Scottish Parliament, 20 February 2003

356 contributions from 76 members. The official report.

Introduction

Business Motions

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

The first item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-3921, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following programme of business— Wednesday 26 February 2003 9:30 am Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Business 11:00 am Executive Debate on Educational Attainment of Looked After Children 2:00 pm Stage 3 of Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-3898 Dr Richard Simpson: New Forth Road Bridge Crossing Near Kincardine Thursday 27 February 2003 9:30 am Preliminary Stage Debate on National Galleries of Scotland Bill followed by Stage 1 Debate on Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill followed by Business Motion 2:30 pm Question Time 3:10 pm First Minister's Question Time 3:30 pm Executive Debate on the European Year of the Disabled followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Wednesday 5 March 2003 9:30 am Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Executive Business 2:00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 3 of Homelessness (Scotland) Bill 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 6 March 2003 9:30 am Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Business followed by Business Motion 2:30 pm Question Time 3:10 pm First Minister's Question Time 3:30 pm Executive Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5:00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business and (b) that the Justice 1 Committee reports to the Justice 2 Committee by 4 March 2003 on the draft General Commissioners of Income Tax (Expenses) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 and that the Justice 2 Committee reports to the Justice 1 Committee by 4 March 2003 on the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exclusions and Exceptions) (Scotland) Order 2003.—[Patricia Ferguson.]

Motion agreed to.

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

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-3927, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. The motion sets out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill and the Building (Scotland) Bill and is printed in section F of the business bulletin.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during today's Stage 3 proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill and the Building (Scotland) Bill, debate on each part of those proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion by the time-limits indicated (each time-limit being calculated from when today's Stage 3 proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill begin and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when the meeting of the Parliament is suspended)—

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill

Building (Scotland) Bill

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

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

We now continue with consideration of stage 3 amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. Members should refer to the bill, the second marshalled list, which contains all the amendments selected for today's debate, and today's groupings list.

I will allow an extended voting period of two minutes for the first division following the debate on the first group of amendments. Thereafter, a voting period of one minute will be allowed for the first division after the debate on a group. All other divisions will be 30 seconds.

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

Amendment 71 is grouped with amendments 72, 73 and 100 to 107.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I will start with amendments 71 to 73. It was unfortunate that the power to enable police authorities to contract out the provision of certain services, mainly in police stations, was removed by amendment at stage 2. The order of stage 2 business meant that we did not have the opportunity to demonstrate that we had accepted members' concerns about the impact of our proposals in court premises and that we would have supported an amendment to remove the power to contract out in relation to the provision of police custody and security officer functions in court premises.

As a result, the bill as it now stands precludes contracting out completely. It would be unfortunate if we left it that way. In particular, we would be ignoring the recommendations made by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and representations from chief constables.

Although we accept that there is a case against contracting out court functions that are undertaken by the police service, I have heard no strong arguments against giving police authorities the option to contract out turnkey and escorting duties. We have never said that police authorities must contract out anything. However, as responsible bodies with budgets that will exceed £900 million next year and a duty to deliver best value, they must at least be given the tools to do the job. Amendments 71 to 73 will provide a balanced and reasonable position on contracting out PCSO services.

Amendments 71 and 72 will restore the power of police authorities to contract out the provision of PCSO services, but amendment 73 will rule out the use of PCSOs—other than those employed by a police force—in court premises. As a result, only PCSOs employed directly by the police authority could fulfil the duties and provide PCSO services in and around court buildings. I firmly believe that the amendments will achieve our aims of effective service delivery and best use of resources without compromising safety and court order.

Amendments 100 to 103 relate to the training to be provided to PCSOs. Throughout consideration of section 61, we have made it clear that PCSOs will be fully and professionally trained to deal with the circumstances in which they will be operating. Jim Wallace set out the position in a letter to the convener of the Justice 2 Committee on 3 December. In a letter to the committee on 9 December, the honourable secretary of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the chief constable of Strathclyde police subsequently confirmed that appropriate job-specific training would be provided to PCSOs.

The Scottish police service already operates to very high standards. The police have given assurances that the high professional standards that apply in training for police duties generally will apply equally to PCSO services. I believe that that is satisfactory. I also strongly resist any measure to regulate for the level and standards of training carried out by police forces. That is an operational matter for chief constables and should remain so. It would be wholly inappropriate to make an exception for PCSOs. The tripartite basis on which policing in Scotland operates sets out clear roles for Scottish ministers, for police authorities and for chief constables. It would be wrong for the Parliament to consider legislation that cuts across that long-standing position.

Amendment 104 relates to contractual arrangements with third parties for PCSO services. The police already have arrangements to ensure that appropriate contract monitoring takes place for services provided by third parties. From 1 April 2003, every local authority, including police authorities, will have a duty under the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 to secure best value for the functions that they discharge. The new duty requires the authority to maintain an appropriate balance between the quality of the performance of its functions and the cost to the authority of that performance. It is for chief constables and others within the police authority to ensure that those requirements are met.

That will include arrangements with a third-party provider on the handling of complaints and disciplinary matters. As a result, any police authority that seeks to secure PCSO services from a third party should have robust contract compliance and monitoring arrangements in place to ensure a high-quality, professional standard of service and to represent best value for public expenditure. I therefore see no good reason to require third parties to provide reports to ministers or the Parliament on what is rightly the responsibility of the police.

Amendments 105 and 106 relate to the duties of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. With regard to amendment 105, HMIC already has a duty, if directed, to visit and inquire into any general matter concerning a police force. HMIC currently inspects all aspects of a force, including officers and support staff. It will therefore inspect the use of PCSOs as a matter of course. The law does not need to be amended to achieve the intention behind amendment 105. Amendment 105 is therefore unnecessary.

Amendment 106 is also inappropriate. The Scottish ministers have already given a firm commitment to propose measures to regulate the private security industry. The authority established to undertake that role would be the appropriate body to inspect private sector organisations involved in the provision of PCSO services. That body could in any case consult HMIC.

I assume that the intention underlying amendment 107 is to ensure that a contractor who enters into a contract with a police authority to provide PCSO services is subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Section 5 of that act already provides for the Scottish ministers to make an order in respect of relevant services provided by a person under a contract with a Scottish public authority if it is considered appropriate to make such an order. We will consider that as and when appropriate. Amendment 107 is therefore unnecessary.

I move amendment 71.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

It is not the Scottish National Party's intention to support amendments 71 to 73. Those amendments seek to reverse a change that was made at stage 2 and that we believe was appropriate. The change was supported by the convener of the Justice 2 Committee, Pauline McNeill, and by the deputy convener, Bill Aitken, which shows the extent of cross-party concern about the general issue. At stage 2, Pauline McNeill and Bill Aitken both voted to ensure that PCSOs would be under the direct control of the chief constable.

The SNP is conditionally in favour of chief constables having the power to employ civilians to guard courts and to move prisoners around, if the chief constable believes that that is an appropriate use of the funds at his disposal and if it frees up police officers for other duties.

However, concerns have been raised and they must be addressed. The Scottish Police Federation was concerned that PCSOs would have to be paid for out of the police budget. That would mean that the number of police officers available for other duties would be reduced, which would give chief constables less flexibility. Furthermore, sheriffs expressed concerns about safety in courts if no police officers were present.

The proposed transfer of powers from the police to civilians is substantial and includes the right to deprive a member of the public of their liberty and to use force to do so. As has been pointed out, the police are trained carefully in the use of force and there is concern that PCSOs should be trained to the same standards. The Scottish Police Federation also questioned whether the employment of PCSOs would lead to any savings. It is important that the Parliament should have assurances from the minister on those matters, but I am not sure that what he has said so far gives those assurances.

As I said, the SNP opposes the contracting out of PCSOs. The fact that there was broad cross-party support at stage 2 shows that there is wide concern about whether that role should be privatised. If police powers to search and restrain prisoners and to keep people in custody are to be transferred to civilians, it is appropriate that there should be a sufficient guarantee of the training and proper behaviour of those civilians. Civilians who are employed directly by a chief constable are accountable to the police board and to HMIC. Private security forces are not.

I will talk briefly about our amendments 100 to 107, which deal with some of the problems of accountability in private security forces. Generally, the amendments would introduce basic standards for the training of PCSOs, require PCSOs and the companies that employ them to be open to inspection by HMIC, require the companies to report on misconduct by their officers and ensure openness by bringing the companies under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Without the guarantees, the contracting out of PCSOs is flawed. I know that the minister addressed one or two of the issues in his opening remarks and I will deal with what he said as we go through.

I am a little puzzled by amendment 73. I would be interested to hear more detail about it from the minister, because it appears to be almost contrary to the whole idea of contracting out. I am not quite sure where it fits within the general parameters of the way in which the minister is proceeding. The amendment almost suggests that there will be two categories of PCSOs—the truly contracted-out ones who will deliver the prisoner to the court building and the civilian security officers who are employed by the chief constable in the court building, presumably to take delivery of the prisoner. There now seem to be two, almost separate categories of civilian officer. That is strange, but it is certainly better that the handover at least is to people who are under the direct control of the chief constable.

Amendments 100 and 101 are about training and are fairly self-explanatory. The officers should be trained in searching—that must be clear and up front from the start. They should also be trained in the use of handcuffs and other means of restraint—that, too, should be clear and up front. I have referred to some of the concerns that were expressed on the issue at stage 2. I do not understand why the minister is so against amendments 100 and 101. I suspect that ultimately we will have a group of people involved in restraint who are not trained to the same level as the police.

Amendments 102 and 103 are also about training. I want to hear rather more from the minister than the bland assurances that he gave about the basic standards that will be required of the officers. We are moving into a situation where we will have a two and even three-tier system of security officers. Although it is important that we free up properly trained police officers to do as many of the jobs as possible that they are required to do, it is equally important that the people who are involved in control and restraint in particular are trained to the same standards.

Amendment 104 would require private providers of PCSOs to give an annual report on numbers, salaries, staff turnover, complaints against officers and disciplinary offences committed by officers. Individual police forces report on those matters in their annual reports and are scrutinised by HMIC. It is in the public interest that that information should be made available so that people know how their public services are performing. I am afraid that, with privatisation, those matters have a way of becoming secret, especially if the figures look embarrassing. One only has to examine the experience with Kilmarnock prison, where staff turnover, staff numbers, grievance procedures and bullying are all matters of secrecy. The fragmentation and privatisation of the justice system means that public accountability tends to be lost. Amendment 104 is an attempt to stem that tide.

Amendment 105 would make those PCSOs who are employed by private companies subject to inspection by HMIC. I think that I heard the minister give an assurance that that would be the case. If that assurance is repeated at the close of the debate, I will reconsider pressing amendment 105, but I seek a categoric assurance that privately employed PCSOs will be subject to inspection in the same way as the police force is.

On amendment 106, I think that I heard the minister making a commitment in respect of inspections. Once again, if I hear categoric assurances at the end of the debate, I will not press amendment 106 but, at the moment, I am not sure whether the assurance has been categoric.

I regard amendment 107 in the same way. The amendment would make private companies that employ PCSOs subject to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 as public authorities. If ministers do not wish to accept amendment 107, I will be looking for something cast iron from the minister that the Scottish ministers will use their powers under section 5 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 to designate the private providers of PCSOs as public authorities.

During the passage of the bill, we have repeatedly sought assurances that that would be done. I know that the Minister for Justice said:

"Major private sector suppliers of public services—such as those involved in Her Majesty's Prison Kilmarnock—should, arguably, be candidates for designation under the bill ... It is our intent that that provision will be used to bring within the scope of freedom of information legislation private companies that are involved in significant public work, such as private companies that are involved in major PFI contracts."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee, 5 February 2002; c 3162-64.]

I want a categoric assurance today that the PCSO companies will be made subject to the powers under section 5 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. If I get that categoric assurance, I will not press amendment 107.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

This is another part of the bill that has proved problematic, with members holding differing views irrespective of party affiliations. The wishes of the Executive are perfectly understandable—it rightly seeks to free up police officers for more active duties and recognises that there is a potential cost saving in using civilians to carry out some duties that are normally carried out by police officers. However, there are a number of contrary arguments, relating to the fact that the experience down south has not been a universal success and recognising that courts are, in the normal course of events, fraught places where there is always a potential for difficulty—the suggestion that such difficulties are less likely where there is a police presence is a credible view.

From personal observation, I must comment that many of the officers who at present perform police court duties tend to be, through no fault of their own, less likely to be effective in general operational duties. There is a strong possibility that, were the Executive's provisions to be introduced on a blanket basis, many of those officers would have to be retired early on health grounds, with a consequent effect on the police pension fund and a reduction in the saving that the Executive seeks to make.

