 1 and during stage 2 consideration of section 13, such prescription is not necessary in primary legislation.

The purpose of sections 12 and 13 is to provide for the standard accountability and enabling powers that are required when establishing a new public body. Those provisions, which accord with Government guidelines, give the statutory basis for the construction of the framework under which the RMA will operate.

I am happy to give the assurance that any directions that Scottish ministers give to the RMA under section 12 will be publicly available—for example, on the RMA website. It will be open to the RMA to include information about those directions in its annual report, although that may not always be appropriate—for example, if the directions relate to standard housekeeping matters about the keeping of records. Clearly, however, important issues would be contained in the annual report. In any event, as the directions will be publicly available, there is no need to require the RMA to include that information in its annual report.

I agree that it is essential that the RMA be obliged to report annually on fundamental matters such as whether the Scottish ministers have exercised their directional powers under section 12 and we will ensure that that happens. Those matters are not, however, for primary legislation, and I ask the member not to move amendment 84.

I move amendment 12.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Amendment 84 would require the risk management authority to include in its annual report an account of directions given to it by the Scottish ministers. We seek some assurance from the minister—I hope that he will address some of these issues when he winds up—about the exercise of the powers of the Scottish ministers to give direction to the risk management authority.

It is proposed that the RMA will be a non-departmental public body. However, section 12(3) states:

"The Scottish Ministers may for the purpose of or in connection with the exercise of the Risk Management Authority's functions give directions to the Authority; and the Authority is to comply with any such direction."

The policy memorandum, in considering the various alternatives to setting up the RMA as a quango, states:

"The final alternative would be for the role to be carried out by a body under the direct control of the Scottish Ministers. However, it was felt more appropriate that these functions should be carried out at arm's length from the Scottish Ministers, which cannot be achieved by a body under their direct control".

It is difficult to see how the authority is not under the direct control of the Scottish ministers if it has to follow their directions.

The system has the disadvantages both of the additional bureaucracy of a quango and of direct control. I am not sure why the option of making the RMA an agency was dismissed, given that both the Scottish Prison Service and the Scottish Court Service are executive agencies. We are concerned about the authority's independence.

One of the authority's roles is to examine and approve risk management plans that local authority criminal justice social work departments or the Scottish ministers have prepared. Surely the independence of the RMA is vital. It is an oddity that the Scottish ministers will require approval from a body that they will be able to direct. What happens if the Scottish ministers take a particular attitude to risk management plans? They could say either that plans should require constant close surveillance or that they should involve as little expenditure as possible. Because of the way in which politics works, both are distinct possibilities. If Scottish ministers wanted to dictate what an offender's risk management plan should be, they need only direct the RMA not to approve any other. Ministers might be so influenced by a media panic about an offender that they acted in that way. What price then the arm's-length body that the bill is supposed to establish?

I am seeking an assurance that ministerial powers will be used only for purposes of efficient management and will not be used to influence policy with regard to risk management plans or individual risk management plans.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

We take no great exception to any of the amendments in this group. It is sensible that the risk management authority should be able to impose a reasonable time limit on local authorities for the preparation of amended risk management plans or to give appropriate directions where it is felt that matters are not proceeding as they should.

Similarly, we are anxious that the appropriate reporting procedures should be in place. For that reason, we think that amendment 84, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, has some merit. We are inclined to support the amendment but, like Ms Cunningham, we will listen to the minister's explanation with interest.

The minister has cleared up a concern that I had about amendment 17. As he correctly explained, the amendment removes something that is redundant from the bill. Clearly, that should happen.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

At stage 2, Richard Simpson made it clear that Scottish ministers were to lay a copy of the report before Parliament. Roseanna Cunningham raised a number of issues relating to direction, accountability and independence. Cabinet Office guidance on non-departmental public bodies, which the Executive has adopted, states that one of the key tasks in setting up a public body is the preparation of an agreed management statement. Such a published statement is required for all new public bodies. It is a key document that defines the nature of the relationship between the Executive and the public body at a strategic level.

We recognise that each management statement will be different, but at the very least such a statement should set out the role and aims of the body, what it is responsible for and how it relates to the sponsor department. The statement should specify arrangements for publishing an annual report and accounts, which outline performance of the body against key targets.

As Roseanna Cunningham indicated, there are concerns both about accountability and about independence. It is right to define the relationship between the RMA and the Scottish ministers. The Scottish Executive cannot give directions on fundamental issues that are within the discretion of the RMA. However, the Scottish ministers can direct the Parole Board for Scotland, for example. That is a standard power associated with NDPBs.

The Scottish ministers must exercise their powers reasonably. In doing so, they cannot contradict the RMA's statutory functions. In the management statement, the existing guidelines and the commitment given at stage 2, we have addressed properly the concerns that Roseanna Cunningham has articulated.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Amendment 85, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, is grouped with amendments 86, 18 to 23 and 87 to 90.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

The amendments to the section that deals with victim statements are part of a continuing debate about how those statements are to be used in court and how they will work in practice. There are a number of SNP amendments—85, 86, 87, 88, 89 and 90—which I will address in order.

The effect of amendment 85 would be to place a time limit, to be prescribed by ministers, for piloting the victim statement procedure. Thereafter, ministers may by order elect to continue to use victim statements, but we want to set a fixed time for the pilots so that there is a distinct point at which we will revisit the issue. In principle, it is right that the victim should have greater knowledge of, and a greater say in, what happens in his or her case—we all agree with that—but if the basic requirements of justice are to be met, it is also right that victim statements be examined in a pilot.

It is also appropriate that the legislation that would introduce the pilot should make it plain that it is a pilot, and that Parliament should, at the end of that pilot, have a proper chance to consider any potential expansion of the scheme. Children's hearings for 16 and 17-year-olds were specifically called pilots in the bill before the Executive removed them by amendment at stage 2. It is interesting that the section on victim statements is not written in such specific terms.

We all know that there are difficulties with victim statements, some of which amendment 86 seeks to deal with. What is the status of a victim statement? Is it evidence? If not, what is it? If the statement is made before the verdict, will the defence be allowed to examine it for consistency with the Crown case? If it is made after a guilty verdict, but it is inconsistent with the Crown case, what will happen? Will a victim statement constitute new evidence for the defence to use to seek a retrial? If the court must have regard to victim statements in sentencing, how will that relate to the sentence that is imposed? The Minister for Justice states that it is not intended that the victim will have a direct say in sentencing, but that leads to the question about what say the victim will have. There is a need for clarity for the likely participants in the process, including social workers and lawyers.

Another consideration will be the age of the victim statement—I do not mean the age of the victim, but when the victim statement was taken. How current is the statement in reality? Will it have more influence on sentencing if it is made near the time when the offence was committed, or if it is made nearer the time of sentencing? It is regrettable that, in our courts, there can be quite a long time between the two.

What happens to a victim statement if the court accepts a reduced plea, or if the accused is convicted on a lesser charge? What crimes are likely to elicit a victim statement? I realise I am asking a list of questions, but they must be answered if we are to be clear about the use of victim statements in court. Although we all agree that we want victim statements to be brought in, we need some clarity about what their introduction will mean.

Will it be difficult for some victims to make such statements? We should also take on board the fact that some victims might not feel that they can make such statements. Will they be penalised in some way because they have been unable to make such a statement? Will victims be under pressure to make the statements? There is a lot of concern about such questions and we need more clarity, which is why we are suggesting that some time limits be imposed. Many other questions can be asked, but I dare say that other members will ask a number of them.

Amendment 86 is a probing amendment that deals with further problems relating to cross-examination. Apparently, the Minister for Justice believes that a victim may be cross-examined under existing procedure regarding victim statements. All sorts of issues arise about the effect of such cross-examination on a victim—questions are being asked about whether the statement should be withheld from the defence. Cross-examination on proof and mitigation is extremely rare now, but I wonder whether the introduction of victim impact statements might open that up a great deal more than has been the case in the past. Many matters in victim statements might be completely irrelevant, so there is a question about how such information will be handled.

My other amendments are amendments 87, 88 and 89. I understand that the minister intends to accept amendments 88 and 89. If I am correct about that, I will not speak to them in detail. Amendment 87 would make it possible for informal carers, such as neighbours, to make victim statements. Although it is a rather broad amendment, it seeks to deal with the situation in which an informal carer has a strong relationship with a child victim. We saw that in the recent case of Chloe Bray, where an individual who had no formal relationship with the child had, in fact, brought her up for three years. Given the way in which the bill is drafted, the informal carer would be denied the opportunity to make a victim statement.

If amendments 88 and 89 are to be accepted, that is as much as I will say at the moment.

I move amendment 85.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Amendment 85, as Roseanna Cunningham said, seeks to insert an additional subsection into section 14 to include in the bill the provision that victim statements will be piloted for a specified period, and evaluated before a decision is made to extend such schemes. That would require Scottish ministers to set out in secondary legislation the duration of the pilot schemes. I make it clear for the avoidance of doubt that it is the intention of ministers to pilot those schemes. Roseanna Cunningham was right to say that they should only proceed by way of pilots, because there are a number of issues. We have always said that it was our intention to pilot victim statements in two areas for two years, and to evaluate the pilots before we sought to extend victim statements.

It will already be possible under the provisions of the bill to establish pilot schemes. The bill includes a power in section 14(1) to prescribe in secondary legislation the courts, or class of court, in which victim statement schemes will operate. That means that we can prescribe only those courts in which we will pilot victim statements. Obviously, an order will have to be brought before the Parliament. That order will be subject to affirmative resolution. Before the pilot scheme can be implemented, an order will have to state the courts in which the pilots will take place, so members will have the opportunity to debate and vote on the proposed pilot areas. Similarly, any proposal to extend the victim statement scheme will be subject to affirmative resolution of the Parliament, so the Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the extension.