Once again, on a fine balance we are prepared to go along with the proposals. However, we feel that there is a lack of clarity in amendment 73, which we ask the minister to deal with more fully when he sums up. The determining factor for us is that, although civilianisation to such a degree will be an option open to chief constables, it will not be incumbent on them. We go along with the proposal on the clear understanding that chief constables will not be pressured by the justice department to go along the route that the bill proposes and that they can make their decisions with unfettered discretion, as opposed to under Scottish Executive influence.

On that basis, we find Roseanna Cunningham's amendments 100 to 103 to be largely too restrictive. We expect chief constables to ensure that the necessary training is given to custody officers and we see no need to legislate on that.

Conversely, we see merit in amendment 104 and related amendments 105 to 107. If the exercise is to be undertaken, it is only appropriate to have an inspection and reporting mechanism. Amendments 104 to 107 would create that. We will finalise our viewpoint after we have heard the minister's clarification, but the amendments have merit and my inclination is to support them.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

It is fair to say that the Justice 2 Committee had many concerns about the provisions. Roseanna Cunningham was correct: the committee did much cross-party work to deal with those concerns. Duncan Hamilton and I spent many weeks questioning the Executive on the need for the policy, which would give chief constables the power to create, if they so wished, a different balance in our courts between police officers and a new breed of officers—police custody and security officers.

As I understand the matter, the Executive's original position was that chief constables would have the power to contract out the service, but the committee convinced the Executive that that should not happen and that any chief constables who civilianised the role of police officers to free up officers for front-line duties should do so only in so far as the civilian officers were managed by the police. I feel strongly about that. I have much faith in our police force and in its ability to train and discipline a civilian force. We will pass serious powers to PCSOs. In our courts, they will have the powers to restrain individuals and to apprehend people who cause difficulties.

It is fair to say that many people who work in our criminal courts—not least High Court judges and procurators fiscal—are concerned about getting the balance right in our courts. Some reassurances on that are due from the Executive. I accept that the number of police officers in our courts is an operational matter for chief constables to decide, but Parliament expects that, when or if PCSOs are employed, a proper balance will be struck and a sizeable police presence will remain. In Glasgow sheriff court, for example, a police presence is needed to deal with criminals and other people.

At stage 2, the Justice 2 Committee said that it would be concerned about further contracting out. Before we go any further, we must be clear that the Executive's amendments will not put out to tender the role of police custody and security officers; the PCSOs will form a civilian force. However, I would still like assurances about our expectations of our chief constables to ensure that the right balance is struck. Training must be considered at a future date, so that we are satisfied that the powers are correct.

It is reasonable for the Parliament to seek assurances before we close the matter. If the objective is to free up police officers for the front line, the Parliament will expect to see the evidence that those officers are serving on the front line, because that is the policy objective. It would be useful if the Executive gave us some idea of where we will end up if its amendments are agreed to.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

As Pauline McNeill said, the Justice 2 Committee was concerned about the possibility that no police officers would be on duty in our courts. The concern was that, if the bill as introduced was passed, security in courts would be put at risk. It was interesting to note the evidence to the committee from the Scottish Police Federation, which said that officers who were allocated to court duty might be unfit for front-line duties. That rather undermined the argument that the changeover to contracting out would reduce security in court.

At stage 2, the committee reached consensus, although there was some confusion about what was being voted on. Executive amendments 71 to 73 allay the fundamental concern, which was about security in our courthouses, so I support them. However, like Pauline McNeill, I realise that discretion will be given to the chief constable, who will decide how he uses the officers whom section 61 frees up. I hope that the minister will guarantee to the chamber that officers who are freed up as a result of the provision will undertake front-line policing and that more police will be on our streets. That is the purpose behind the provision, which we all support, and we would like ministers to guarantee that that will happen.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

As Pauline McNeill said, several members of the Justice 2 Committee—including her and me—lodged stage 2 amendments to remove the option of contracting out. It is important that the minister should be aware that the amendment to which the committee agreed was passed unanimously. The committee took the view that, not only in courts, but in principle, it had a problem with the passing to civilians of important powers without the necessary safeguards of training or disciplinary procedures.

Amendment 73 seems to show confusion about the difference between opposition to the principle and the special exemption for the court—although we are not really talking about an exemption for the court, as it remains possible for civilians to fulfil the role, albeit in a slightly different capacity. The amendment does not allay the committee's concerns. As the Scottish Police Federation said, the one place in which we are guaranteed to have a collection of criminals and stress is the courtroom. Of all the places where we want reinforcement, surely to goodness the courtroom is where we want the advantage of trained police officers in uniform to reinforce the dignity of the court and the requirement for reasonable and respectful behaviour. That is eminently sensible.

Today, as at stage 2, the financial aspects have been mentioned. The committee could not conclude whether cost savings would be made. Neither the Executive nor any other witnesses assured us that savings would be made. When the Scottish Police Federation was asked about that, it said:

"When the expected salaries for the post, training costs, equipment and the loss of flexibility currently offered by police officers are considered, it is questionable if the introduction of such a scheme would stand financial scrutiny in terms of best value."

Does the Executive oppose Roseanna Cunningham's amendments, which would provide for that training, because it wants to cut costs rather than to provide the best service? If so, that is truly lamentable.

I acknowledge that the Executive has moved some way towards the Justice 2 Committee's viewpoint, but I ask it to reconsider, even at this late stage, the principle of civilians taking on duties that should properly be undertaken by police officers or at least by those who are under the chief constable's direction. The courts—and the ancillary duties of taking people to and from court—are a matter of profound public concern. Even now, the minister should reconsider the idea that a civilian in court would pass someone to a contracted-out civilian employee. If an attempt was made to break free, there might be confusion over who had the power of arrest and over what would happen if a public complaint was made about disciplinary procedures.

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

We must get through groups 22 and 23 by 10.12 am, so I give my regrets to Mr Fitzpatrick and Mr McAllion, whom I cannot call to speak.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I will briefly deal with some of the points that have been made. Concerns have been expressed about financial issues. Roseanna Cunningham and George Lyon spoke about potential budget savings. Roseanna Cunningham asked whether, if money was removed from the police budget, the number of police constables would be reduced and, conversely, George Lyon asked for an assurance that any money that was saved would release police constables for the front line.

Chief constables will be allowed to use their resources most appropriately to get the best value from them and to improve the service that they provide and the wider public's confidence and security. Our proposals are not about reducing the number of police officers by using civilians. Equally, it would be wrong for ministers or the Parliament to try to say how the chief constables should use their budgets. That is an operational matter for the chief constables. However, the chief constables have told us clearly that, if they have the discretion to use civilians where that is appropriate, they will be able to free up resources to improve services at the front line.

Jim Wallace's letter of December 2002 to Pauline McNeill, the convener of the Justice 2 Committee, cites the example of Lothian and Borders police. Currently, some 40 police officers are deployed routinely to Edinburgh High Court and to Edinburgh sheriff court. Lothian and Borders police believe that those courts could be policed by a mixture of officers and PCSOs with the appropriate powers. The chief constable of Lothian and Borders police believes that, if PCSOs were to be used, 30 court custody officers could be employed, releasing five officers to front-line duties. In other words, Lothian and Borders police would make an operational decision to put more police officers on front-line duties as a result of the provisions.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I ask for clarification, as there might be confusion about the powers that the bill will give. Am I right in saying that the chief constables will have the power to civilianise the role of the police custody officers in the courts if they want to do so but that they will not be able to contract it out?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Absolutely. Although Roseanna Cunningham clarified her comments, her initial remarks created some confusion. Amendment 71 will ensure that those who are employed in the courts—if chief constables choose to employ civilians—will be employed by the police. The work will not be contracted out.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I recognise the advantages of employing civilian officers in the mustering of witnesses and the like. That job could easily be done by a civilian. However, does the minister agree that there is a proper solemnity that attaches to the proceedings in our courts, especially in the sheriff courts and the High Court? Furthermore, despite the improvements that have been made in court design, there are still substantial issues about the safety of witnesses, prosecutors, judges and sheriffs. Will ministers make it clear to chief constables that, in achieving the balance that is expected, those aspects must be properly taken into account?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The issues of security and solemnity, along with other matters in the courts, will be taken seriously. Again, that will come down to operational decisions that are made by the chief constables. I have heard nothing to suggest that chief constables would do anything other than ensure the highest level of security in the courts.

I am aware of the time pressure, but I will quickly address some of the other questions that have been raised. I hope that I have made it clear that there will be no contracting out of security services in courts. Beyond the courts, chief constables will be able to contract out certain duties. That will not be mandatory, but it can be done if they believe that it is appropriate. The training of officers is a matter for the police; the civilians will be inspected by HMIC. Finally, a question was raised concerning the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. As I have said, that act will apply and will be used under the direction of ministers when we believe that that is necessary. I give that assurance.

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

The question is, that amendment 71 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 66, Against 27, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 71 agreed to.

Amendment 72 moved—[Hugh Henry].

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

The question is, that amendment 72 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 67, Against 27, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 72 agreed to.

Amendment 73 moved—[Hugh Henry]—and agreed to.

Amendment 101 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].

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

The question is, that amendment 101 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 27, Against 67, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 101 disagreed to.

Amendment 100 not moved.

Amendment 102 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].

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

The question is, that amendment 102 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 25, Against 67, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 102 disagreed to.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. If there are to be more divisions on this group of amendments, can we have them all at once to save time?

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

That would be difficult, because I expect Miss Cunningham to move some amendments but not to move others. We will press on and try to get to your amendment 74 as quickly as possible. However, we are almost out of time.

Amendment 103 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].

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

The question is, that amendment 103 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 29, Against 68, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 103 disagreed to.

Amendment 104 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].

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

The question is, that amendment 104 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 36, Against 61, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 104 disagreed to.

Amendments 105 to 107 not moved.

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

The question is, that amendment 74 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 30, Against 69, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 74 disagreed to.

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

Amendment 75 is grouped with amendment 76.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Amendment 75 refers to assaults on emergency personnel. Parliament passed the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill to protect our wildlife and we will deal later with a section of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that is also about protecting wildlife. I want to give effect to the public's opinion that Parliament should ensure that we also protect those who deliver a public service in our community from people who attack them. There is no more repulsive act than that of people attacking firefighters or paramedics who are trying to save lives. That is the theme of amendment 75.

During stage 2, I lodged an amendment that was equivalent to amendment 75. The minister advised me that he had difficulties with that amendment because it did not embrace all our public service personnel. If the Executive and the Lord Advocate are not willing to accept amendment 75, I seek two assurances from them: first, that whatever legislation is introduced will deal strictly and robustly with those who attack public service personnel and that the attackers will feel the full weight of the law; and, secondly, that the legislation will be carefully monitored to ensure that it is effective.

I move amendment 75.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I will deal first with amendment 75. Assaults on emergency services personnel cannot and should not be tolerated. I have little doubt that Paul Martin lodged amendment 75 because of painful and unpleasant experiences in his constituency. It is deplorable that firefighters and others who carry out their duties in conditions that are often extremely dangerous should have that level of danger increased by the actions of the irresponsible and the downright wicked.

We see considerable merit in amendment 75. I draw members' attention to the fact that, under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, assaults on police officers can be dealt with on the basis that Paul Martin suggests. Amendment 75 simply seeks to extend such protection to others who carry out similarly valuable public services. Indeed, it could be argued that emergency ambulance crews, for example, are less equipped to deal with violent behaviour than are trained police officers. We acknowledge that there is a danger in specifying those who would be entitled to the additional protection that amendment 75 proposes.

Nevertheless, we think that amendment 75 is worth while and we will support it.

Amendment 76 also deals with the protection of police officers. It is unfortunate but true that many of those who commit crimes are drug abusers who inject, and that with such habits goes the problem of HIV and other infections, which frequently cause tragic results. If a police officer is assaulted by being scratched, bitten or spat on, it is possible that they will be infected with HIV. Medical testing takes time and would normally need to be done on at least two separate occasions over three to four months in order to assure an assaulted officer and his or her family that any virus present in the arrested person who assaulted the officer had not been transmitted.

It is not too difficult to imagine the degree of concern that must be felt during such an interval. Amendment 76 seeks to allay that concern by requiring an arrested person to provide an appropriate sample on arrest. It is obvious that that would not resolve the problem in every case but if an accused person were to test negative, it is clear that that problem would immediately be resolved. It might be argued that if an arrested person were to test positive for a virus, it might make the situation more worrying for an assaulted officer. However, it is important that people should know as early as possible exactly what the situation is.

Amendment 76 would provide considerable reassurance to police officers and their families, and I commend it to members.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I support the intention behind amendment 75, which is in the name of my colleague, Paul Martin. Last September, following brutal and unprovoked attacks on fire service personnel who were on their way to save lives, I instigated a members' business debate on the issue, which was supported by a large number of members across the parties. Paramedics and ambulance personnel also face the threat of violence in the line of duty.