As I said, it is intended that we will pilot the scheme for two years. Amendment 85 would only oblige ministers to put into secondary legislation what we have already said we will do. The establishment of pilots will require Parliament to debate an affirmative order.

Roseanna Cunningham said that amendment 86 is, in some respects, a probing amendment that seeks to achieve three objectives by querying some of the provisions in the bill. The first is to require the prosecutor to provide a copy of the statement "forthwith ... to the accused". I assume that that means upon receipt by the prosecutor of a victim statement, although that is not clear.

The second objective of amendment 86 is to clarify in the bill the existing right of the accused to cross-examine the victim on a victim statement. The third objective is to enable the judge or sheriff to require the jury to withdraw from the court during any cross-examination of the victim by the accused, if the victim statement is deemed not to be relevant to the charge brought against the accused. I will deal with those issues separately.

First, I will deal with the early provision of the statement to the accused. The status of the victim statement is important in relation to the early provision of the victim statement to the accused. Victim statements are not intended to be evidential documents. Their main purpose will be to give victims the opportunity to tell the court directly the way in which, and the degree to which, the offence or crime has affected or continues to affect them. Their introduction is a response to the concern that victims have expressed that they do not have a voice in the criminal justice process. The statement is intended to give victims that voice.

It is acknowledged that, occasionally, a victim statement might contain information that is of evidential value. In such circumstances, case law places a duty on the Crown to disclose to the defence evidence in its possession that would tend to exculpate the accused.

Roseanna Cunningham said that my amendments in the group might be inconsistent with an amended charge on which the accused might be found guilty. I have grave misgivings about introducing a requirement for the prosecutor immediately to provide the victim statement to the accused. In effect, that could mean that the accused had access to sensitive personal information about the victim before and during the trial. That information might not be relevant evidentially, but it could allow the victim to be cross-examined before the court on matters that were not relevant to the charge. That might make victims feel intimidated and pressured by the accused to update their statement.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Is not the relevancy or irrelevancy of evidence an issue for the judge to decide in court? The minister seems to suggest that our sheriffs and judges would allow irrelevant evidence; I do not think that that is the case.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Roseanna Cunningham almost turned back on me the argument that I was using, and have made previously, about sheriffs having a victim statement that contains information that contradicts, or is inconsistent with, the charge of which the accused has been found guilty. She has referred to that before now. In the past, I have said that sheriffs can discount information day in and day out, but for the avoidance of doubt, my amendments in the group will make that clear in the bill.

Of course sheriffs can rule out matters that do not relate to the substance of the charge, but exposing the victim to potential cross-examination could distress the victim. Roseanna Cunningham has raised a not unreasonable point, but having given the matter careful thought, we think that if the accused had access to such sensitive personal information about the victim before and during the trial, that might discourage or dissuade victims from making victim statements or put them under unnecessary pressure, although not necessarily in court.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I agree with what the minister says about amendment 86. Is the minister saying that the convicted person or their defence will never see the victim statement? Some confusion is felt about that, because when the Justice 2 Committee pressed ministers about the practicalities of victim statements, we understood that court proceedings would mean that the accused person or the defence had to see a victim statement. I would have thought that, under the requirements of the European convention on human rights, the accused person or the defence would have to be allowed to see a victim statement and the information that has been put before the judge. It would help if the minister clarified that once and for all.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am certainly not saying that the defence or the accused will never see a victim statement. In the normal course of proceedings, the statement would be disclosed to the defence after conviction. If the Crown possessed a victim statement that included evidence that could benefit the accused, the Crown would be under a duty, under existing case law, to make that evidence available to the defence. However, a victim statement would not be given to the defence before the trial as a matter of course, which is what amendment 86 suggests.

In a case of domestic abuse, the victim might describe the effect on her—the victim would most likely be a woman. Even if that were not raised in court and the sheriff had no opportunity to challenge that or rule it irrelevant, the fact that the accused knew about information in the statement could mean that the accused put some pressure, directly or indirectly, on the victim to update the statement or to withdraw comments that the victim might not want to withdraw. We want to prevent that kind of situation from arising.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Is the minister saying that the victim can be cross-examined on something that is in the victim statement if, in the view of the prosecutor, some of the information might be of relevance to the defence? Is he saying that, in that case, the information would have to be disclosed so that it could be raised during the course of a trial, but that otherwise none of the information would come out until the trial was over?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That is precisely what I am saying. Case law places a duty on the Crown to disclose evidence that is in its possession to the defence, if that evidence tends to exculpate the accused. If the statement is purely on the emotional, financial or even the physical impact of the offence on the accused, it would not be relevant to the charge and therefore should not be in the hands of the accused. The accused and their counsel would receive the victim statement post conviction, but before sentencing, and would have an opportunity to consider the statement then.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I might have missed something here; that would be entirely possible, given the size of the bill. What will happen when—post conviction—the prosecutor puts up a victim statement and the defence says, "Hang on, why wasn't that bit disclosed to us before, because in our view it should have been?"

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I do not think that the Crown would in any way underestimate its duty. Something might emerge from a victim statement that could, in the same way as any other piece of evidence, form the grounds of an appeal, but that is highly speculative, because we are talking about personal information that relates to the impact of the crime on the victim. I am making it clear that such information would usually be disclosed to the defence post conviction.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Is the minister minded to consider existing arrangements where there is a dispute—post conviction, but prior to sentencing—in relation to the narration of the circumstances in which an offence had occurred, and the effects of that offence? The sheriff in some circumstances might order a hearing in mitigation in which any facts—challenged or unchallenged—might be explored in the event that there was a serious objection to the nature of the complaint.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

In fairness, during evidence taking at stage 2, we said that it was possible that a hearing could take place post conviction if there were a serious challenge to information in the victim statement. It is my understanding—I asked about this again yesterday—that that has never happened south of the border, where victim statements have been in place for a considerable time. In theory, it could happen, subject to section 14A of the bill, which would

"prohibit personal conduct of defence ... in certain sexual offences."

That brings the bill into line with what Parliament has passed in the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002. There could not be a circumstance in which the accused was in direct cross-examination of the victim.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am now becoming quite seriously concerned about the timetable, minister.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

With respect, important issues have been raised and I am trying to address them.

I turn to the matter of the court requiring the jury to withdraw. If members agree with the position in relation to the first two objectives of amendment 86, the information in relation to the victim statement becomes relevant only to the third objective where it includes evidential materials. I see no good reason why a jury should have to withdraw. The jury is there to determine the facts of the case, so it makes no sense to have a provision that will allow questioning of factual information without the presence of the jury. Furthermore, if there is to be a cross-examination on relevant evidential matters, I question why the jury should not hear it.

I turn to amendments 18 to 23, which seek to clarify the role of the court whereby it is to have regard to only the information in the victim statement that is relevant to the charges of which the accused has been convicted. The victim may make the statement when proceedings are to be taken. That means that, if the accused has been tried on a number of charges but convicted of only some of them, it is likely that the victim statement will contain information that relates to a charge, or to part of a charge, of which the accused has been acquitted. Amendments 18 to 23 will clarify the court's duty in determining sentence. I hope that they will alleviate the concerns that the Justice 2 Committee expressed at stage 2.

Amendment 87 seeks to insert a further category of person who could make a victim statement; that is, a person who had charge of, or control over, a child. We believe that amendment 87 goes too far, because it could include people who were not employees, but who worked with children on a voluntary basis, such as neighbours or scout masters. It is not appropriate to give such people the right to make a victim statement.

As Roseanna Cunningham said, we wish to accept amendments 88 and 89, which are helpful. They relate to circumstances in which there is a de facto parent-child relationship.

Amendment 90 seeks to remove victim statements altogether. In 2001, the Executive stated its intention to pilot a scheme that would examine how the views of victims could be taken into account. That commitment was made in response to a need that had been expressed by victims and the families of murder victims who felt that they did not have a direct voice within the criminal justice process. The issue has been dealt with in considerable detail during the progress of the bill. Given that the Parliament endorsed the earlier strategy, I hope that it will be minded to keep such important provisions in the bill, which has been improved by amendments.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Amendment 90 seeks to remove the section on victim statements, but I hope that I will not have to move it. I lodged the amendment because the Executive has been confused about the purpose and effect of victim statements throughout the process. We were supposed to have clarification at stage 3, but I am more minded to move amendment 90 than I was before we started stage 3, because the minister has shown that he is still confused about the purpose of victim statements. His exchange with Roseanna Cunningham made it clear that the proposal is only half thought out.

The progress group is considering the way in which victim statements could be implemented. Some of the issues that it has come up with are the same as those that the Justice 2 Committee raised. The matter is still being discussed, but such discussion should have been held before we thought about implementing such a scheme. We should not pass the bill and hope for the best.

I return to what was said at the start of the debate. Everyone agrees that we want to give victims a voice and let them know that their voice will be heard in the criminal justice system. Although the minister expressed that desire, he did not tell us what the purpose of victim statements is. The bill's explanatory notes identify a twin purpose: the first is that victim statements will have an impact on sentencing, the extent of which has not yet been defined; and the second is that the knowledge that their voice is being heard will be of therapeutic value to victims.