I support the intention behind amendment 75, but I think that there is scope for further work to be done in relation to other emergency service personnel, particularly those who work in accident and emergency departments. Day in and day out, they face the threat of violence in a way that many of us find abhorrent. We cannot understand why such violence happens. I seek assurances from the Lord Advocate, if he is to respond to the debate, that the Executive will move forward on the issue and will take a clear and unequivocal stance in relation to attacks on emergency service personnel, who provide public services. Such attacks cannot and will not be tolerated in a modern Scotland. I also ask him to clarify why a provision exists to protect the police, whereas there is no equivalent provision for other emergency service personnel.

As I have some sympathy with Bill Aitken's amendment, I ask the Lord Advocate to clarify exactly what the Executive's position is on the matter that it deals with. If anyone else required a sample to be provided to let them find out whether they were in danger of contracting a life-threatening illness or disease, that would naturally happen, but police staff seem unable to receive that support. It is vital that the police get the reassurance and comfort that a sample would give them. They should be able to have the tests that would reassure them that their lives are not in danger and that would ensure that they do not have to live with unjustified worry.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I welcome the support that Karen Gillon has given to Bill Aitken's amendment 76. On many occasions in this chamber, the Lord Advocate has been extremely reasonable, but I hope that we do not hear only assurances from him today. I would like him to go further and support amendment 76.

The Public Petitions Committee received a petition on the topic that Bill Aitken's amendment deals with. It highlighted a case in which a policeman whose wife was expecting a child had been attacked in such a way. The weight on his mind and his wife's mind was horrendous and the case resulted in some fairly tragic circumstances. That example received the sympathy of every member who heard the presentation at the Public Petitions Committee meeting. On the basis of that evidence alone, Bill Aitken's amendment would be well worth accepting.

We expect much from our police officers. They are on the front line and protect the weak in society from the strong. In so doing, I believe that they should expect whatever protection we can give them, providing it is not unfair. Bill Aitken's amendment is not unfair to anybody. When a criminal is convicted of a crime, he expects and receives from our custodial system a recognition of his welfare and well-being. Further, he is treated by the prison service in a way that involves every possible method of bringing about rehabilitation and a change of attitude, and his human rights are looked after. However, the policeman who has been left with a massive question mark over his health after an incident in which blood contamination might have taken place will get no such protection if we ignore Bill Aitken's amendment today.

I plead with every member in this chamber to support Bill Aitken's extremely reasonable amendment. This is not a political issue; it is an issue that involves our support for our policemen.

I have no difficulty with amendment 75. Paul Martin made a good case and put his amendment well. His amendment also deserves the support of the chamber.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I support amendment 75. I have previously lodged motions and amendments on the same subject. The members' business debate that Karen Gillon secured on the subject of attacks on fire crews was well attended. It is important that this chamber sends out the message that we should give the best possible protection to fire crews, paramedics and other members of the emergency services when they are doing their jobs on our behalf.

I would particularly like to highlight an issue that Karen Gillon touched on: the situation in our accident and emergency centres on Friday and Saturday nights. The way in which our health service workers are being treated is unacceptable. If we do not accept Paul Martin's amendment, I seek clear assurances from the Lord Advocate and the Executive that they will pursue the matter and quickly come back to Parliament with proposals for a way forward. However, I believe that we really ought to accept amendment 75.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I suspect that members across the chamber will have considerable sympathy with amendment 76, with the intention behind Douglas Keil's petition, PE482, and with Constable Pratt's predicament, which Phil Gallie mentioned. I pay tribute to the work that Constable Pratt does in the constabulary in my constituency.

I hope that the Executive responds to the policy intention behind, rather than the wording of, amendment 76. It is so widely drafted that it includes not only the police constable's assailant but "another person", who could be the victim or any other person in the area. I hope that the minister will address both that issue and the problem that arises from the use of the word, "subsequently", the interpretation of which is simply too wide.

I urge ministers to consider the despicable situation that a number of police officers face when people deliberately cut themselves and threaten police officers with infection. Such situations are made worse when, as part of some exquisite playing-out of bravado, they suggest that they will not assist the police officer, or they heckle or threaten the police officer who is simply performing his duties on behalf of us all. That cannot be tolerated and I hope that ministers will produce a positive policy resolution that will address a problem that will not go away.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Amendment 75 deals with an important matter. Trade unions have long complained about attacks on their members—nurses, midwives, those who work in accident and emergency services and so on—not being taken seriously. One of the reasons for that is that such attacks are not always reported. I am pretty sure that the Executive will tell us that it is taking the matter seriously and recognises the need for a campaign to make people realise that any attack on a national health service worker is a crime and should be reported. I am sure that such attacks will be properly dealt with by our prosecution system.

I also have sympathy with amendment 76. However, it will suffer from the fact that we have had only a few days in which to consider it. If the amendment falls, it is not unreasonable to ask the Executive for a commitment that it will give Parliament a chance to examine the issue. Perhaps a parliamentary committee could spend some time examining what happens to police officers on our streets. I think that there must be some protection in that regard and I welcome Bill Aitken's contribution to the debate.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I had finished speaking, but I will allow Mr Gallie to speak.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

In that case, I doubly thank Pauline McNeill.

I put it to her that the issue that amendment 76 deals with is an important one for this Parliament to deal with in its last few days. Does she agree that it would be better for this Parliament not to pass the buck to future parliamentarians but to take the opportunity to deal with the issues in the amendment today, if the Lord Advocate can be persuaded that his comments will be sufficient to guard against the difficulties that Brian Fitzpatrick warned us of?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

It is because I believe the proposal is worthy of detailed examination and must be got right that I believe it would be wrong to agree to the amendment today. The reason why I chose to speak on the issue—I am sure that it is also Brian Fitzpatrick's reason—is that I do not want us to lose sight of the fact that work has to be done on the issue.

We must ensure that we use the committee system to give the proposal the scrutiny that we would give to any piece of legislation. It would be wrong to take the view that, because we agree with the principle behind the amendment, we should simply agree to it today.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Bill Aitken suggested in his speech that the offence that he proposes in amendment 76 would apply when a person is arrested. In fact, if members read amendment 76, they will see that that is not the case. It would apply when anyone, including an innocent accident victim, comes into contact with a constable.

No member would disagree with the sentiments behind amendment 76. The issue is important, and there are well-documented cases of officers being bitten or spat at by offenders who may be drug users carrying infection. We would all agree that, in such circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable for an officer to want to know whether they have been exposed to HIV or some other infectious disease. The Scottish Police Federation has already raised the issue with the Executive and the Parliament's Public Petitions Committee.

The Executive's position on the issue is clear: we have indicated that we believe that the Scottish Police Federation has a case. However, the solution is not as simple as Bill Aitken and Phil Gallie suggest. Before we commit to legislating, a number of questions need to be answered. What is the nature of the blood test that could be carried out? Who would carry it out and would there be limits on the types of blood infection for which they could test? What would happen to the information after it had been collected—must it be destroyed or could it be retained?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I agree that those matters must be defined. However, on many occasions, similar questions could have been asked about other amendments, including Executive amendments. The point of detail is not contained in the bill. I suggest that background work must be undertaken and a formula set up, but that that should not stop him accepting the principle that is outlined in amendment 76, as he has done on other issues.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I disagree. Particular anomalies could arise and particular mistakes could be made if the amendment was accepted as drafted.

Should protection extend to civilian members of police forces, such as turnkeys or traffic wardens, who come into contact with the public? Should everyone be compelled to submit to a blood test? Should that include suspects who have not been charged? What about innocent parties, such as victims, who may have been injured in an attack or a road accident? One of the fundamental problems with the amendment is that it talks about people who "come into contact" with the police; it is not necessarily about those who are arrested.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I have concerns that amendment 76 is, to be blunt, badly drafted and too wide. We should not make bad law. However, that should not be the end of the matter. I hope that the minister, without binding our successors in any form—I suspect that he will be back on the front bench in the not-too-distant future—will be able to say that progress will be made on the issue, because it will not go away; Labour members will not let it.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Brian Fitzpatrick is right. The concerns that he has articulated about the problems that confront police officers are well documented, and there is huge sympathy for those concerns. I give Brian Fitzpatrick the assurance that something needs to be done—I think that I speak for everyone across all parties on that. Indeed, something should be done.

Let me return to the situation in which we would find ourselves if we were to agree to Bill Aitken's amendment 76. Phil Gallie may describe it as a reasonable amendment, but it is a reasonable amendment that could have grave implications. People can cut themselves, perhaps because of falling on ice, as the First Minister recently did at Bute House, because they have tripped or because they have been mugged. If a police officer were to come to the assistance of someone who had cut themselves in that way, then amendment 76 would apply to them, even if they have no criminal convictions, have not been involved in any crime and have done nothing wrong. Under the terms of the amendment, if such a person did not give a blood sample, which may be recorded on a national database, they could be charged. That cannot be right, yet those terms would apply if amendment 76 were agreed to.

I assure the Parliament that we take the matter seriously, but we want to clarify the questions involved before we move to legislate. We have told the Public Petitions Committee that we intend to consult publicly on the matter, and the consultation paper will be issued in March. I give Brian Fitzpatrick, Bill Aitken, Pauline McNeill, Phil Gallie and anyone else with concerns the assurance that we intend to act. However, we need to ensure that we get it right and, unfortunately, Bill Aitken's amendment would not do that. I hope that he will not move the amendment, on the understanding that the Executive will be taking action on the issue.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I intend to withdraw amendment 75, based on two factors. The first is that there will be a proactive approach to sentencing policy, and I welcome the guidance from the Lord Advocate on that. The second is that that policy will embrace all public sector workers, as discussed by the Lord Advocate and Karen Gillon. I have been receiving representations on that point from senior union officials at Unison and the GMB. They called for an amendment, but said that they would rather there were measures embracing all public sector workers who might be attacked while carrying out their duties.

I thank the Lord Advocate for responding to the issue in a positive manner, and I look forward to measures being implemented. I will, however, revisit the matter in the form of a member's bill if those measures do not prove effective during the period that the Lord Advocate set out.

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

Paul Martin indicated that he wishes to withdraw amendment 75. Is that agreed?

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

In that case, the question is, that amendment 75 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 38, Against 59, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 75 disagreed to.

Amendment 76 moved—[Bill Aitken].

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

The question is, that amendment 76 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 36, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 76 disagreed to.

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

Amendment 108 is in a group on its own.

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

Amendment 108 concerns an important issue of principle, and I welcome the opportunity to raise the matter in Parliament in the context of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.

It is in the public interest that crimes are reported. We would all accept that it is a civic duty that, when any of us becomes aware of a suspected crime having been committed, we report it to the police—we do not keep quiet about it, but act in accordance with that civic duty. As far as I understand, however, there is not a general legal duty to do so. There is no legal duty, backed by criminal sanctions, for any of us to report crimes generally.

There are specific circumstances in which it is a crime to fail to report a crime that one sees being committed. For example, I believe that it is a crime to fail to report a road accident in which somebody has been injured. There are specific categories of suspected crime for which the state recognises that it is so much in the public interest to report them that failure to do so is in itself a crime.

I believe that we should act as good Samaritans, and amendment 108 would introduce a duty so to do in respect of public authorities. We know that there are many reasons why individuals will not report crime. For example, there is often widespread intimidation and fear in communities in which drug dealing goes on. That is an extremely serious problem. However, there is also a problem when crime is committed in public authorities and institutions. There are many reasons for such crimes not being reported, because a public body might not wish to launder its dirty linen in public. In crimes of dishonesty, theft, fraud or the like that have been committed in the workplace or in a public body—perhaps involving documents relating to particular employees—there are many reasons for the employer not wishing the circumstances of that crime to become known and to come under the public gaze. An institution may well seek to avoid the bad, or any, publicity that would accrue if such matters were reported to the police.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I understand some of the points that Fergus Ewing makes, but is he seriously proposing that, if a janitor at a local community centre does not report a suspected crime because of fear for his own life or fear for his family, he will become the criminal?

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

That is not what the amendment does at all.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Yes, it is.

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

No, it is not. The body, not the individual, would be committing the crime. The duty would be imposed on the public body rather than on the individual.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Will Fergus Ewing give way on that point?

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

No—I have dealt with it.

I lodged amendment 108 in the light of the case of a constituent who had a particularly difficult experience. It is not appropriate that I rehearse the circumstances of his case now, although I believe that the minister is aware of them. I am aware of the adage that hard cases make bad law, and I subscribe to that. In any case, my constituent wished me to raise the general principle that it is in the public interest that, when a crime is committed in a public institution, that crime should not go unreported. I would very much welcome the minister's response on that general principle.

I am aware that the provisions of amendment 108 are extremely wide, and that it may be appropriate for further detailed consideration to be given to the principle before it is incorporated into the law of Scotland. I would like the minister to indicate whether he accepts that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. From the correspondence that I have had with him, I understand that he accepts that. However, he may not accept that it would be appropriate to create a criminal offence along the lines that I have suggested. If the minister accepts that there is a general problem that we need to address—as I believe he does—would he consider inviting the Scottish Law Commission to consider the matter further, with a view to publishing a consultation paper on it? If the minister will give the undertaking that the matter will be considered on that or any other reasonable basis, I will not press the amendment to a vote.

I move amendment 108.

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

I remind members to keep their speeches short. If they do not, there will not be time to debate other amendments.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

My initial view was that amendment 108 was self-evident. Clearly, it is the duty of all of us—either as individuals or as members of a corporate body—to report crime when it happens. There should be no need for an amendment of this type. I am not privy to the information that Fergus Ewing and the minister have about the specific case that Fergus Ewing mentioned, but I accept that there has been a problem.

If a local authority housing department is aware that drugs are being supplied in an area such as a tenement close, that should be reported. I imagine that local authorities have sometimes felt inhibited from doing that.

Amendment 108 is interesting. It should be taken further, but I am not entirely convinced that by agreeing to the amendment today we would get very far. For that reason, we cannot support the amendment at this stage.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I have serious concerns about amendment 108, especially the wording of subsection (3) of the new section that it would insert in the bill. That subsection contradicts what Mr Ewing said. It states:

"Where an offence under this section is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

(a) an employee ...

that person, as well as the authority, shall be guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."

I have serious concerns about that. If we agreed to amendment 108, we would be telling the most low-paid, vulnerable employees in the public sector that they were responsible for reporting crimes in their community, even if their lives were threatened as a result and they were receiving no support from their management or the local police service. We would be telling them that they would become criminals if they failed to report offences. Unless we back up the amendment with far more effective policing in local communities than is available at present, I am not prepared to put those people in that position. For that reason alone, I will not support the amendment.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As has been indicated, amendment 108 would have the effect of introducing a new criminal offence where it is shown that, without reasonable excuse, a public authority fails to report to the police that an employee or member of the authority may have committed a suspected offence on the premises. As Karen Gillon rightly pointed out, subsection (3) of the amendment could also catch employees.

The scope of the proposed duty and new offence would be wide, although the amendment does not indicate what would be specified as a relevant offence. That decision would be left entirely to ministers. There is already an obligation to report certain offences. In the case of money laundering, the extent of that duty is set out in detail in statute. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, it is an offence for the management of any premises knowingly to permit the production or supply of drugs on those premises. An employer who knew that drugs were being produced or supplied would be obliged to inform the police of that. That is a very specific provision.

Karen Gillon made it clear that under the amendment any employee, as well as the authority, could be found guilty if it were proven that the duty had been breached with their consent or connivance or because of neglect attributable to them.

Fergus Ewing was right to say that we have corresponded on this issue. I am not at all dismissive of the intention behind the amendment, and it would be unacceptable if public authorities failed to report incidents to the police to avoid bad publicity or if they feared that reporting such incidents might have an effect on their funding assessments. However, I am not persuaded that a statutory duty and a new criminal offence to enforce that are either necessary or likely to be effective.

It is not in a public authority's interests to allow crime to fester on its premises. However, it is unlikely that a prosecution would result from failure to report a suspected crime if the original crime were not reported. Indeed, it would be very difficult for the Crown to prove that someone had not reported a crime or suspected crime, as the procurator fiscal would have to prove that there were circumstances giving rise to suspicion and that the employer knew of those circumstances. An employee who is currently unwilling to report the original incidents to the police would hardly be prepared to report the breach of a statutory duty, as that would involve reporting the employer or responsible officer, rather than the individual suspected of the criminal behaviour.

It is important to make it clear that, regardless of the attitude of public agencies, there is nothing to prevent an employee or other person from making a complaint about a suspected criminal offence to a professional body, the police or the procurator fiscal. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 provides protection for individuals who make certain disclosures of information in the public interest. That includes the disclosure of information that, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, tends to show inter alia that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed.

I understand fully what lies behind amendment 108, but I fear that it could lead to complications greater than those that it is intended to resolve. For example, an employee may be the subject of malicious accusations. If the public authority got wind of those accusations, it might feel that it was safest to report them, to ensure that at a later stage it would not be found culpable of failing to do so. That could put the employee concerned under considerable pressure. In the absence of a statutory duty to report an accusation, the employer can conduct an internal investigation, offer appropriate support to staff and resolve matters internally.

The onus to report a crime normally rests with the victim, rather than the victim's employer. I hope that an employer would not act unreasonably in refusing to report a matter to the police. That is an important point, but I do not believe that the case has been made for the kind of legislation that Fergus Ewing proposes.

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

I acknowledge that much that the minister says is correct in a general sense. I believe that there is still a serious problem that has not been addressed, but it would not be appropriate to press the matter to a vote without giving it further consideration.

Amendment 108, by agreement, withdrawn.

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

Amendment 81 is in a group on its own.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I will be brief, because amendment 81 is a probing amendment. The amendment highlights the fact that it is not entirely clear from existing legislation whether there is a requirement for further legislation to determine where courts can sit if they sit outwith their usual location. I understand that when the High Court sat at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands that was dealt with by the application of a regulation. However, that needs to be clarified. Amendment 81 is intended to deal with the difficulties that arise in prisons from time to time, which in recent years have increased in number because of a combination of European convention on human rights restrictions and Executive ineptitude.

Under the amendment, a court could be convened within a prison and offenders could be dealt with on a summary basis, allowing additional and consecutive sentences. That would speed up the system considerably. We suggest that that approach be adopted, but at the moment it is unclear whether the procedures are in place to allow it. I will listen to the minister with interest.

I move amendment 81.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Amendment 81 is not necessary or appropriate. The position regarding sheriff court district boundaries and locations is that, as a matter of practice, proposals are the subject of consultation with a range of interests. Those include the senior judiciary, the Scottish Court Service, which is an agency of the Scottish ministers with no independent legal personality, the Crown Office and others. In determining boundaries and locations, key considerations are convenience to those who use the courts, the efficiency and effectiveness of the court system and alignment with local authority boundaries, in so far as that is practicable. The legislation is currently applied on that basis.

Existing legislation allows a court to be held at any place, including a prison, should such a contingency be necessary, appropriate and in the interests of justice. A court would not normally be held in a prison, for legal and practical reasons: fairness to the accused, especially under human rights legislation; different functions and facilities of courts and prisons; and the inconvenience and uncertainty that would be given to the witnesses and other members of the public involved. Let us bear in mind that our court proceedings are public events, except in exceptional circumstances.

Section 63A, which allows judicial proceedings to be held over live television links from prison in certain circumstances, is intended to reduce the movement of prisoners between the prisons and the courts. There is even a judicial override, under which the judge or sheriff can insist on the physical appearance of the accused if he is of the view that that is necessary in the interests of justice.

I hope that that is sufficiently reassuring to Bill Aitken, and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am obliged for that explanation, which makes the amendment unnecessary.

Amendment 81, by agreement, withdrawn.

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

Amendment 8 is in a group on its own.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

At stage 2, the Executive agreed to withdraw amendment 16, which was the same as this amendment, to allow the committee to consider the matter further. We provided some additional information that we hope assisted the committee in that respect.

The Executive wanted to look at ways of improving the efficiency of the criminal justice system by more effective use of electronic communication. In particular, we wanted to examine how the technology could be used with regard to documents such as indictments, complaints and warrants.

We concluded that there was provision for the electronic transmission and storage of most of those documents if and when that was needed, under the Electronic Communications Act 2000. However, the act does not allow provision to be made for the electronic transmission and storage of warrants obtained at common law. Amendment 8 is therefore required so that ministers can make an order to regulate the electronic transmission and storage of such warrants.

The committee raised several points, including the security of the system. Many people are naturally cautious about sending items electronically, and it is worth observing in this context that the encryption security of electronic systems that require it is not new—it has developed over 25 years into a sophisticated science. Many different layers of security are now available and can be designed specifically for the situation that they need to serve. Nevertheless, the Executive would not make that move unless we were satisfied about those technical matters. Therefore, if the Parliament were to give its approval today, we would not make any order permitted by the amendment until we were entirely content that all the appropriate technical provisions were in place and fully tested. It would not be in the interests of justice to do anything that would compromise the integrity of search warrant procedures, and ministers would not contemplate anything of that kind.

The committee also asked how the proposed new arrangements would interface with current search warrant procedures and what impact they would have. In fact, the general principles of obtaining a search warrant would remain entirely unchanged. The police would still have to approach the procurator fiscal in the first instance to explain why they thought that a search warrant was necessary. The procurator fiscal would then consider the matter and, if he or she was satisfied that there was sufficient legal basis for applying for a warrant and that it was in the public interest to do so, prepare the necessary documentation. The warrant would then be placed in front of a sheriff to consider, and he or she would in turn have to be satisfied that there was good reason to grant it.

That is what happens at the moment, and all those levels of scrutiny would remain unchanged. What would change, however, is that the search warrant would not have to be moved long distances around Scotland between police, duty fiscals and sheriffs, especially for out-of-hours requests. Furthermore, additional flexibility will be provided in section 49, which will permit sheriffs, if need be, to deal with warrants while they are not in their sheriffdom, as they must be at the moment. That will apply equally to traditional warrants and their proposed electronic counterparts, and will be particularly helpful in dealing with out-of-hours requests.

In addition to contributing to the efficiency of the system as a whole, I believe that amendment 8 will make an important contribution to the fight against crime. In many instances, it will reduce the time that is needed to process search warrants in the chain between police, fiscal and sheriff, where time can be a critical factor.

I move amendment 8.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I have a healthy suspicion of technology, and I am not totally reassured by what the minister has said. However, if things are going to go pear shaped, we will know fairly early and remedial action can be taken. On that basis, I am happy for amendment 8 to proceed.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The minister is being too modest. The material that was provided to the committee was comprehensive, complete and of excellent quality, and I am happy to support amendment 8.

I would like to make just one small point. It is all very well getting the technology secure, but we must also operate it securely. I hope that the minister will be able to indicate that guidance and training will be given to the people who will use the electronic system, to ensure that the human element does not become the insecure part that damages that useful initiative.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I thank the Executive for withdrawing the initial amendment and allowing us to examine the matter in detail.

I am happy to support amendment 8. As the minister said, there is another important provision in section 49, which allows sheriffs to sign warrants in the whole of Scotland and not just in their own jurisdiction. We had the bizarre situation whereby sheriffs were travelling out of hours to the borders of their jurisdiction to meet police officers in cars to sign warrants. The bill will prevent that from happening in the future.

The committee also queried whether an oath had to be taken, but I think that that is the position only for common-law warrants. I am happy that the minister has given us assurances on that. The procedure is new, so those assurances are important, because there a lot of controversy has surrounded the signature of warrants. The matter should be kept under review in the future.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I am happy to give Stewart Stevenson the assurance that we will give careful consideration to the need to ensure that those who will operate the system are properly trained and given adequate guidance.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Amendment 109 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Amendment 16 is in a group on its own.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Section 70 deals with the commencement provisions for all topics that the bill covers. Amendment 16 delivers on the commitment that we gave at stage 2 to ensure that the wildlife crime provisions will come into effect immediately upon royal assent. It also enables the early commencement of some of the general sections in the bill. Early commencement of the wildlife crime provisions that we introduced at stage 2 will ensure that the new measures are in operation for the season that runs from March to early June, when, regrettably, some of the worst wildlife offences are committed.

Amendment 16 also provides for the early commencement of sections 65 and 68, which deal with transitional provisions, order-making arrangements and interpretation, so that those technical provisions do not need to be commenced separately when we commence the substantive provisions in the bill.

I move amendment 16.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

The Conservatives strongly support amendment 16. We are aware that the scope and extent of wildlife offences have increased over the years. I introduced a bill to establish Scottish Natural Heritage to protect wildlife in Scotland's countryside, but that organisation on its own is insufficient, and there must be sufficient back-up powers. As RSPB Scotland has very correctly pointed out, there should be the option of custodial sentences. Sheriff Colin Mackay said on 10 March 2000, in relation to those who were committing terrible crimes:

"Unless prison is an option I do not think you will be much discouraged".

Reports of wildlife poisoning have increased. In 2002, there were 43 such reports. There have been many thefts, and egg collectors continue to steal. We have an inescapable duty to protect the environment and wildlife, and the RSPB's aim of having a healthy environment that is rich in birds and wildlife is important not only for tourism and jobs bus for the very quality of life of Scotland itself. As long as wildlife thrives, we can be dead certain that that is a key indicator that the environment is in good condition.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Amendment 16 is welcome, as is section 70. My constituency has the longest border with England of any constituency along the south of Scotland. We felt particularly vulnerable to problems of cross-border traffic in wildlife crime. I know that the local police are particularly keen on amendment 16 and I welcome it. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, an attack on wildlife is an attack not only on the flora and fauna per se but on Scotland's heritage.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am grateful for the welcome that amendment 16 has been given. Wildlife crime is big business and it is important that we have the measures that the bill will introduce to allow us to be more effective in combating such crime. Having introduced a private member's bill to the House of Commons to deal with the issue and having being beaten by the general election, I find it satisfying to see the measures in legislation and to have the commencement provisions to make them effective for this season.