The minister will remember our discussions at stage 2, at which it was not made clear whether victim statements were meant to have a material impact on sentencing—in other words, whether they would change or add to a sentence. The danger of not making that clear is that the victim might expect that their victim statement would lead to a stronger and stiffer sentence. However, the reverse would be the case and the victims would be disappointed; victim statements would make things worse for the victim.

As the therapeutic value of victim statements rests on the victim's being able to see justice being done, the victim might well come out of the process less satisfied than if he or she had not been able to make such a statement. That is what some of the evidence—most important, an article that was entitled "Victim Impact Statements: Don't Work, Can't Work"—that the Justice 2 Committee received at stage 2 suggested. We need a great deal more clarity from the minister before we can support victim statements.

Cross-examination, which the progress group has already expressed concern about, has been mentioned. Victim statements raise the possibility that the victim will be cross-examined on their statement at a later stage. The victim would go through the process in court not just once, but twice. Would that be to the advantage of the victim? Would it make the system better and more inclusive? I do not believe that such a system would be better than the one that we have.

At face value, victim statements are an attractive idea, but we are in danger of raising expectations that will not merely not be met, but might be dashed. Victims' expectations will not be fulfilled.

We have discussed the question of what happens with conflicting evidence, but I do not believe we have had a great deal of clarity on the matter. We are not sure from what the minister said at what stage in the process possibly contradictory evidence in the victim's statement would come in. If, as the minister suggested, it would come in during the trial, or it was up to the prosecutor to make that evidence available, would that mean that the whole statement would be available? If the statement were not made available, would that provide grounds for appeal on the basis that it should have been made available? Those questions need to be answered by the minister today. This is not a stage 1 debate after which we will have more time: it is the final stage of the legislative process. If the minister is not at this stage clear, I do not, to be frank, know how the measure can be passed.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The debate thus far has encapsulated the problems that can be envisaged. My principal concern—shared by Duncan Hamilton—is that it has not been clear at any stage of the debate what the intentions are behind victim statements. Are they meant to impact upon sentencing? If so, there will be difficulties under a number of headings: the same type of offence might affect different people in different ways; some people are more articulate than others in expressing how a particular offence has affected them; and the degree of trauma that might be experienced by different persons as a result of the same offence is quite different.

Inevitable difficulties will arise when a statement is made prior to either a plea's being accepted for a reduced indictment, or where the jury returns a verdict that is inconsistent with that statement.

On the other hand, there is a compelling argument that the giving of such a statement will have a therapeutic affect on the victim in general terms. After all, the victim is the most important person in the equation. Conversely, some witnesses might find the giving of a statement troubling, but on balance—it is a fine balance—we are prepared to go with what the Executive proposes today.

Roseanna Cunningham's amendment 85 has been dealt with. It proposes that provision for victim statements be made on a trial basis; we would not be content to vote for victim statements it they were not to be introduced on a trial basis.

Amendment 86 deals, to some extent, with the contradictory material that might be introduced. The interests of justice demand that the terms of a victim statement would have to be tested.

We do not object to anything in amendments 88 and 89, which I understand have been accepted and, although I appreciate that amendment 90, in the name of Duncan Hamilton, is not likely to succeed, the points that he raised are valid and must be considered deeply. It is on a narrow balance that we are prepared to support the proposals.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

At this point, I must suspend the debate and move to the next item of business. The conclusion of the debate will take place when we resume this afternoon.

Forth Valley (New Hospital)

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

The next item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3864, in the name of Mr Brian Monteith, on the location of a new hospital for the Forth valley. Because of running times on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, the clocks will be stuck, but I will keep members right.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the announcement by the Forth Valley NHS Board that its favoured location for a new single-site hospital for Forth Valley is the Royal Scottish National hospital site at Larbert; further notes that the board is to undertake further work including a feasibility study and transport impact assessment before submitting its outline business case to the Scottish Executive this summer; recognises that the Scottish Executive and the Minister for Health and Community Care retain the ultimate say over the location of the proposed new hospital for the area, and believes that the Executive should consider any case for a new hospital in the context of the accessibility of the hospital to the public and the consequential arrangements for community health care throughout the Forth Valley NHS Board area.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful to those who have given me time to raise this matter in the chamber today.

My motives for lodging the motion and seeking the debate are not partisan. I would have written an entirely different motion if I had sought to score party-political points. In fact, I seek to raise issues that many members want to have discussed between several ministers.

I am fully aware of the strong local feelings between Falkirk and Stirling—or should I say between Falkirk bairns and the sons of the rock. Not only has this issue divided communities, it has divided political parties as they try to prove their own local loyalties. While recognising those feelings, I hope that we can address the issues in a broad and objective way, considering—as the Forth Valley NHS Board must—what is best for all Forth valley residents. It is also important that we have a debate with the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care today so that she may respond to it.

I welcome the motion by Dr Richard Simpson that is to be discussed next week. The terms of his motion bring roads into discussion. In my estimation, that fact and the amendment by Dennis Canavan determine that the minister to respond should be the transport minister. It is important that we should hear both ministers respond to the debate because, although the transport element is important, the final decision rests with the Minister for Health and Community Care.

The question of having two general hospitals, one in Falkirk and one in Stirling, has troubled Forth Valley NHS Board for a long time—at least as far back as 1985 and possibly longer. Once the management structure for the two hospitals was merged, it was inevitable that the two hospitals themselves would merge. As an Edinburgh lad, I was not bound by tribal loyalties, and I have always supported a single site where accessibility would make travel from west Perthshire, west Stirlingshire and Clackmannanshire, as well as from Stirling and Falkirk, as simple and timely as possible. Balanced by the large proportion of people in Stirling and Falkirk themselves, Crianlarich, Killin, Balfron, Aberfoyle, Dollar and Alloa must have their needs considered, and we all understand that. I met a mother from Killin who had had four children, all of whom were delivered in Stirling royal infirmary. However, she said that, had the location of that hospital been in the centre of Falkirk, two of them would have been born in the car.

I pay tribute to the health board chairman, Ian Mullen, who has expedited the issue since the first consultation two years ago. By considering and then rejecting the proposal that either the Stirling or the Falkirk hospital should be the new site for a single hospital, he has ensured that the final decision is made on the merits of the location, rather than on the local loyalties generated in previous years by the debate on which of the two existing hospitals should be chosen.

Larbert is not Falkirk, and the second choice that was being considered, Pirnhall, is not Stirling. Forth Valley NHS Board has now chosen Larbert, and that site has many advantages. It is available and can be developed without planning delays and there is room to expand. However, its links to local roads, and to the M9 in particular, are poor. To correct that will require considerable road construction work, at great cost. Pirnhall, on the other hand, offers space for development and offers far better access to local roads, and particularly to the M9. However, the difficulty is that the planning surrounding Pirnhall could delay progress for far too long.

Forth Valley NHS Board decided to go ahead with recommending Larbert, but showed that it had some doubts by deciding to commission traffic impact studies. It is important that members are able to raise the relative merits of the sites and are able to question ministers and bring to the chamber the concerns of residents.

I ask the minister to consider the whole package, including the costs and the length of time that it might take to build the necessary roads. She should ensure that roads are part of the package and that she considers the matter holistically.

I hope that the minister takes the opportunity to discuss the matter with her transport colleague, so that there is no possibility of the roads part of the Larbert project falling between two stools. We cannot have Larbert being chosen because Forth Valley NHS Board does not have to pay for the roads and the Minister for Health and Community Care approving the project without ensuring that the roads will become part of the plan. In the long run, we could find not only that the Pirnhall option would have been easier to travel to, but that it would have been cheaper and could have been delivered before the Larbert option, with construction added in. We must get to the bottom of such questions through the two departments.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Will the member take an intervention?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am just closing. All I ask is that ministers treat the project with an open mind.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Some members who have indicated that they will speak today, including Brian Monteith, represent a wider Mid Scotland and Fife regional perspective, but I will focus on the Stirling constituency, as that is the constituency that I represent. I want to discuss concerns and progress since the recent Forth Valley NHS Board decisions relating to the future Forth valley health strategy.

Locally, the decision by Forth Valley NHS Board to make the Royal Scottish national hospital site at Larbert the favoured site for the new acute hospital was a blow, given the accessibility of the proposed Stirling sites, which lie adjacent to the M9 and M80 interchange. Stirling Council has to be congratulated on the hard work that has been undertaken to have those sites considered.

The Stirling sites were seen by the board as problematic in respect of the time scale. Unfortunately, it was thought that sites such as the one at Pirnhall, which is within the proposed new growth area, would, through the local plan process, take up to two years before being available to the health board. The situation at the Corbiewood site is the reverse—business interests there wanted a quick decision by April this year, or alternative proposals would be considered. The independent report that was compiled by Ryden for the health board stated that both issues raised questions about the viability of the two sites. Therefore, time factors became critical in the discussions, and that was reinforced by clinicians on the health board, who maintained that acute services would not be maintained in the Forth valley without speedy action.

Brian Monteith mentioned that accessibility continues to be a key concern. Although the Larbert site became the favoured option, it was agreed that there would be an investigation into transport infrastructure there. The issue is important, particularly for the Stirling and Ochil constituencies and the whole Forth valley.

Although the transport study is to take place as soon as possible, I bitterly regret that, in moving to a favoured site option, the board acted in a way that failed to address the shortcomings of all the sites. I suspect that when the transport costs are assessed, the board may live to regret its haste in reaching a preferred option in advance of knowing all the cost factors in developing each site.