Amendment 16 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Amendment 42 is in a group on its own.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

It gives me great pleasure to move amendment 42, which is aimed at strengthening the hand of those who seek to enforce wildlife law. I greatly appreciate the support of RSPB Scotland, the police and the Scottish Executive in this regard. It is a nice change for me to have the backing of Jim Wallace and Allan Wilson—better late than never.

Amendment 42 is an attempt to equalise the time bar for all offences in wildlife crime. At present, under section 20 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the time bar is six months for some offences and two years for other offences. The importance of making the time bar for all offences two years is simply that most of the crimes will be committed in remote areas where it is difficult to detect them quickly. Unlike human victims, the victims of wildlife crimes are hardly likely to be able to report the crime. Therefore, action is based exclusively on the evidence that can be found and detected before the cases can proceed.

Members will be aware of some of the examples that have been given, but it is worth repeating them. A case of a decaying corpse, for example, is difficult to give a time line. If the bird was killed by poison, the state of decay is likely to show that the offence occurred more than six months ago, which means that the case would fall victim to the time bar. Taxidermists are required to report wildlife transactions annually, which means that if there are any suspicious circumstances, six months will pass before they can be reported and investigated, so prosecutions will be difficult to bring.

The purpose of amendment 42 is to equalise the time bar to two years, to strengthen the hand of those who want to combat wildlife crime. I appreciate the Executive's support in this regard. I hope that members will agree to the amendment unanimously and send out the clear message that when it comes to wildlife crime, the Scottish Parliament wants to take action.

I move amendment 42.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Amendment 42 is very much in line with Executive policy on wildlife crime. Indeed, it had been our intention that a provision achieving the same effect would form part of the future nature conservation bill, which is part of a wider package of reforms to the existing Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We had to make a finely balanced judgment at stage 2 on whether we would lodge an amendment in this regard in conjunction with other amendments that were discussed at that stage. We erred on the side of caution, because we did not want to overburden the Justice 2 Committee.

It is good to see that Duncan Hamilton has kept awake and that he has picked up on our initiatives. Amendment 42 re-emphasises the extent to which consensus exists in the Parliament on the need to protect Scotland's natural heritage and crack down on the activities of the rogue estates to which Duncan Hamilton referred. I am sure that amendment 42 will be agreed to unanimously.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will allow Bruce Crawford to make the tiniest of comments.

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

I am grateful for the Executive's moving in the way that it has done on amendment 42. I wonder whether a comment could be made at some stage about the future nature conservation bill with regard to the poisoning of wildlife and how prosecuting that could be strengthened, as that might have been included in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I do not think that there is a mechanism for that. I ask Mr Hamilton to wind up, although I take it that he does not have a lot to say.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

We now have total agreement around the chamber. It is a good day for the Parliament.

Amendment 42 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

There is very little time left. Amendment 48 is in a group on its own.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Amendment 48 is a minor drafting amendment. The correct term is "substituted" rather than "inserted".

I move amendment 48.

Amendment 48 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That ends consideration of amendments. We are a minute ahead of time.

Following are the corrected figures for the votes on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill:

Amendment 71: For 66, Against 28, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 72: For 67, Against 28, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 101: For 27, Against 68, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 102: For 26, Against 67, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 103: For 29, Against 69, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 104: For 37, Against 61, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 74: For 30, Against 70, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 75: For 39, Against 59, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 76: For 36, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3730, in the name of Mr Jim Wallace, that the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill is a substantial and significant piece of legislation. It is only right that it should have been subject to rigorous and intense scrutiny by Parliament and, not least, by the Justice 2 Committee. I do not think that either the Parliament or the Justice 2 Committee has disappointed us in their scrutiny of the bill. The committee, in particular, discharged the task of evidence-taking, preparing a stage 1 report and scrutinising the bill line by line at stage 2 diligently and effectively—indeed, it even took further evidence at stage 2. I believe that the bill that we are now asking Parliament to agree is much the better for the committee's input.

I put on record my gratitude to the members of the Justice 2 Committee for all their work and to the clerks who kept things running smoothly. I acknowledge the contribution of the other committees that considered the bill. My thanks also go to Richard Simpson and Hugh Henry for their considerable efforts in steering the bill to this stage, and to my officials—there was a huge team of them, because the bill covers a number of different aspects. I know that the bill team has worked exceptionally hard in bringing the bill to this stage and I thank them for the support that they have given me.

It is worth reflecting on how much time has been spent developing the bill. Work did not start with the introduction of the bill in March 2002, some 11 months ago. Before then, we had consulted extensively on some of the major planks of the bill. We consulted on the victim strategy from January 2001, and on Lord MacLean's committee's deliberations and findings during 2001. The child protection measures were consulted on even earlier, in February 2000. It is fair to say that many of the bill's proposals have been in train for almost as long as has our Parliament.

We have always said that the bill is about providing public protection, promoting effective sentencing and keeping Scots criminal law up to date. Those aims, which Parliament supported at stage 1, remain the cornerstones of the bill. Those overarching objectives are underscored by substantial new policy initiatives that will affect positively the people of Scotland.

There will be greater protection from dangerous offenders through the new and innovative high-risk offenders strategy, which includes the new lifelong sentence of an order for lifelong restriction. Victims will now have a stronger voice in the criminal justice system and will be able to get information about the release of their assailants. Those who are involved in the abhorrent practices of child pornography and trafficking in prostitution will be liable for heavy prison sentences.

We are developing the electronic tagging arrangements and enhancing the arrangements for criminal record checks for those who work with children and vulnerable people. Again, we are providing better protection for the communities that we are here to serve and, not least, protection for those who are vulnerable. By introducing the crime of offences aggravated by religious prejudice we are sending a clear message that such small-minded behaviour will not be tolerated in the Scotland of the 21st century.

We have also taken the opportunity to introduce changes to bail that were considered necessary. In a similar vein, we have taken the opportunity to enhance the penalties and enforcement practices for certain wildlife crimes—something that we have just debated with all-party support. The commencement provisions mean that those new, more stringent measures will be available this spring.

In some ways, the bill is different from the bill that the Parliament considered at stage 1. That is because we took account of the views of the Parliament and of the Justice 2 Committee. The committee spent a great deal of time collecting evidence and scrutinising the bill. As a result of that, the bill will have a significant impact on our criminal justice system. It will make Scotland a safer place and will give additional protection to the vulnerable in our community. I commend it to the Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

A long list of members wish to take part in the debate, so I ask everyone to keep tightly to the three-minute time allocation.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

At stage 1, I expressed my concern that the bill represented a return to the bad old days of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bills. The past two days have proved my point. As we have worked through the amendments, we have jumped between sections that do not seem to relate to one other. The members of the Justice 2 Committee deserve praise for their hard work in following those many jumps in committee.

I am pleased that the passing of the bill will mean the introduction of lifetime supervision of sex offenders, which was a key recommendation of the MacLean report and has been SNP policy since long before that report. George Foulkes might have felt that the MacLean report's recommendations were "uncosted nonsense", but I am pleased that Labour members of the Scottish Parliament seem to disagree with the ex-minister.

Drugs courts are another SNP policy that was at first derided, and then adopted, by the Executive parties. The bill acknowledges the success of the operation of the pilot courts, the first of which opened in Glasgow in November 2001. That was an important step.

The introduction of victim statements to our judicial process means that the court will hear of the impact that a crime has had on the victim. Issues remain to be addressed. I hope that the pilot project will be evaluated and that, if it is not successful, the idea will be dropped or seriously amended.

The most contentious part of the bill was undoubtedly section 43, which deals with the physical chastisement of children. There has been considerable change on that since the bill was introduced. There are still problems to do with the practicality of the provisions, rather than the message that they send. Everyone concentrated on the message, but the practicalities are equally important. Only time will tell who was right.

As I indicated earlier, I continue to have concerns about police custody and security officers.

One of the consequences of such a wide-ranging bill is that it leaves the door wide open to an even more wide-ranging set of amendments. The amendment that Donald Gorrie lodged to introduce the concept of offences aggravated by religious prejudice was a prime example. Although I do not believe that the bill's provisions on that will achieve what the minister, the Executive or Mr Gorrie wants them to achieve, I do not doubt their sincerity, nor do I oppose their worthy intentions.

In conclusion, the bill contains many changes for which my party and I have been pushing for some time—in some cases, since long before members of the Executive parties had been won over. In spite of the fact that the bill has some failings, it has the support of the SNP.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The minister mentioned some aspects of the bill that are highly satisfactory and for which we commend the Executive. Other aspects, such as civilianisation and victim statements, have proved problematic. We acknowledge that ministers have made a genuine and sincere effort to satisfy us. Although their efforts have not been entirely successful, they have been sufficient for us to allow the bill to progress.

We cannot give our full support to the bill not so much because of what it contains, but because of what it excludes. The bill is a classic illustration of a lost opportunity. The bill could have made the streets of Scotland safer, could have provided a more realistic approach to our criminal justice system and could have supported those who are in the front-line battle against crime. Under all those headings, it is a lamentable failure.

Let us be quite blunt. On law and order issues, the Executive, from the First Minister down, is all talk and no action. In spite of constant press releases that promise tough measures and threats to get tough on crime, there has been total inaction, to the extent that public cynicism is at an all-time high. The only worthwhile innovation that the Executive has introduced has been the fast-track youth courts. Time will tell how effective they are, but the concept is a good one.

The much-vaunted fast-track children's hearings will remain a fast track to nowhere until some realism is introduced into the system. Given the restricted disposals that are available and the gross underfunding, it is not surprising that the system is totally inept at dealing with offenders; nor is it surprising that one third of children's panel members resign every year. They are no doubt disappointed that their genuine and worthwhile efforts to make a contribution are frustrated by the Executive's lack of realism.

Drug misuse has become almost endemic in Scottish society. Although that is not the fault of the Executive, the fact that drug misuse is almost as prevalent in prisons is the Executive's fault.

The streets of our cities provide tangible evidence of the Executive's failures. Shops have security guards who stand outside and patrol inside, except when they are chasing shoplifters along the road. The public receive frequent approaches from spaced-out beggars, and gang fights are not infrequent. At the moment, Glasgow city centre is probably being policed by no more than six officers.

The bill does not address the wide dissatisfaction about alternatives to custody. Little work is done during community service, fines are not paid and there is a significant lack of action against those who fail to turn up in court. In spite of members' concern about the number of people who are in prison for non-payment of fines, the Executive fails to deduct them from benefit.

It is extremely ironic that an Executive that is prepared to send parents to jail for shaking their child in a non-harmful manner should bottle out and baulk at the prospect of taking realistic measures to make the streets of Scotland safer and Scotland's citizens more secure in their homes.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I begin by thanking the Justice 2 Committee very much for its hard work. There was not a single issue that the Parliament was concerned about that the committee did not attack fiercely. It examined the bill thoroughly.

I also thank the Executive, because it has been very responsive to all the concerns that we raised. I have a 2in-thick file of all the correspondence and exchanges with the Executive. Anyone who looks through that file will see how responsive the Executive has been.

I disagree with Mr Aitken's view that the bill represents a lost opportunity. The bill contains some key themes that will make the streets of Scotland safer. It is worth amplifying those.

The first theme is what has been done to turn round victims' place in the system. Victim statements have been discussed, but I draw the Parliament's attention to section 15, which gives victims the right to receive information on the release from prison of an offender.

Many of us have dealt with constituents who have always argued for that right. They have not known when someone who attacked them and served time in prison would be released. At present, there is no such right to information. The bill will give victims that right. In many ways, that provision is more important than the provision on victim statements.

Johann Lamont should be commended for drawing the attention of the committee and of the Parliament to anti-social behaviour. The bill will turn round the criminal justice system's attitude to anti-social behaviour. Anti-social behaviour is on the spectrum of crime; it is not simply a question of being a bad neighbour. People who do not conduct themselves properly might also be criminals.

As I care deeply about human trafficking, I am pleased that the bill makes it a crime, although I know that the relevant section relates only to enforced prostitution. I note the Executive's intention to take further action on child labour.

Many members are concerned about the operation of the policy on custody officers, which is about freeing up resources. The operation of that policy should be tested in the future to show that there is a good reason for it.

The bill is not simply a bill of miscellaneous provisions; it is a bill that contains many important themes. The citizens of Scotland will recognise that it will make a great contribution to their safety and that it is a good piece of work.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will call as many members as I can.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, support the bill, although I do not do so unreservedly. I thank my colleagues on the Justice 2 Committee. As I come to the end of my time in the Parliament, I can say that it has been a genuine pleasure to be a member of the committee. The committee worked hard and effectively on the issues.

Although the bill contains many measures that we support, areas of major concern remain. I am still dubious about the principle and the operation of victim statements.

Despite the movement from the Executive, the provisions on the physical punishment of children leave us with questions of definition that we have been unable to resolve. Donald Gorrie's provisions on sectarianism, although worthy in aspiration, were described by the police as unworkable and by the sheriffs as unnecessary, yet the Parliament took it upon itself to introduce them. I also remain slightly confused about the role, function and training that is to be given to police custody and security officers and about the cost implications. There are major concerns about the bill.

The passage of the bill has shown both the strength and the weakness of our legislative process. The committee worked on a cross-party basis and extremely hard. After examining controversial evidence and taking evidence from a wide range of people, we produced a considered and mature report. It was unfortunate that on some issues—most notably on sectarianism at stage 3—much of that evidence was put to one side in a wave of emotion. That is not helpful. All of us in the chamber may feel strongly about the issue, but good legislation is based on evidence, not exclusively on emotion.

The bill has some good measures, which is why the SNP and I will support it. However, looking ahead to the future, I say to members that we need to try to have as robust a legislative process as possible. We should replicate what happened in the Justice 2 Committee not only in our committee meetings but in our plenary sessions as well.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I welcome the opportunity to welcome the passing of this important bill. I, too, congratulate the Justice 2 Committee—in particular the convener—on its hard work and on its rigorous and diligent approach to such an important piece of legislation. That work gives the lie to the idea that we sit here and do as we are told, because it shows that we are actively involved in the process of improving and changing legislation.

The bill is important. We all understand the importance of the people of this country having faith in the criminal justice system. There are serious consequences for us all if that faith is broken down. We all have stories from victims of crime of their experience of the crime and of the courts system, which seems—perversely—to compound the distress that people have experienced. The bill's commitment to improving the rights of victims is significant as it will make a real difference not only to victims' experience of the system but, I hope, to the attitudes of those who are charged with running that system.

As others have highlighted, there is frustration that the bill has been characterised as being about smacking, or sending 16 and 17-year-olds to the children's hearings system or sectarianism. I understand that those who report on our work must sometimes use shorthand but, given that we all abhor spin, it would be good if there were a little more depth to the scrutiny and analysis of substantial pieces of work such as this.

The Parliament has wrestled with significant issues, but I believe that our focus has been on what will work. The concerns about the smacking provisions were not because people want children to be beaten. The concerns about the sectarianism provisions were not because people are in favour of sectarianism. We need to recognise when we make legislation that we need the space to be able to ask whether or not something works, instead of being concerned about how our position might be characterised elsewhere.

I congratulate the Executive on its willingness to listen and to change. It has certainly listened to Labour back benchers on the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds. I am pleased that the Executive has listened so hard, especially to those who wanted more action on anti-social behaviour. It is profoundly depressing that, when the Parliament's committees and back benchers do their job, people settle for lazy language about U-turns and humiliating defeats. The bill has been strengthened rather than weakened by the Executive's willingness to listen. The Executive's work has been strengthened rather than weakened by its willingness to respond to the points that were raised.

I congratulate the Executive and all those involved in the nitty-gritty work on the bill. I look forward to the bill enacting a real difference in people's lives.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

It is regrettable that there has been insufficient time to give full attention to many of the issues that were before the committee. To give just one example from this morning's debate, the police use of firearms was not even discussed. That is a grave defect in our system. I note that when the Deputy First Minister was challenged on television last night, he recognised that that issue needs to be addressed. I put down a marker that our procedures will need to be looked at so that such matters are not neglected in the future.

We won a number of important victories in the bill. First, we were happy to see go the ludicrous pilot scheme that would have sent 16 and 17-year-olds to children's hearings. Secondly, there was the issue of bail for convicted murderers. The Deputy First Minister indicated that although he was satisfied with the existing arrangements, he was certainly not prepared to defend having granny murderers roaming the streets. The amendments that were introduced give greater protection for the public and are a victory for common sense. Thirdly, the provisions on smacking that were totally unenforceable were removed, although it is our view that unnecessary provisions remain.

Some of the amendments that we proposed were rejected. For example, our proposal that fines should be taken from benefits could have reduced the number of people going to prison for fine default and increased the proportion of fines collected. Another amendment that was rejected was our proposal that a greater range of disposals should be made available to children's hearings. Thirdly, we wanted more honesty in sentencing. We are not surprised that our medicine was too strong for the Administration, but we are pleased that, as a result of vigorous and successful campaigning, the worst excesses of the bill have not been allowed to stain this future justice act.

The bill began as the Deputy First Minister's flagship bill, but he has had to make so many U-turns during its passage that it can now be described as a bill of the Parliament rather than of the Executive. Although the bill does not go as far as we would like and still has grave imperfections, it represents a considerable improvement on what went before.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

As the Deputy First Minister said, the bill is a substantial piece of legislation, which will have a major impact in improving Scotland's criminal justice system.

The bill has grown substantially during the months in which it proceeded through the Justice 2 Committee. Even at stage 2, extra provisions were still being added to the bill even as the committee discussed it. On a number of occasions, the committee found itself in the difficult position of being asked to consider extra provisions, such as section 59A on sectarianism, at very short notice and with little time to take evidence. However, by increasing the number of committee meetings, we made the time to ensure that the provisions were properly probed and scrutinised to the maximum effect.

Although some of the bill is of a technical nature and is aimed simply at tidying up existing legislation, substantial sections will make a major contribution to improving the lot of ordinary Scots. The introduction of better rights for victims, under part 2 of the bill, is a major step forward in trying to ensure that victims are kept better informed and have their voice heard in the criminal justice system. As Duncan Hamilton said, it will be interesting to see the outcome of the victim statements pilot. I hope that a future justice committee will reconsider the matter closely, as there were concerns about whether the process would deliver its objective.

I believe that the right balance has been struck in the provisions on the physical punishment of children. The committee concluded that there was no convincing evidence to justify a blanket ban on smacking under-threes. I fully supported that view. However, the committee supported the rest of section 43, which clarifies the defence of reasonable chastisement. Section 43 sends out a strong signal from the Parliament that blows to the head, shaking a child and hitting a child with an implement will not be tolerated. I believe that that is the right approach to take.

Finally, I warmly welcome the amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 that will make the prosecution of wildlife offences much easier. Wildlife crime is a major problem in my constituency. The provisions are a major step forward in tackling the problem and will be widely welcomed by my constituents in Argyll and Bute.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I join others in congratulating the minister and the committee on the way in which they have tackled the issues in the bill.

The Justice 2 Committee's scrutiny of the new order for lifelong restriction and of the risk management agency has been particularly valuable. Those issues are hugely difficult and, as the MacLean committee showed, they are being grappled with by many countries. I believe that the innovative approach that Scotland is adopting today will have a substantial effect not only on the most serious and violent offenders, to whom the order for lifelong restriction will apply, but on sexual offenders at all levels.

I cannot stress too strongly the risk that is posed by current and potential sexual offenders. The recent internet case has shown all too clearly that probably tens of thousands of people are offending at the level of child pornography. The 1,800 people who are currently on the register are likely to grow in number to 10,000 before the numbers stabilise. Alongside the stabilisation of the valuable work at Peterhead prison, the bill makes an important contribution to the treatment of those who have been sentenced to four years or more.

However, we will have to do much more. The next priority must be to integrate the assessment and management of the 600 offenders who receive shorter or even non-custodial sentences and who are not eligible to go to Peterhead prison. The police, prisons, criminal justice, social work and housing functions must be integrated even more closely if we are to be effective in protecting our children and our vulnerable citizens.

We must also tackle adolescents who demonstrate inappropriate sexual behaviour. We must also seek to prevent offending behaviour from moving through the cycle from deviant thinking to fantasy to internet pornography to reality to repeat offending with self-justification. In the near future, we need to introduce the "Stop it Now!" programme, which is promoted in America for those who are in the pre-offending category.

There are many excellent measures in the bill, but time is too short to praise them all. I welcome the modest advance in protecting children from being hit, but I regret the failure to ban the hitting of babies and toddlers under the age of two, which is a measure that had the support of the majority of parents. Too many parents still believe that it is all right to smack babies of under one year.

At least those in the front line who support children day in, day out will be able to give three clear messages to parents: that it is illegal to hit a child on the head; that it is illegal to hit a child with an implement; and that it is illegal to shake a child. That is a substantial advance.

However, Scotland's failure to join the growing number of European countries that have banned the hitting of children altogether is indeed a failure. Too many young men still grow up believing that physical violence is the most appropriate way to deal with disputes. It is wholly unacceptable that 17 per cent of young men continue to believe that hitting women is appropriate. A ban on the hitting of children would begin to eliminate the use of violence as a mechanism in our society. We have much more to do, but the bill is an excellent start and I welcome it.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

If Irene McGugan will restrict herself to two minutes, I will be able to give two minutes to Brian Fitzpatrick, who will be the last member to speak.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I will confine my remarks to the physical punishment of children.

The bill is a step in the right direction, but it is a small step. As Richard Simpson alluded, it pales into insignificance in comparison to the actions that are being taken by an increasing number of countries throughout the world to end the hitting of children.

Most members know that I fully support all the organisations that formed a view of the damage caused by the physical punishment of children. I support the aim of those organisations to promote the idea that it is no more acceptable to smack a child than it is for one adult to hit another. That aim is based on the principle and the very strong conviction that children also have human rights.

On a number of occasions in the chamber we have discussed the proposal for a commissioner for children and young people, which is progressing with all-party support. Members should be reminded that the role and remit of the commissioner is underpinned by the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which is the same convention that states that Governments are required to protect all children who are in the care of their parents from all forms of physical and mental violence. We need to take action to comply with the recommendations of the United Nations committee on the rights of the child. The provisions that we are endorsing today do not do that.

The bill is not the end of our work on the subject. I appeal to every member who is returned to the Parliament in May to ensure that work continues as a matter of urgency on a public information campaign to advise people of non-violent alternatives. In other countries, such campaigns have brought about a real change in the attitude towards hitting children.

I seek an assurance from the minister that the physical punishment of children will be revisited soon with a view to adopting legislation to remove the reasonable chastisement defence and to prohibit all corporal punishment in the family. It is very important that we send out a very clear signal that no level of violence towards children is socially acceptable. I hope that a future Scottish Parliament supports that aspiration.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

As Johann Lamont mentioned, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill represents the culmination of a lot of hard work by the subject committee and occasional visitors to the committee. The progress that was made on the issues of lifetime supervision orders, fast-track youth procedures, anti-social behaviour, the risk management agency and victim statements give the lie to Bill Aitken's rather weary and predictable comment on the bill. The people who contribute their time to children's panels do not deserve the unfair gloss that Bill Aitken put on their activity. I urge him to reflect on that.

An important security was achieved on the issue of physical chastisement for Scotland's most vulnerable youngsters. Some of the opposition in respect of the shaking of children stands in the face of and disregards the obvious medical evidence. I am glad that members had the courage to stand up to that behaviour.

On the statutory aggravation of an offence by religious prejudice, I rehearsed the contra argument in front of the Justice 2 Committee and I will not repeat it now. As I listened to Donald Gorrie yesterday, my support waned—after two year's work, he seemed to demonstrate less understanding of the issues. I support the movement on that issue for reasons that were not advanced by Donald Gorrie. I do so for reasons that relate to the collection of data and, more important, to the notice of previous convictions. People will no longer be able to pretend that they have not participated previously in their behaviour or say that the offence is a first-time event. That is a real achievement.

Bill Aitken lodged a well-intentioned but badly drafted and defective amendment on the subject of police officers. I was delighted to hear the words from the minister about improving on that position.

Although there is no time for victory laps—nor should there be victory laps—the bill represents real progress and should be welcomed for that reason.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

My regrets to the four members whose names remain on my screen, but the clock has beaten us. I call Hugh Henry to wind up the debate.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Like the minister, I thank all those who worked so hard on the bill and the organisations and individuals who provided written submissions and gave oral evidence to the committee. Jim Wallace was accurate in his thanks to the Justice 2 Committee, which worked so hard on scrutinising the bill. Its members raised fundamental and important issues in addition to making a number of suggestions that helped to improve the final outcome.

This debate is the culmination of a process of policy development. As the minister said, it included wide consultation, the publication of two white papers setting out our proposals and debates in the Parliament. We are not talking about hurried or hasty legislation. There has been an interesting and lively debate, which has reflected the diverse nature and importance of the provisions of the bill as well as concerns, doubts and anxieties that are to be recognised.

The debate has also reflected the determination of the Parliament to have an improved system of criminal justice in Scotland. It has shown that, despite some caveats, there is wide agreement on the overall aims of the legislation, which are to deliver better public protection, to promote more effective sentencing and to keep the law up to date. Johann Lamont rightly said that the willingness of people to engage in the process is a testament to the Parliament. In echoing her comments, I believe that the willingness of the Executive to listen and to respond is a strength of the parliamentary process and not a weakness.