However, the battle is not over and we must use the time that is available to us while the transport study takes place to explore whether there are any mechanisms by which Stirling Council's local plan process can be shortened, or whether an agreement can be reached with developers in the new growth area to release a site in less than two years. I have already met Keith Yates, the chief executive of Stirling Council, and Corrie McChord, the leader of the council, to start discussions. I hope that we will move forward on the issue in a meeting that will take place soon with developers. Certainly, we are trying hard to decouple the site that could be used for the hospital from the local plan process. It should also be remembered that planning for a new hospital will take considerable time. I suspect that, if there is a one or two-year delay in knowing exactly where the hospital site will be located, that will not materially affect the building time to any great degree, especially if a public-private partnership option is to be pursued.

The siting of the new acute hospital is critical, but it is clear that the development of community health provision is also important, particularly for our rural areas—in particular, I am thinking of Aberfoyle, Balfron, Callander and Killin.

I have spoken and written to Fiona Mackenzie, who is the chief executive of Forth Valley NHS Board, to ask her to start discussions about the developments as soon as possible. She has assured me that that will happen.

Finally, I assure members that I will fight Stirling's corner, both for the residents of the city and for those who live in its rural communities. I firmly believe that that will prove to be in the interests of all residents of the Forth valley area.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I congratulate Brian Monteith on securing time for this afternoon's important debate.

As Brian Monteith mentioned in his opening remarks, this consultation exercise is not the first to have been carried out into how the health service should be configured within the local communities that are served by Forth Valley NHS Board. However, no one can be in any doubt that the consultation exercise on the new single-site option has proven to be effective and fair. We need only look at the figures for those who participated in the consultation exercise. Some 5,626 responses were received from across the whole of the Forth valley. If we compare that against the number of people who were involved in the previous consultation exercise, we can see that the most recent consultation was fair and that it was effective in engaging and involving people.

The consultation exercise was also fair because it was extended to allow Stirling Council time to propose other sites that it wished to be considered in the consultation process. Those sites were also measured against criteria that were fair and that were established by the health board. No one disputes how the health board should have evaluated the individual sites. The RSNH site is the only one that meets all the criteria that the health board laid down.

At more than 82 hectares, the RSNH site is of sufficient size to allow the hospital to be configured in the way that is most appropriate for offices, labs and parking. I believe that the site offers the greatest flexibility for building a new hospital within the Forth valley. I understand the many concerns that people have—in particular, those in west Stirlingshire and in some parts of Clackmannanshire—about the possibility that there may be problems in accessing any new hospital that might be built on the RSNH site. However, the site is closest to the majority of people within the Forth valley, given the fact that 63 per cent of the residents of the Forth valley are within a 15-minute drive of the site. As transport links improve, that proportion is likely to increase yet further.

In addition, the accessibility analysis that was undertaken by Forth Valley NHS Board last August highlighted that 93.43 per cent of the population are within a 30-minute drive of the site. The RSNH site also addresses the socioeconomic aspects of accessing a hospital. A major rail link is within 10 minutes' walk of the hospital site. That will allow those who do not have a car to gain access. There are also plans to improve access within the area.

I believe that now is the time to make the business case to ministers to ensure that the new hospital is built on the RSNH site. If additional factors must be taken into consideration in addressing transport links, I am sure that ministers will be prepared to work alongside the health board to ensure that those are addressed. We need to ensure that the people of Forth valley get the state-of-the-art hospital that they require as part of the best possible health service.

Lyndsay McIntosh (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I intend to make only a small contribution to today's debate on the motion in the name of Brian Monteith, whom I congratulate on securing time in the chamber for today's discussion.

Obviously, we all have our own viewpoint as to where the new hospital should be. I fully understand the concerns that have been expressed by Brian Monteith, whom we should perhaps not single out as the only person to harbour doubts. It will never be easy to make a decision of this magnitude that satisfies everyone. As politicians, we are only too well aware that tough choices must be made from time to time.

For my part, I welcome the announcement that a single-site hospital at Larbert is the board's favoured option. A whole host of considerations were taken into account and I do not intend to rehearse them all. Among the comments made to me was one about the growing unsuitability of the present site at Falkirk. I have been in Falkirk at peak traffic times on many occasions and I believe that it can readily be understood why a move is necessary. For no other reason than base self-interest, I think that it is perfectly understandable why the residents of Falkirk and its environs should have their fears addressed.

In the interests of balance, I point out that I am aware that people furth of Falkirk will see the decision in a different light. Brian Monteith is right to highlight the issues of accessibility, timing and cost. However, no site is ideal; if it were, we would not be having the debate.

We should note the terms of the motion: we are rightly asked to note that the matter should be considered on accessibility and community health care grounds. I sincerely hope that, when the decision is made, those factors are taken into account and that the people of Falkirk get the decision that they want.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I congratulate Brian Monteith on securing the debate and I thank him for his kind comments about my motion on the subject. Next week, we will talk about the accessibility issues in greater detail with the transport minister.

All members welcome the fact that, after more than 30 years, the Forth Valley NHS Board, under the chairmanship of Ian Mullen, has at long last grasped the nettle and decided to have a single- site hospital. He will not find division in the chamber on that issue. It is 30 years since I was involved in the group that proposed a single site to Sir John Brotherston. That was before the motorway from Stirling to Edinburgh was built, which meant that Bellsdyke hospital could have been provided with the links that we wanted at that point.

Constant delays have damaged the case in successive years, not least because the substantial, necessary developments at Falkirk and Stirling in the 1980s will largely be put to rest as a result of the new single-site hospital. That has been a waste of public money.

We must consider the infrastructure. All the reports that have been produced show that we must put the infrastructure for the acute hospitals on the correct basis. The board has stated that part of that should involve the new Clackmannanshire community hospital and resource centre, which is vital because it will provide not only primary services, but intermediate care, diagnostic services, rehabilitation, out-patient services and, I hope, minor accident and emergency services.

We do not need an acute services review; we need nothing less than a total review of the health service. That applies to every area in Scotland, not only to the Forth valley. I urge the Executive to use the Forth Valley NHS Board proposals as a model for examining the need for integrated care that, as far as possible, brings services closer to the patient and which leaves only acute in-patient short-term stays in hospital.

Given that the board has problems with recruitment and retention that will only get worse in the interim, early decisions are necessary. It will be important for the minister, in considering the problem, to ensure that any temporary movement of services does not endanger my constituents, particularly those in Clackmannanshire.

I will discuss accessibility in greater detail during next week's debate, but if the RSNH site is chosen, the board and the minister must balance the absence of a new Forth bridge crossing until 2007 and the probable subsequent closure of the old Kincardine bridge until 2008 with the planning disadvantages at Pirnhall. That will be a difficult decision for the minister.

I return to a theme that I wanted to develop earlier in my short speech. A modernised, integrated national health service must be addressed nationally. A strategic view must be taken in making the decision on the new district general hospital. There are problems in Livingston because of its distance from a new hospital, problems with the change in services at Perth, and problems with Dunfermline's Queen Margaret hospital's relationship to Kirkcaldy.

Without a strategic Scottish view, we—not me, I am glad to say, but our successors—might in 20 years say once again that the health service does not meet the needs of modern Scotland. A strategic view must be taken. I hope that the minister will tackle that difficult problem.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

I welcome the opportunity to debate the review of acute services in the Forth valley, which has been dragging on for well over a decade. I am pleased that the Forth Valley NHS Board, at its meeting on 28 January, at last took a decision, which was unanimous, that there should be a new single-site hospital and that the favoured location is the Royal Scottish national hospital site at Larbert. I welcome that decision not simply because the RSNH site is in my constituency, but because I believe that it is in the best interests of the majority of people in the Forth valley.

When a new single-site hospital was first suggested, I expressed the view that the RSNH site was the best location and that it should emerge as the favourite. However, some politicians in the Stirling area, perhaps understandably, suggested two other sites—one at Corbiewood and the other at Pirnhall.

The health board sought to be fair to all concerned by commissioning Ryden consultants to assess the other two options, but the health board made it clear that any alternative site to RSNH must satisfy four criteria. First, any alternative site must be of sufficient size. Secondly, it must be within half an hour's car journey for at least 90 per cent of the Forth valley population. Thirdly, there must be no significant increase in costs. Fourthly, there must be no significant delay. It was obvious from the consultants' report that the RSNH site was the only one that met all four criteria. It has huge advantages over the other two options. It both belongs to the national health service, and is designated as a hospital site. Costs and planning delays would therefore be minimised.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

How does the member think possible transport costs will be taken into account when the transport study is completed?

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

I am coming to that.

There were proposals to have better access to and egress from the motorway system at Larbert long before the RSNH site was suggested as a possibility for a new hospital. Proposals were required, for example, for better access to the business park on the Bellsdyke road. Brian Monteith's point about the roads department having to meet any improved infrastructure for roads has therefore been on the agenda for many years. It is clear from the Ryden consultants' report that the sites at Pirnhall and Corbiewood do not satisfy the criterion of no significant delay, and the Corbiewood site does not satisfy the criterion of no significant additional costs. The RSNH site, on the other hand, satisfies all four criteria and is therefore the best location for the new hospital.

I accept that much work has to be done, including a transport impact assessment. The new Kincardine bridge will mean better access to the hospital for people coming from Clackmannanshire, and access will also be improved if there are better links to the motorway system at Larbert, which will benefit the nearby business park.

In conclusion, I urge the Executive to take appropriate action to ensure that the new motorway links and the Kincardine bridge are constructed as soon as possible. I also urge the Executive to respond positively and quickly to the health board's case for the new hospital when it is submitted in a few months time. As I said earlier, the matter has been dragging on for well over a decade, and we have a great opportunity—the opportunity of a lifetime—to ensure that the people of the Forth valley get a new state-of-the-art hospital that will serve them well into the 21st century. It is an opportunity that must be grasped now.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

We would all sign up for Richard Simpson's concept of integrated care by having good, appropriate local facilities in Stirling, Falkirk and Clackmannanshire and having a central hospital for acute services.

The health board has conducted a good consultation—perhaps it is not perfect, but it seems better than most—and it has come to a conclusion. I think that the Larbert site is good—I have been there and know it well. I do not know the other sites, so I am not in a position to say whether they are better. However, the health board clearly preferred the Larbert site.

The most important thing that I have stressed in discussions with the health board has been the access question, especially relating to public transport. Michael Matheson mentioned the railway. It is also essential that there is a really good bus service from the train station and from other communities. After all, that is a major failing of some new hospitals in other areas. Furthermore, given the very large housing and business developments that are proposed for the Bellsdyke area, there will be a big demand for public transport. Obviously, roads will have to be improved. Presumably, the costs for such improvements can be shared out between the hospital and other beneficiaries in the community.

As other members have said, I hope that the Executive will ensure that the matter is concluded soon. If better arguments can be made for the other sites and if they can be assessed as quickly as the Bellsdyke site was, we should consider them. However, at the moment, a good proposition is on the table, and the Executive should reach a rapid conclusion on it.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

I will not cover all the points that have already been covered. However, as a Grangemouth resident, I am pleased that a decision has been reached. Like Dennis Canavan, I have campaigned for a long time for a decision to be made on acute services in the area.

Good transport links are essential for any hospital, and decisions are obviously easier if there is a single concentration of population that already has such links. Where that is not the case, any decision will have more profound effects and we must consider carefully how people will be disadvantaged.

In particular, we must consider the effects of any decision on people who are socially disadvantaged and might therefore have poorer health. The population of the Falkirk Council area is greater than that of the other two council areas in Forth valley combined. Although the breakdown of health information is limited, the information that is available shows clearly that the Falkirk area has higher rates of lung cancer, heart disease and strokes than the rest of the Forth valley.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Will the member give way?

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

No. I am sorry, but I must continue.

The average household income varies from about £18,000 in Falkirk to £20,500 in Stirling. By constituency, unemployment is highest in Falkirk East and Ochil; long-term illness is highest in Falkirk West; and, although almost 40 per cent of school leavers in Stirling and Ochil go on to higher education, little more than a quarter of school leavers in Falkirk do so.

Because of the high level of need in Falkirk, there was enormous concern about the proposals. Almost 800 people attended the Falkirk area consultation meetings. There were 4,811 written submissions from the Falkirk area, 99 per cent of which were clear that the hospital should be located on the RSNH site. Almost 2,000 people signed petitions that supported the choice of that site; more than three quarters of the questionnaires that were returned came from the Falkirk area; and of the 5,345 letters and questionnaires that were received, 5,193 supported the choice. As a result, I believe that the RSNH site is the natural choice for a new hospital.

The site might not be convenient for people who favour private health care interests. However, it is large enough, it is already owned by the health board and it is near enough to the motorway. On that last point, I look forward to next week's debate and other discussions on the transport infrastructure.

As long as community hospitals are maintained to sufficiently high standards, I believe that the site represents the best solution for Forth valley. It is important that the health board begins real consultation and perhaps does some lateral thinking on the delivery of primary care services. It is time to stop going over the same old ground; instead, we must look forward and find out how we can achieve the best for all the residents of the Forth valley.

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

Members have pointed out that the issue has a long history: some have mentioned 30 years, others have mentioned 10 years. Whatever the length of time, the issue has been too long in the melting pot. Earlier consultations have ended in confusion, failure, disappointment and disengagement and no final decisions have been reached. As a result, I am glad that on this occasion a decision has actually been made.

At the beginning of the consultation, I was worried that the process would fall into disrepute. However, I have been greatly heartened by Forth Valley NHS Board's consultation exercise, which was better than others that I have witnessed in Fife and in the Tayside area. The consultation was comprehensive and effective. I think that we all agree that the decision to have a single-site hospital is right.

Questions still need to be asked. I say to Dennis Canavan that it is our job as politicians not to do down other potential sites, but to ensure that we get the best option for all the central Scotland area that the Larbert hospital will serve. I understand why Forth Valley NHS Board decided that Larbert is the preferred site. However, I am concerned that irrevocable decisions will be taken without the necessary long-term strategic perspective that would consider all the sites and, as others have said, the primary care aspect. Perhaps that aspect should have been central to the consultation.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Will the member give way?

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

No. I do not have much time.

It is obvious that if primary care had been at the centre of the consultation process, and the transport study issues had been considered beforehand, the process could have been greatly strengthened.

Larbert might be the correct site and the sites that Stirling Council identified at Corbiewood and Pirnhall might have associated challenges, but any site has those. I believe that Stirling Council must be given every opportunity to ascertain whether the problems of the Corbiewood and Pirnhall sites could be overcome, because the sites deserve the opportunity, as do the people of Stirling and of Falkirk. If those sites were given a further opportunity, they might end up being better options. However, after further investigations, Larbert might still come out at the top of the list.

Whatever happens—whether the preferred site is Larbert, Corbiewood or Pirnhall—we must have a real examination, as others have said, of the impact on the rural communities of Aberfoyle, Callander, Balfron and the Strathendrick area, particularly in relation to community health facilities. There is a black hole in those communities that must be filled, whatever the circumstances. The Deputy Presiding Officer has been involved in the campaign for, and has a long-standing commitment to, a hospital in the Clackmannan resource centre area. Something like that should be considered for the Strathendrick area and the Callander and Aberfoyle area for the future.

The public transport issue must be investigated further to ensure that we get the links right between whichever town the hospital is eventually sited in and the towns that are furthest away. That must be a prerequisite for the future.

Let us take a wee bit longer to get the decision dead right so that we have the right option for the whole Forth valley area, which deserves such a chance.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I wanted to speak in the debate because it is important. I used to be involved in consultation processes as a former resident and councillor in Stirling. I was the councillor for the Trossachs ward, which is a rural area, and I felt that the biggest issue—which has only just begun to be addressed and which was referred to fleetingly by Sylvia Jackson and Bruce Crawford—was the rural hinterland of north-west Stirling. I defy anyone to make the journey from that area to the proposed site by car in 30 minutes during the summer tourist months; it cannot be done. During the tourist season, it used to take me more than half an hour just to get from the back of Aberfoyle into Stirling. What I am concerned about is not the routine, high-quality medical care that the existing hospitals currently supply—I am sure that any new hospital would do the same—

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

rose—

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

May I just finish my point?

I am concerned about emergency access rather than primary care facilities that could take some of the load away from the rural areas. There is no public transport from such areas, anyway. What about provision for accident and emergency, maternity services and cardiac arrest? Wherever the hospital is sited, accessible emergency service care for the whole of the Forth valley area must be built into the planning. The issue is about patients' needs, not just about convenience because there is a nearby bus route. People can make a journey for routine medical attention and it does not matter whether that takes 30 or 45 minutes. However, emergency treatment is important.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

If there were an accident or emergency in the Aberfoyle area, someone would probably be quicker going to a hospital in Glasgow than to one in Stirling. Indeed, some people in the Aberfoyle area use national health services in Glasgow rather than those in Stirling.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The medical practices have an option about where to send patients, but that would work only in routine circumstances. I would not recommend trying to get into Glasgow from the rural hinterland of Stirling in a hurry in the tourist season, with all its associated problems.

The minister should pay attention to the fact that the issue is not just one of ease for the majority. The same level of care must be available to everyone. By having outreach units to supply some of the consultants' care, or by using the model that operates in Aberdeen and Grampian, where community hospitals are serviced from the centre, a lot of the problems of movement and transportation could be dealt with. It is vital that the rural hinterland of Stirling is considered in relation to emergency care on the basis of the worst transport conditions that might arise. I have no doubt that parts of Clackmannanshire fall into the category that we are talking about, although the situation is a little better in the Falkirk area.

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

Crieff community hospital does some emergency work, such as cardiac treatment, and allows other services to be delivered. Does Mr Davidson agree that that model would work in the Stirling area?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I agree. I am asking the minister to consider those options and to try to find a way in which such services can be delivered in that area. When I was a councillor in the area, people were desperately worried about the removal of a hospital facility from Stirling. That fear was based not on the usual turf wars between Stirling and Falkirk, but on the need for access at times of emergency.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I listened with interest to Brian Monteith's remarks and to the positive speeches by other members, all of whom have an interest in modernising and improving the health services for all the people of the Forth Valley NHS Board area.

It has been evident from today's lively debate that there is broad support for Forth Valley NHS Board's initiative to develop a new hospital for its area on a single site. That support comes from the public, their representatives, national health service staff and other stakeholders.

The shape of hospital services in the area has been under discussion for some time, as many members have said. In the past couple of years, the NHS board and trusts have been concerned with identifying a way to ensure that safe, sustainable and accessible services can be enjoyed by all. There was a real possibility that, otherwise, hospital-based services for residents in the area would end up being provided from outside the region.

I think that the NHS board would agree that some difficult points were encountered along the way. However, the board has succeeded in developing options for clinically sustainable and affordable models of care. The recent consultation exercise has been thorough and wide-ranging, as many members noted. It went beyond public consultation to embrace engagement and involvement. All local people and organisations had the opportunity to have their say.