I want to address a couple of comments that were made by members of the Conservative party. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton talked about the Conservatives' medicine being too strong. He is not correct, as the problem was that the Conservatives' medicine was wrongly prescribed and incorrectly mixed. The Conservatives made a number of proposals, some of which we accepted and others of which contributed to changes that were made. However, some of their proposals contained errors including on reserved issues—Lord James Douglas-Hamilton referred to that. There were also some weaknesses in the Conservative proposals. The Conservatives' medicine was wrongly composed and would have been completely ineffective. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's comment was inaccurate.

The bill should not be seen as an opportunity lost and we should not look to diminish or demean the bill on the basis of the remarks that Bill Aitken made. It is not an opportunity lost to tighten up the law on child pornography and on the trafficking of people for prostitution. It is not an opportunity lost to extend rights to victims or to crack down on wildlife crime. It is certainly not an opportunity lost to toughen up measures to deal with the anti-social behaviour that is scarring many of our communities in Scotland.

All in all, the bill represents progress for the Scottish Parliament and for the people of Scotland. Many measures in the bill will have a great impact on the wider community. Many good things have come out of the bill, but it is right to say that although it marks our progress, the Parliament and its Administration are not complacent. There is much more to do to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour in Scotland, and the bill is the first of a number of measures that we intend to introduce to make Scotland a safer and more secure place.

Building (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Members should have the usual papers for the next item. I shall move straight to the first group of amendments, on building regulations and broadband communication technology, and call Kenny MacAskill to speak to amendment 1.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

In speaking to amendment 1, I want to ask three questions. The questions are: What are we trying to do? Why are we trying to do it? How can we achieve it? My fourth point will be my response to what I understand to be the minister's position—if I am wrong he will, no doubt, correct me.

First, what are we trying to do? The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the Scottish economy can compete in the 21st century. That is accepted throughout the chamber and by all parties; I am certainly not suggesting that there is any monopoly on the desire to ensure that broadband is rolled out. We must ensure that broadband is rolled out as speedily and as well as possible. The SNP believes that the bill is one method of doing that.

Amendment 1 is to some extent not party political. It is an industry amendment. Those who have been advising and assisting me come not so much from the ranks of my political party, but from those who represent the interests of people trying to roll out broadband technology in the commercial world. In particular, I record my thanks to David Flint of MacRoberts Solicitors and to Polly Purvis of ScotlandIS.

Why are we trying to achieve the aims? Although it is clear that there is, among those who have political power, a desire to see broadband technology being taken up, and among the populace a desire to use broadband, significant difficulties are being experienced by many in trying to achieve that end. Hardly a member will not be aware of the difficulties, and the problems are not restricted to rural areas or to old houses; they encompass all of our communities—those that are adjacent to major urban conurbations and those in much more rural areas. It is not simply a matter of not having access to broadband technology; some people have the additional problem of being able to gain access only at an unaffordable price. Both elements must be addressed.

The SNP believes that the bill is an opportunity to balance the current debate about strategy. Do we achieve roll-out of broadband technology by stimulating take-up or by providing the right infrastructure? It is a matter of balance. We are stimulating take-up, as can be seen in television advertisements, albeit that they come from the commercial sector, including companies such as BT. However, we are also required to ensure that we roll out the infrastructure for those who want the opportunity to use broadband—those who are excited and ignited by that desire.

We need a strategy and, in many respects, we concur with the Executive's strategy. Aggregation of the public sector is sensible and it is the way in which we must proceed. However, when I discuss that with members of the industry, the subject is seen as a no-brainer. We have an opportunity at the outset, as we build developments—whether commercial or residential—to ensure that we do not replicate the mistakes that we have made previously. In the past, we have seen a short-term approach being taken, with short-term savings being made, but we have ended up having to pay more. We can now ensure that we lay the foundations at the beginning.

How will we achieve our aims? We are trying to make it clear from the outset that as a legislature we believe that Scotland's future is about being a high-tech, rather than a low-wage, economy. That means that we must acknowledge the importance of rolling out broadband technology, which must be included in any new construction, whether residential or commercial. We must recognise that to achieve that, we will have to empower the Executive in due course. We must also recognise that what might be appropriate for urban Scotland might not be appropriate for rural Scotland, and that what should be compulsory for a certain number of houses in an urban development might not be appropriate for Wester Ross.

We must recognise that technology will be different in the future. In many areas of urban Scotland, we might insist upon the use of fibreoptics, but that would be unaffordable for some areas of rural Scotland. However, it could be ensured that some form of wireless technology is provided. Moreover, we must accept that the rate of change in technology is fast. Since the Parliament has been in situ, we have seen changes in ADSL; its ability to deliver broadband technology has improved. We should therefore empower not just the people but the Executive so that as things change and develop we ensure that we see delivery throughout the country.

I shall now comment on what I understand to be the Executive's position, which is that it is prepared to accept amendment 2, but not amendment 1. We welcome that because it will allow us to pursue our aims. My view is best explained in an e-mail that I received from those who have been advising me. They say:

"an explicit reference is an opportunity to distinguish broadband as more than just a convenience and would help reinforce the Executive's commitment to strategies such as Connecting Scotland: our broadband future."

I accept that if we proceed by simply accepting amendment 2, but not amendment 1, we can deliver. In support of amendment 1, however, I say that it would put the imprimatur of this legislature on the fact that we want to ensure that broadband is rolled out. More important, it would show that we see broadband as being important for our economy and our society as we compete in the 21st century world. Agreement to amendment 1 would lay down a marker and make it clear that Parliament wants Scotland to compete with other nations, whether Singapore, Finland or wherever.

I move amendment 1.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Four members have asked to speak. I call John Scott, followed by Stewart Stevenson.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

We welcome amendments 1 and 2 on the introduction of broadband. They represent a worthwhile idea, and Kenny MacAskill has said it all—perhaps more. We must consider the provision of future services, as well as existing ones. That broadband will be an essential service in the future is beyond doubt, and we support the principle that lies behind amendments 1 and 2. However, we feel that amendment 1 is in the wrong place, so we shall agree only to amendment 2.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We have used building regulations to address social inclusion issues for people who are disabled, and properly so. I welcome that. The extension of building regulations to cover business and social exclusion that would arise if we do not have access to broadband is another way in which we can use building regulations.

The Executive strategy of experiments in the Highlands and Islands and the Borders, based as it is on aggregated public sector demand that draws together all the demand that exists, can be augmented only by private sector aggregation of demand, which could flow from the amendments.

Broadband is being delivered in a variety of ways throughout Scotland. For example, the British Telecom ADSL initiatives—which are confined largely to large conurbations and cities—are welcome but will never solve the problem. The new second technology—known as symmetric digital subscriber lines, or SDSL—will be available only in cities. Scottish and Southern Electricity plc has launched initiatives in Campbeltown and Crieff that are based on the delivery of broadband through the electricity supply. That approach is very much a bodge: although it works and is useful, it is associated with potential risks of radiation emission that are probably being managed.

Communities throughout the UK are starting to take the initiative on the matter—32 community ventures have to date been set up. For example, in Glasgow, people are fed up with the present arrangements and are starting to make their own. A Scottish amateur radio club is also promoting similar initiatives throughout the country. I mention those not merely because they are interesting but because, more fundamentally, they will lead to a proliferation of aerials and masts that will disfigure buildings if their construction is pursued in the absence of other initiatives. When we construct buildings and houses, it is important that we pay a small incremental cost at that point and that we build in the conduits that will enable cable to be installed later.

The issue in Scotland—as elsewhere—is the local loop. There is a lack of connection between the point at which the broadband service has to be used and the point at which it is aggregated into the large communication pipes that then connect to the internet and the rest of the world. Amendment 1 is useful and will address that issue. I am happy to support it.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Amendment 1 raises a very important point, although the intention behind it is perhaps covered by the phrase

"furthering the achievement of sustainable development"

in section 1(1)(c). That said, we must not lose sight of the fact that, as far as new build is concerned, it is very easy to think ahead and to make provision for the later installation of broadband technology. Building regulations can address that issue.

However, the roll-out of broadband through the copper-wire network and ADSL technology is only a short to medium-term approach. Any long-term approach will definitely require a fibreoptic system, because of its greater capacity and symmetrical nature. In any case, we will certainly need a symmetrical system for business and commercial uses, because large amounts of files will have to be sent as well as received.

Section 1 refers to

"furthering conservation of fuel and power",

Given that, has the Executive thought about whether we can use the opportunity that is provided by refurbishment or extension of buildings to include as part of the whole deal energy conservation measures for the parts of buildings that are not being extended or refurbished? It would be a shame to miss such opportunities, although I appreciate that any such approach would be tricky.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Members have already mentioned that the two pathfinder areas for broadband are the Highlands and Islands and the south of Scotland. However, I understand that there has to be a 50 per cent trigger for commercial companies to bring in broadband. Such a target cannot always be met, particularly in certain parts of the Scottish Borders. In such rural areas, commercial forces might not deliver in that respect.

However, broadband is as much a part of the commercial infrastructure as are good roads or railway links. That fact was reflected at a meeting that several members had this week in Eyemouth with the Federation of Small Businesses. As a result, I support Kenny MacAskill in his attempt to empower ministers in this regard because that would assist economic development where there is new build or, more important, where there are conversions. For example, such a conversion was carried out at the Ettrick Riverside business centre, which is struggling to deal with e-commerce.

The minister should also note that we are talking about a discretionary power rather than a mandatory power to make building regulations. On that basis and on the basis of Mr MacAskill's comments, I ask the minister to reconsider his attitude to amendment 1.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am very grateful to Kenny MacAskill for lodging amendments 1 and 2 for consideration. I agree that broadband is an important issue for all the reasons that he has highlighted and I accept that it is appropriate to reflect that in the bill. As a result, I will be happy to agree to amendment 2, which will add broadband communication technology to the list of matters for which building regulations may make provision. The bill will, in that case, allow regulations to be made for the provision of services, fittings and equipment—which could include broadband technology—and would give practical effect to progressing the matter.

However, I do not, for three reasons, believe that amendment 1 should be agreed to. First, the purposes of regulations that will be made under the bill, along with the bill's other main elements, are the product of lengthy and comprehensive consultation. The bill has attracted a large measure of consensus, not just among the various professional and business communities that are involved, but during the parliamentary scrutiny process. Uniquely, for such a significant and detailed bill, there were no divisions at stage 2. It would not be appropriate to make the change that is proposed by amendment 1 at this stage in the process, especially because amendment 2 includes broadband in the list of matters that regulations can cover.

Secondly, the list of purposes in section 1 has been drawn in general terms to encompass the bill's wider scope. However symbolic it would be to include broadband in that list, I believe that it would be inappropriate to add a specific purpose without then revisiting a much wider range of specific issues that might have an equal or even greater claim for inclusion. An obvious example is disabled access, which was discussed by the Transport and the Environment Committee at stage 2. That is a vital part of the building standards system and it is imperative that it remain at the forefront of the regulations. We shall continue to ensure that that happens; however, despite its importance throughout the range of building regulations, the committee accepted the argument at stage 1 that disabled access does not require specific mention. We want to adhere to such a principle.

Thirdly, the purposes for which building standards might be made are designed to be relevant for the bill's lifetime. The legislation on which the current system is based is 44 years old, and it is not inconceivable that the bill once enacted will similarly last for decades. I understand the wish to include in legislation a reference to important current technology; however, given the rapid speed of technological development, it is possible that such a reference will be overtaken by the market and might quickly become anachronistic.

I repeat that, for the reasons that I have given, I am happy to accept amendment 2 to give practical effect to what Kenny MacAskill seeks. However, I ask him to acknowledge that we are moving towards his position and to seek to withdraw amendment 1.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am grateful for the minister's comments. I should point out that I am not about to make a tautological argument; instead, there is a matter of the emphasis that we should put in the bill.

I accept that all parties are trying to head in the same direction. However, we should make a bold public declaration at the outset about how we view matters. The minister's comments about the lifetime of the bill are actually an argument for including a reference to broadband in section 1. After all, amendment 2 would give the Executive the power to acknowledge changes in technology. It would be no more absurd to accept that broadband technology will change over 44 years—indeed, with improvements in ADSL, it already has—than to accept that there will be changes in the delivery of water and electricity supplies. We view those issues as fundamental; they have not been left out of previous legislation simply because technology might change. Indeed, in the period between the enactment of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 and the passage of this bill, the provision of other public utilities and supplies has varied enormously.

I will press amendment 1. My argument is not tautological. I simply want to put down in clear, bold black and white that this Government and legislature believe that broadband is just as vital as any other public utility as far as provision to residential or commercial developments is concerned.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 1 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 24, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Amendment 3 is grouped with amendments 4, 38, 41, 42 and 49.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

This group of amendments follows amendments at stage 2 that will allow ministers to approve schemes and thereby entitle members of the schemes to act as approved certifiers. The amendments will align those provisions better with the provisions for directly approved certifiers. They will also make some necessary amendments to references to sections in the bill, following amendments that were made at stage 2.