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

Does the minister agree that the consultation process would have been strengthened if it had wrapped in primary care issues with the acute care issues that were dealt with?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

It is important that primary care issues continue to be considered in the on-going discussions. We have not reached the end of the process by any means. There is still a lot of work to be done.

The board specifically sought views on the development of a single acute hospital to serve the population of the area; proposals for community-based health services, including a community hospital in Clackmannanshire, which would incorporate a new health centre for Alloa; the best location for a new acute hospital; what factors should be taken into account in choosing a site; and, importantly, what immediate changes needed to be made to ensure that safe, high-quality services could be maintained until the long-term vision was realised.

The public's feedback from the consultation has been encouraging, with more than 5,500 responses. The board, the public and other stakeholders are to be commended for their active involvement and for ensuring that the exercise was conducted openly. One of the key outcomes of the consultation was the increasing level of public involvement in the shaping of NHS services. I want the board to continue in that way, and I know that the chair, the board members and Fiona Mackenzie, the chief executive, share my view.

Ultimately, it is for the board to decide on the organisation and location of health services in its area, but it must ensure that those services represent best value for all the people of the Forth valley. The board must also demonstrate that effective linkages will be made between primary and secondary care to create the fully integrated services for which Richard Simpson asked. Those services must deliver for the patient in the right place at the right time.

It is evident from this afternoon's debate that there are areas of concern to members. Those areas include accessibility and the further development of health services in the community. As part of the consultation exercise, the board proposed key access criteria, including

"accessibility to a minimum of 90% of the population within 30 minutes by car, and with the potential for appropriate public transport links to all main population centres within Forth Valley".

That recognises that it will not be possible for 100 per cent of the population to realise that 30-minute access. However, I say to Mr Davidson in particular that discussions must also take place with the Scottish Ambulance Service, particularly on accidents and emergencies, in which the service is called on to stabilise a patient wherever it picks them up and ensure their safe delivery to the hospital. There is, therefore, less of an issue about how long it might take for even an emergency ambulance to access a hospital. Those are the kind of developments that we want in the Ambulance Service and which will allow safe transport in future.

The board has been able to take account of the impact of the proposed Alloa rail link and the planned new Forth crossing at Kincardine. That investment in the transport infrastructure will make a significant impact on accessibility, especially for the 80,000 residents of the wee county. I am sure that we will return to that subject in the transport debate next week.

I understand that the board's chair and chief executive are to meet the three local authorities shortly to discuss how the development of community health services might be taken forward. The board is considering using the same successful model of involving local people, staff and key stakeholders as was used previously.

The overriding issue is that the future configuration of health services in the Forth valley, as in the rest of Scotland, must be clinically safe, achievable and financially sustainable. The board is approaching the task of identifying options and reaching decisions openly and even-handedly. It is very important that the public are engaged and involved in the process. I believe that Forth Valley NHS Board is doing its best to achieve that. For example, the board has placed all the relevant consultation documents on the worldwide web and made them available to anybody who wants them. That is the kind of involvement that we want.

I expect Forth Valley NHS Board to be able to demonstrate that it has listened and taken into account local opinion, as well as all the representations made and data provided to it. It is easier for the board to demonstrate that since the restructuring of health boards 18 months ago.

It is evident from the debate that there is consensus that what is required for the people of the Forth valley is one centre with well-developed, modern, local services. The board will take further independent advice on location issues before a final decision is made. We expect the transport impact study to be thorough and to have been consulted on when we receive it. We will look to Forth Valley NHS Board to develop its ideas on future patterns of primary and community care in partnership with the local community.

Of course, any proposals for major changes, such as those that we have discussed, will require the approval of my colleague Malcolm Chisholm, the Minister for Health and Community Care. That will give the Executive an opportunity to ensure that the proper processes have been followed and that all relevant information has been taken into account. It is inevitable that not everyone will agree with the board's decision on the location, but it is clear that there can be only one new hospital in the Forth valley and that it can be in only one place.

I have listened to the points that have been raised today, and members can be sure that Forth Valley NHS Board will be made aware of the debate. However, the development of a new hospital, important as it is, is only a part of a wider, continuing review of NHS services in the Forth valley. I am sure that the public, their representatives and staff will support the NHS board to make whatever decision is eventually taken work—and work well—for all the people of the Forth valley.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

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

Good afternoon. We pick up consideration of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill from where we left off this morning. We were on group 3, on victim statements. We have to get through all of groups 3 and 4 in the next 15 minutes, so I ask members to keep their speeches tight. I call Roseanna Cunningham.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Are we not moving straight to the vote?

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

Do you not want to wind up?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

No. I think that enough has been said on amendment 85. I want to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 85, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 86 not moved.

Amendments 18 to 23 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.

Amendment 87 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].

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

The question is, that amendment 87 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

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

There will be a division.

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

The result of the division is: For 22, Against 42, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 87 disagreed to.

Amendments 88 and 89 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.

Amendment 90 not moved.

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

Amendment 24 is grouped with amendments 44, 25, 26 to 29, 91, 30, 31 and 92.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I am glad to speak briefly to amendment 24. Section 14(2) restricts the victim's statement to

"a natural person against whom a prescribed offence has been ... perpetrated".

The Law Society of Scotland questioned why the provision is so narrowly drafted. Should not a sole trader, a family partnership consisting of parents and their children or a close company that has been the victim of a crime also be given the chance to present a statement detailing the impact of the crime?

The Scottish justice system has often found itself criticised for the scant information that is provided to victims of crime. The definition of those who may give a victim statement is dealt with under section 14(10). Although I have no wish to extend that definition to include a cast of thousands, we should extend the category of those who are entitled to make victim statements and receive information, as the amendment proposes. The impact on a surviving partner after a homicide would be considerable; therefore, it seems equitable to allow them to make a victim statement and to obtain information, as appropriate.

Amendment 44 seeks to time-limit certain aspects of section 15, which is understandable.

Amendment 28 brings into play a necessary part of legislation where the convicted person is extremely young.

I see the sense behind Roseanna Cunningham's amendment 91, but were section 15(2) to be left out in its entirety, we would have to try to resolve a historical situation involving innumerable victims of crime. Many of those persons might have moved house or changed name on marriage or for other reasons. Therefore, the amendment would place on the authorities an onerous duty that could, in practical terms, prove impossible to meet.

Amendment 92 is necessary. Although we must avoid alarming people unnecessarily, victims who might be prejudiced by the escape of a convicted person should be notified. We will support amendment 92.

I move amendment 24.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As James Douglas-Hamilton says, amendment 24 would extend to legal persons the right to receive information about the release of an offender from prison. I remind the Parliament of the purpose of victim notification, which was to provide the right for individuals who have been the victims of certain crimes to receive information on the release of their assailant. The notification scheme exists primarily to allay any concerns that victims have about their safety or about possibly meeting their assailant unexpectedly.

I give James Douglas-Hamilton the reassurance that the scheme will include sole traders or individuals who have been affected in what might be described as a corporate situation. What the scheme will not do is to notify Boots the chemist if someone who committed fraud against the company is released. However, a sole trader who was the victim of an assault—although the assault might have occurred in a trading situation—will be an individual for the purposes of the provisions. The intention was never to provide that right to private companies or other corporate bodies.

Amendments 25, 26, 27 and 28 seek to fulfil the original policy intention behind the provisions by ensuring that offenders who have a mental disorder and are detained in hospital as patients, rather than being sentenced to prison, are excluded from the provisions of section 15. A tension clearly exists between the rights of the victim and the rights of the patient. There are complex issues surrounding patient confidentiality, which place different constraints on the information that can be disclosed. In addition, there are European convention of human rights considerations to take into account. We are aware that the release of information to victims of mentally disordered offenders requires serious consideration, and we have given a commitment to consult all relevant interests on the issues.

Amendment 29 removes from section 15(1) the requirement for ministers to prescribe through subordinate legislation the method by which a victim intimates that they wish to receive information about the release of their assailant from prison. We consider that it is not necessary to prescribe in secondary legislation the specific format in which victims are to indicate that they wish to receive information. At present, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service issues forms to eligible victims, which they can complete and send to the Scottish Prison Service if they wish to receive information. Victims whose assailant was convicted before 1 April 1997 can write to the Scottish Prison Service, which will check whether they are eligible to receive information.

The victim notification scheme came into being on 1 April 1997, from which point all eligible victims have been asked whether they wish to receive information about the release of the offender. Section 15 gives a statutory right to eligible victims to receive information about offenders who were sentenced after 1 April 1997. Executive amendment 44 seeks to extend that right to eligible victims of offenders who were sentenced prior to 1 April 1997. However, we recognise that amendment 44 does not go far enough.

Amendment 91 seeks to give victims who are eligible to receive information under section 15(1) the right to receive the information set out in section 15(4) when the offender was sentenced prior to 1 April 1997.

We accept that the combination of amendment 91 with amendment 44 achieves the policy intention, to which Lord James Douglas-Hamilton referred, to extend the right to receive information to victims whose assailant was sentenced prior to 1 April 1997.

Amendment 44 is in the Executive's name and we will also support amendment 91. We thank Roseanna Cunningham for bringing the matter to our attention.

Amendment 30 seeks to clarify that the information provided to victims about the date of release of convicted persons pertains to release under the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 or the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. That means that victims will always be informed of release from sentence, but will not be informed of release from hospital if the convicted person has a hospital disposal and is detained beyond the duration of their prison sentence by virtue of their illness.

Amendment 31 seeks to clarify that the information provided to victims about the temporary release of convicted persons pertains to temporary release under the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989. The effect of the amendment is that victims will not be informed of temporary release from hospital if the convicted person has also been detained in hospital because they have a mental disorder.

As I said in relation to amendments 25 to 28, we intend to consult on our policy in relation to the future release of information to victims of mentally disordered offenders.

Amendment 92 seeks to insert an additional category into the list of information that should be supplied to victims who sign up to receive information. It would require the Scottish ministers to inform the victim if the convicted person had escaped or absconded from custody. That information is not provided to victims under the current scheme and I believe that Roseanna Cunningham has identified an important addition to the list of information to be given to victims. Therefore, the Executive will support the amendment.

I hope that, following the reassurance that I have given Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, he will be prepared to withdraw amendment 24.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I welcome the Executive's decision to accept amendments 91 and 92.

If a person was sentenced prior to 1 April 1997 the Executive has the power, but is not required, to provide information to the victim on the convicted person's date of release, death, transfer out of Scotland or temporary release. Amendment 91 will require that the Executive's provides the information even if the offence was committed before 1 April 1997. I note the concerns that have been expressed by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on behalf of the Conservative party. However, I remind him that the victim must intimate their wish for information, so tracking them down should not represent a particular difficulty.

I welcome the Executive's willingness to accept amendment 92. The purpose of the amendment is to require the Executive, in addition to providing information to victims on the date of release, death, transfer out of Scotland or temporary release of the convicted person, to tell the victim if the convicted person escapes or absconds from custody. That seems reasonable.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I thank the minister for his reply, but his assurance does not include private companies, which was one of the Law Society of Scotland's concerns. I will press amendment 24, as a marker that private companies should be entitled to give victim impact statements if they are adversely affected by robberies and crime.

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

The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

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

There will be a division.

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

The result of the division is: For 8, Against 82, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 24 disagreed to.

[Amendments 44 and 25 to 29 moved—[Hugh Henry]—and agreed to.]

Amendment 91 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.

Amendments 30 and 31 moved—[Hugh Henry]—and agreed to.

Amendment 92 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham]—and agreed to.

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

That takes us within the guillotine to group 5, on consecutive sentences. Amendment 49 is grouped with amendments 50 to 53.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

In essence, amendments 49 to 53 replace the provisions that are in the bill at present, but do not change what they aim to achieve.

As the policy memorandum for the bill explains, we wish to provide the courts with a new power in relation to life sentences. Currently, a life sentence cannot run consecutively to another sentence, nor vice versa. We want to give courts a new power to order that a subsequent determinate sentence of imprisonment for an offence or the punishment part of a second life sentence can be ordered to run consecutively to the punishment part of an existing life sentence.

Similarly, we want to give the courts the power to order that the punishment part of a life sentence can be ordered to run consecutively to a determinate sentence that a prisoner is serving or is liable to serve. In a nutshell, the provisions introduced by these amendments will do just that.

Furthermore, they will mean that a prisoner in respect of whom such sentences are imposed will have no right to be considered for release, or to be released, until he or she reaches the point at which he or she may be considered for release or must be released from all the sentences that the courts have ordered to be served.

I move amendment 49.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am somewhat intrigued by amendment 49. I would have thought it unnecessary; cannot the matter be dealt with administratively? Would not the simple way forward be for the judge to impose a further life sentence, stipulating the punishment part and stating that it has to be served consecutively to any sentence already imposed by the courts or any other sentence that might be imposed in the interim? What is proposed does not seem in any way unreasonable, but I think that it is an over-complex way of resolving the matter. The issue is quite simple and straightforward. The judge would simply say that any further life sentence, and the punishment part thereof, should succeed the initial sentence.

Amendment 49 agreed to.

[Amendment 50 moved—[Hugh Henry]—and agreed to.]

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

Amendment 32 is in a group on its own.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Amendment 32 is an attempt to reduce the logjam in sheriff and jury courts. At present, on summary conviction, a maximum sentence of three months' imprisonment can be imposed, although that increases to six months where the accused person has previously been convicted of an analogous offence. There are specific provisions under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, whereby, for example, a sentence of nine months can be imposed by a sheriff or stipendiary magistrate in a district court in Glasgow for an offence of police assault. Nevertheless, there still appears to be a great amount of business going through sheriff courts, where sentences on indictment are 12 months or less.

I am always reluctant to interfere with the long-established principles of Scots law, and I recognise that the right to a jury trial where the sentence could be six months is a right with which we should not interfere lightly, but what is proposed in amendment 32 would not interfere seriously with the inherent fairness of our system.

If the amendment is passed, its effect would be to reduce significantly the amount of work going to the sheriff and jury courts, to enable those courts to deal with more serious matters and to speed up the judicial process in a high percentage of cases that currently go before the sheriffs on indictment.

I move amendment 32.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Bill Aitken might recall that it was the Conservative party, under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, that extended the powers of sheriffs to be able to sentence up to six months in summary procedures. It is clear that the Conservatives think that there should be a further extension, but I am not sure whether that is the best way to tackle the problems in the criminal justice system.

The member will be aware that the McInnes review is considering the whole issue of sheriff courts. I would have thought that it would be more appropriate to wait for the outcome of that review and to see what should be implemented from it before we start to make changes.

Why Bill Aitken has decided to pick out serious offences such as personal violence and dishonesty is unclear. It could be argued that other serious offences—such as drugs trafficking or collecting child pornography—could equally be included.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I echo some of what Michael Matheson said. Amendment 32 replicates section 13(2)(b) of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997. Commencing the provision would pre-empt the findings of the summary justice review committee. Members will know that we set up that committee, which is chaired by Sheriff Principal McInnes, to consider all aspects of summary justice, including the important matter of the dividing boundaries for sentencing powers between the different levels of criminal court. Sentencing powers cannot be taken in isolation, but must be considered in the context of the structure of the criminal justice system and, in particular, of the types of cases that should be dealt with at each level of the criminal courts. We must also bear in mind the need to distribute work appropriately between summary and solemn courts.

The summary justice review committee is considering sentencing powers in that context. If the committee recommends that there should be a change, we will certainly consider seriously its recommendation.

As the terms of amendment 32 are already enacted, I invite Bill Aitken to withdraw it.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I do not propose to withdraw amendment 32, albeit that I am faced with the unholy liberal alliance of Hugh Henry and Michael Matheson—if ever I needed any justification for knowing that I was right, that is it.

On what Michael Matheson said about the particular type of offence for which we suggest that the procedure be introduced, crimes of violence are the section of criminal activity that, unfortunately, is showing the most spectacular increase. On that basis, there is justification for the amendment.

What he said about the activities of the McInnes inquiry into the operation of the summary courts has slightly more validity. His argument that the matter might be best dealt with by the inquiry has some credence. However, I suspect that, before the Parliament is much older, it will debate the inquiry's report and one of its recommendations will almost inevitably be to suggest exactly what I am suggesting today. It would be as well for us to agree to my suggestions here and now and get on with things.

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

The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

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

There will be a division.

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

The result of the division is: For 9, Against 83, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 32 disagreed to.

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

Amendment 78 is grouped with amendments 54 to 56 and 45.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

There is an inherent dishonesty in our approach to sentencing. As members will be aware, a remission of 50 per cent is currently applied to sentences that are of four years or less and a remission of a third is applied for sentences that are higher than that. The net effect is that a person who is sentenced to nine years does only six years, a person who is sentenced to four years does only two years and a person who is sentenced to six months does only three months. Those are typical examples. The public are increasingly concerned about the fact that the judicial system is misleading.

Amendment 78 would mean that the sentence that was handed down would be the time that the person would serve. I ask members to put themselves in the position of someone who, having been the victim of a serious assault, sees the perpetrator jailed for three years. Two years later, they see their assailant walking down the street and getting on to the same bus or entering the same public house. That sort of thing increases public unease considerably. The victims of crime are finding it increasingly difficult to understand why such things happen. Amendment 78 would stop such things happening.

The amendment is not an attempt to increase the amount of time that individuals spend in jail, as we would fully expect judges to reduce the tariff in such circumstances. However, the situation would at least be up front and honest.

The original intent of remission was that it would act as an incentive to convicted persons to behave well in prison. If they did not do so, their remission could be reduced with the result that they would spend more time in jail. However, the European convention on human rights has had a negative impact on that, as on many other aspects of Scots law. Questioning of the Minister for Justice has revealed that few prisoners have suffered loss of remission over the past couple of years. Basically, the use of remission as a tool to control behaviour is no longer relevant to our considerations.

We have no objection to amendments 54, 55 and 56. We feel certain that amendment 45 is fairly innocent, although I would like to hear a ministerial explanation of it. I do not have any suspicions, but an explanation would be helpful in the interests of clarity.

It is time that we were up front with the Scottish public. Judges should mean what they say when they pass sentence. I stress that amendment 78 is not a device to ensure that people spend more time in prison. We fully expect that the tariffs would be reduced, but at least everyone would know where they stood. Amendment 78 would mean that we could obviate the difficult situation that confronts many people when they see someone who has assaulted them being released from prison a lot earlier than had been expected.

I move amendment 78.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Amendments 54 and 56, like amendments 55 and 45, are technical amendments. Amendments 54 and 56 will remove from the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 provisions for the treatment of repatriated life prisoners that have become obsolete. The provisions are obsolete because of the changes to the system for the consideration of the release of life prisoners that were made by the Parliament when it passed the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Act 2001. The amendments will make it clear that life prisoners who are repatriated to Scotland will, like other life prisoners, normally have a punishment part of their life sentence set by the High Court. They will have to serve that punishment part before the Parole Board for Scotland can consider them for release.

Along with amendment 55, amendment 56 will provide that the provisions to be inserted by section 29 of the bill into the schedule to the 1984 act will apply only to prisoners who received a sentence on or after 1 October 1993 and who are repatriated to Scotland after section 29 comes into force. Taken together, the amendments ensure that the new provisions governing the eligibility for release of prisoners who are repatriated to Scotland from abroad will not apply retrospectively. That is in line with the normal presumption that changes in the law should not apply retrospectively.

As Mr Aitken is eager to hear an explanation of amendment 45, I point out that it is a minor consequential amendment to section 34. Section 34(2)(c) inserts a new subsection (5) into section 7 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. Paragraph (c) of that new subsection refers to a provision of section 17 of the 1993 act that section 32 of the bill will remove. Therefore, the new subsection (5)(c) is no longer appropriate and requires to be deleted, which is all that amendment 45 seeks to do.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Say that again without notes.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The amendment is technical.

On amendment 78, Bill Aitken is certainly a trier in his attempt to change a law that his party introduced. It is worth reminding members that the effect of amendment 78 would be to repeal provisions of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, which was introduced by the Conservative Administration, of which Lord James Douglas-Hamilton was a distinguished member. That act followed a review of the early-release system by a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Kincraig, which was set up by the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr Malcolm Rifkind.

Bill Aitken lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, although it did not go as far as amendment 78, which would create some undesirable and, in some cases, irrational effects. First, in spite of what Bill Aitken says, the amendment could lead to a substantial increase in the daily prison population. I cannot put an exact figure on that, but, given that Bill Aitken's expectations are not correct, I will say that the figure would be of the order of 2,000.

Secondly, the amendment would create some blatant anomalies. By way of illustration, let us take two co-accused, one of whom is sentenced to four years and the other to three years. The prisoner who is sentenced to four years could be released on licence after serving half the sentence if the Parole Board for Scotland recommended that. In other words, he could be released after two years. However, his co-accused, who was sentenced to three years, would be required to serve the full three-year sentence. I am sure that such an irrational situation is not Bill Aitken's intention. It goes without saying that such a system would lead to severe difficulties for the management of prisoners.

In the case of long-term prisoners who are not released on parole, there would be no compulsory supervision in the community on release as there is at present, which would be counterproductive. Prisoners would not be under the supervision of a social worker with whom work to address offending behaviour could continue during a period on licence and from whom the prisoner would be able to get help with resettlement in the community.

Given those points, I ask members to reject amendment 78 and to support amendments 54 to 56 and 45.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

It is perhaps not surprising that I support Bill Aitken's amendment 78. Jim Wallace referred to the fact that Conservative ministers introduced the provisions that amendment 78 would remove. He is quite right, but he should also recall that the only opposition to the provisions came from within the Conservative party. Members from the Liberal and Labour parties and the nationalists went along whole-heartedly with the proposals.

Jim Wallace suggested that amendment 78 would lead to an increase in the number of prisoners, but I suggest that it might have another effect. Although there might be a marginal increase in the short term, the number of prisoners being sent to prison to serve their time will be reduced as a result of better rehabilitation within prisons. We have heard all too often that short sentences have no effect on individuals. Amendment 78 would provide a means of addressing that problem and would give the prison authorities the chance to work with individuals to improve their habits.

Amendment 78 would have another effect. Many individuals who are released early from jail are simply recycled back into the courts because many of them commit another offence within a few days or weeks. They do not learn their lesson and are back in the courts, clogging up the court system. The amendment would benefit not only individuals, but the court system.

All members suffer from the problem of the electorate's disillusionment, which arises because politicians are seen to be dishonest. When an offender is sentenced to two or three years, the victim feels that it is dishonest when that individual is back on the streets a relatively short time after the sentence is passed. There are some cases in which a person has served time on remand, is sentenced and is then back on the streets within days of that sentence being passed. The minister would do well to listen to Bill Aitken's comments and to accept amendment 78.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

The speeches by Bill Aitken and Phil Gallie indicate the confusion in the Conservative party. One says that the prison population would not increase, whereas the other says that it would and that it would be good for prisoners if it did.

There is a serious point behind Bill Aitken's amendment 78, although I do not believe that the amendment should be supported. The loss of additional days added—ADA—means that a review of the sentencing system is needed. However, the amendment is wholly inappropriate in this context. If it were agreed to, the court's ability to send somebody back for an additional sentence—the element that had not been served—would also be removed. I would not have thought that the Conservative party wanted that. The amendment would remove the deterrent effect when someone knows that some of their sentence is still to be served if an offence is committed.

It is totally wrong to say that the provisions on the release of prisoners show the negative effect of the ECHR, because there has been no problem whatever with the removal of ADA. To suggest that there has been a problem—as the press did when England removed ADA after we did—is totally false. I urge the rejection of amendment 78.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

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

I think that Richard Simpson has finished.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Lord James may ask me a question.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Is Richard Simpson aware that prison governors have informed the Justice 1 Committee that, on account of the ECHR, they do not consider the use of added days as a punishment in any circumstances?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I am aware that ADA has been abolished because of the ECHR, but the ECHR has had no negative effect—of any sort—on the governance of our prisons.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

We have heard some interesting contributions. Having heard the minister's succinct description of what is meant by amendment 45, I am content to accept it.

The minister talks about legislation introduced in 1993 and says that amendment 78 indicates a change of heart on our part, but he fails to recognise the fact that the legislation is now almost 10 years old. He fails to recognise that his party has been part of an Executive that has been in control for four years, that the Labour Government was in control for the previous three years and that the situation has so deteriorated under his control that the action that we propose in the amendment is necessary.

The minister claimed that there would be some anomalies under our proposal. However, those anomalies would be temporary and would soon work their way through the system. Liberal Democrats should not criticise others for making U-turns when they make them so frequently that, in the Glasgow vernacular, they do not know whether they are coming or going.

On Dr Simpson's intervention, I must say that the situation is not as he described. For sound reasons, Governments of varying persuasions over the years have used the possible loss of remission as a tool for managing behaviour in prisons. That is accepted and understood. However, as my colleague Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, prison governors no longer use that tool, as was confirmed in the minister's answer to a parliamentary question that I posed not long ago. We therefore have a genuine problem. Prisons are, to a large extent, getting out of control, as has been evidenced by recent events in Shotts, Low Moss and elsewhere.

We want to put down a marker to make it clear that sentences must have a deterrent effect. At the moment, prisoners who are sentenced can immediately perform quick, simple mental arithmetic to realise that the effect of a six-year sentence is not quite what people think it is. Given that the level of crime is rising, there has to be a shift in emphasis. As a result, I will very forcefully press amendment 78.

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

The question is, that amendment 78 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

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

There will be a division.

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

The result of the division is: For 12, Against 88, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 78 disagreed to.

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

Amendment 33 is in a group on its own.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

At present, the drugs court concept is operating in Glasgow and is being rolled out elsewhere on a pilot basis. We have absolutely no objection to that, with the caveat that a hard-headed and realistic assessment of the concept must be made at the end of the pilot period. I should stress that we do not regard the end of the pilot period as being the anniversary date of the establishment of the drugs courts. That would come a year later, by the time that any outstanding prosecutions involving the clients of drugs courts had worked their way through the system.

However, there is an inherent unfairness in the way in which the drugs courts operate. Only multiple offenders with many convictions and previous custodial sentences go before the courts. On the day that I visited the Glasgow drugs court as a guest of the Justice 1 Committee, the offender group seemed to be somewhat older than I had expected. It is ironic that, in some cases in Glasgow, the only way in which to get prompt treatment for drugs is to commit numerous offences. A younger person with a handful of offences would not be considered for the service that the drugs courts can provide. That is quite wrong.

I am certain that time will prove that the success rate will be much higher if we can get drugs-driven offenders into the courts before they are settled in their habits. I suggest that amendment 33, which would put an age restriction on the category of person who goes before the courts and restrict to six the number of offences that such a person had committed, is the answer.

I accept that resources are finite, which is why I think that they are not best used by our sending hardened cases to the drugs courts. We need to reconsider the issue. It is a sad commentary on our times that a young person who has developed a drug habit—through their own fault, I concede—cannot receive appropriate drugs treatment when they are willing to undergo such treatment. Indeed, in many cases, those young people are anxious for it. However, they are prevented from receiving treatment because, under the current policy, only people with a considerable record are sent before the drugs courts. No one is beyond salvation, but, where it is necessary to prioritise, we should focus on people with whom we are likely to achieve a measure of success. Unfortunately, I do not think that that is the case in the present system.

I move amendment 33.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Bill Aitken must be given marks for persistence, because he seems to be trying to revisit the whole drugs court debate. What he proposes in amendment 33 should be resisted. The drugs courts are a pilot scheme and it would be strange to tinker with the scheme as it went along. To do so would make it difficult to make a reasonable assessment at the end of the pilot, because we would be dealing with different regimes from different points of the pilot's history. I do not see how that could be helpful.

Similarly, I do not see how the proposed restrictions on the drugs court process could be helpful. I am not sure why Bill Aitken feels that there should be an age limit for diversions to the drugs courts. A drug addict's age is irrelevant. People can become drug addicts at any age and need not necessarily have taken drugs previously.

Moreover, I do not understand why the amendment proposes to restrict referrals to the drugs courts to those whose offences do not exceed a certain number. To do so would remove from the group of people who might benefit from going to the courts folk whom we would want to be diverted there.

I wonder what Bill Aitken really wants. It is clear that locking up drug addicts in prison is not achieving anything, so amendment 33 must be resisted.