I move amendment 3.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Amendments 3 and 38 are worthwhile amendments in that they will give ministers necessary powers to withdraw approval of schemes as well as to grant approval of them. We welcome those two amendments in particular, but we also welcome the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Amendment 5 is grouped with amendments 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 22, 23, 24, 43, 44 and 45.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

This group of amendments relates to the introduction of two new sections to the bill on continuing requirements. I advised the Transport and the Environment Committee at stage 2 that I would lodge the amendments at stage 3.

Amendment 22 is probably the most significant amendment. It will introduce a new section that will allow verifiers—the local authorities in the first instance—to impose continuing requirements in respect of any building for which a building warrant is granted, or a completion certificate accepted, where there has been no building warrant.

Section 2 will already permit building regulations to impose continuing requirements on all buildings. The reason for allowing verifiers to do so is that, under the new system, building warrant applications will be able to present a range of solutions in order to meet the requirements of the building regulations. Any continuing requirements that might be imposed will therefore relate to the particular solution that is presented and cannot be anticipated in building regulations. For example, where the owner of a rural house chooses to install a septic tank rather than go to the expense of connecting to mains drainage, it is crucial that the tank is maintained so that it continues to meet the requirements of the regulations. A continuing requirement might then be imposed to place a duty on the owner to carry out such maintenance.

Amendment 23 will introduce a new section that will allow continuing requirements that have been imposed by verifiers to be varied or discharged if they are no longer needed.

Amendments 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 24 and 43 to 45 are consequential to amendments 22 and 23. Variously, they will oblige a verifier to send a copy of any continuing requirements imposed by them—either through the building warrant or completion certificate—for registration on the building standards register; they will allow doubts between the verifier and the applicant about the need for continuing requirements to be referred to Scottish ministers; they will provide that any view that is expressed by ministers on such an issue must be taken into account by a verifier; they will allow a continuing requirements enforcement notice to be served on owners who fail to comply with such requirements and they will allow a verifier's decision to impose continuing requirements or to refuse to vary or discharge them to be subject to appeal to a sheriff by the owner.

Amendments 6 and 13 will oblige verifiers to inform owners when continuing requirements have been imposed by verifiers. They will also oblige verifiers to inform owners of the granting of a warrant itself, subject to warrant or acceptance of a completion certificate. Amendments 7 and 14 are consequential to that.

I move amendment 5.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

We welcome this group of amendments. Although they were not introduced at stage 2, the matters have been well discussed in evidence-taking sessions and I welcome the paragraph about those matters in the letter from the minister.

From our perspective, we welcome the flexibility of design that will be introduced into the building regulations by the new approach, but from that flows a need for continuing requirements; the amendments will address that need throughout the bill. We share concerns, however, that were expressed by representatives of the Scottish Association of Chief Building Standards Officers, who stated in their submission:

"The proposed continuous requirements provisions effectively places additional duties on the enforcing authority to maintain an interest beyond the completion stage."

I seek clarification from the minister today on how that burden on the enforcing authorities will be borne over the years. There will be a significant cost for the enforcement of continuing requirements. Although we welcome the intention and flexibility in the bill, it will come at a cost.

Specifically, we welcome the notification and recording processes in amendments 6, 9, 10, 12 and 13. Amendments 22 and 23 detail how continuing requirements will be enforced. We welcome the group.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The issue of continuing requirements is absolutely crucial. I echo John Scott's concerns about the burdens on local authorities and I ask for clarification on that.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am pleased that there is a broad welcome from Parliament for the move on continuing requirements. As John Scott said, the matter was discussed extensively by the Transport and the Environment Committee and there was a strong impulse for continuing requirements from the various building agencies. I do not believe that the process of imposing continuing requirements will necessarily involve significant additional resources. I am reasonably optimistic that they can be managed within the framework that has been established to proceed with the bill as a whole. I regard the process as being part of normal enforcement responsibilities. The Executive will monitor the situation as the continuing requirements are introduced and we will be in continuing discussions with local authorities on that basis.

Amendment 5 agreed to.

Amendments 6 and 7 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Amendment 8 is grouped with amendments 11 and 15.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Amendments 8, 11 and 15 are designed to ensure that there is no doubt about which version of building regulations is referred to in each case throughout the bill.

I move amendment 8.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Amendment 62 is grouped with amendments 25, 35, 36 and 63.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Amendments 62, 25, 35 and 63 will provide that, where local authorities undertake work in relation to various notices, they will record that the work has been done. That will ensure that there are no gaps in the records that are kept by the local authorities, and that the records are available to the public.

Amendment 36 clarifies that, where a local authority carries out work to comply with a dangerous building notice, demolishing a building will be an option only when demolition is necessary to complete the work that is required by the notice.

I move amendment 62.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Amendment 40 would give the bill teeth regarding the evacuation of dangerous buildings and their occupation. To fine people for not leaving a building after it has been declared dangerous seems to be a heavy-handed approach, however. That ultimate sanction must not, in my view, be overused and it should be adopted only as a last resort. I seek the minister's assurance that that will be the case.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The power is one that the local authorities need and it is up to them to exercise it responsibly. We will monitor the performance of the duties by local authorities. I think that John Scott has perhaps got ahead of himself with his comments.

Amendment 62 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That brings us to the point at which we decided to break.

Presiding Officer's Ruling

David (None, Lothians)

Before we begin question time, I inform members that it has come to light that, because of a mix-up in the issuing of temporary voting cards, five of Alasdair Morgan's votes and all of Alasdair Morrison's were recorded wrongly this morning. I hope that they do not have an identity crisis. I have arranged for the Official Report to record the votes correctly.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what means of redress are available to taxi drivers whose passengers refuse to pay legitimately incurred fares. (S1O-6484)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

My understanding is that to accept a taxi ride without an intention to pay could constitute the common-law offence of fraud and would be a matter for the police to investigate. The fare could also be treated as a civil debt.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I will get to the nub of the matter. Unfortunately, the City of Edinburgh Council has issued a publication for the taxi trade, which states:

"if a driver decided to carry a passenger to a cash point, police station or the original pick up point they may well be guilty of an offence of confining that person against their will".

Will the minister make it plain that, if someone refuses to pay a fare, that is an offence and that taxi drivers would be effecting a citizen's arrest should they decide to lock the taxi doors and take the person to the nearest police station?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I confirm that the ability to make a citizen's arrest is available and that the crime that Margo MacDonald outlined exists. I understand that the City of Edinburgh Council intended to put a notice in the back of taxis stating that non-payment of fares would result in the passenger being locked in the cab and taken to the nearest police station. The police objected to that measure, but both the Crown Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland share the view that the practice that is generally employed by taxi drivers—of taking the passenger to a police station, where the passenger either pays up or is reported—is satisfactory.

The matter is for the local authority. I hope that, if need be, the authority will consult the Crown Office and ACPOS and provide guidance and reassurance to taxi drivers, who often face a difficult job.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support is being given in order to ensure that Castle Tioram will remain an asset to tourism and culture. (S1O-6473)

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

None at present. Castle Tioram is a scheduled monument that is in private ownership and the maintenance of the castle is the responsibility of the owners. The owners were refused scheduled monument consent for the restoration of the castle and ministers accepted the reporter's recommendation, which was also against the granting of scheduled monument consent following a public local inquiry. The owners have lodged an appeal against that decision with the Court of Session. We have received legal advice that it would not be appropriate to comment further on the matter at this time.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given the importance of Castle Tioram to our mercantile history—it was an important centre during the economic era of the lords of the isles—and the risk of significant further collapse of the building, will the minister urge Historic Scotland to work with the owner to ensure the place of Castle Tioram in Scotland's cultural heritage?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

The member will be aware that there are many strong differences of opinion on the future of Castle Tioram, although everyone agrees that the monument is extremely important and that the current situation is extremely difficult. I have discussed the issue with Historic Scotland and tried to get a date for the hearing of the appeal that has been lodged, but we have not been able to ascertain that date. The situation is certainly unsatisfactory, but, after the hearing, we will be able to make progress one way or another.

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

Is the minister aware that, as well as having the support of many people in the local community, the proposals for the restoration of Castle Tioram were supported by Scottish Natural Heritage, Highland Council, the Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society and the grand council of the clan MacDonald? Does Historic Scotland's refusal to grant permission show that it is about as responsive to the people of Scotland as Marie Antoinette was to the French peasantry?

David (None, Lothians)

We must be careful, as the case is sub judice.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

It is indeed sub judice at the moment. I know that the member has strong views on the matter, as many others do. I say in response to him only that an independent reporter also came out against granting scheduled monument consent—Historic Scotland did not make that decision; the reporter did. Ministers acted on the reporter's advice.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of the aquaculture industry and what matters were discussed. (S1O-6468)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The Scottish Executive meets regularly with representatives of the aquaculture industry to discuss a wide range of issues. The last meeting took place on Monday, when the working group, which I chair, discussed the strategic framework for aquaculture.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I understand that the minister plans to publish the framework document in March. Will he confirm that he is looking at two specific areas, namely, a one-stop-shop approach for the industry for making applications and the need to bear down on costs as a result of the incredibly intense competitive pressures that exist, given the nature of salmon farming at the moment?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I confirm that both matters will be the subject of future consideration by the industry, the regulators and all the public bodies that are associated with it. On Monday, the working group agreed that in developing the framework, the issue of a one-stop shop should be revisited in around two years, after the transfer of planning powers to local authorities has been implemented. We are also in the process of developing research into costs to the industry and comparing costs and regulatory and other burdens with those in competitor countries.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Does the minister agree that, in the document in question, the time scales for the revision of locational guidelines are unacceptably long?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The strategic working group considered time scales, to which we are making a number of amendments. The locational guidelines are reviewed approximately every 18 months and have recently been reviewed. In the circumstances, I do not consider an 18-month time scale for further review to be unreasonable.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does the minister recall that last year, the Danes caught 1.5 million tonnes in their pernicious industrial fishery and that a significant part of that catch was for the preparation of food for aquaculture? While I recognise that the feed sustainability study is already under way, will he tell us what progress is being made to develop alternative supplies of food so that white fish in the North sea do not starve and neither do our farmed fish?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

We debated that matter at the most recent meeting of the Transport and the Environment Committee. It is critical that the sustainability of feed stocks for acquaculture expands as we hope it will. The problem with the science to date is that scientists have been unable to replicate the omega oils that make salmon in particular so nutritious. Research and development is under way at a global level to address such problems so that sustainable feed stocks from renewable sources can replace the wild stocks that are currently used.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take to maintain access routes in the light of any concerns of landowners in relation to liability for such routes. (S1O-6494)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

We have always made it clear that the liability of landowners will not increase as a result of part 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, and the bill makes specific provision to that effect. The bill also places a clear duty on local authorities to protect and keep open access routes.

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

I thank the minister for his clear reply. Will he give an undertaking that the access code will give out the clear message that visitors to the countryside are largely responsible for their own safety?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

We would expect Scottish Natural Heritage and the access forum to finalise a draft of the Scottish outdoor access code and issue it for consultation as soon as possible after the bill receives royal assent. I would expect to see such guidance contained in the draft code. Under the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960, it is clear that, in all circumstances, the occupier of land has a duty to take such care as is reasonable so that any person who enters the land should not suffer injury as a consequence of doing so. The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill does not alter that basic duty of care.

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

Is it not the case that walking is one of the main motivators behind tourism in the countryside? Will the minister therefore give a commitment that, in the implementation of the legislation, he will not tolerate any shilly-shallying on the part of recalcitrant landowners or local authorities that are unwilling to exercise their responsibilities?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

On the latter point, where a landowner acts or fails to act with the purpose of preventing or deterring access, a local authority will—as Alasdair Morgan knows—have powers to require remedial action to be taken. If necessary, local authorities can take that action themselves, and ministers will certainly encourage local authorities so to do. The new provisions on access give people a great opportunity to participate in outdoor recreational pursuits. That will be good for individuals, good for the country and good for our tourism potential.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

Will the minister confirm that the issue of landowners' liability was discussed extensively during stage 2 consideration of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill? Does he agree that good landowners have nothing to fear from either that aspect of part 1 of the bill or from any other matter contained in part 1?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Absolutely. Section 5(2) provides that part 1 bill—or its operation—will not affect the duty of care owed by an occupier to any person present on the land. We introduced that provision largely at the instigation of land-owning interests. No reasonable landowner has anything to fear from the legislation.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Some of the problems being alluded to in respect of landowners are exactly those that were foreseen by some members when we discussed the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. Does the minister agree that the best way forward is to encourage local authorities to establish core path networks very quickly? Will the Executive ensure that funding is available to local authorities to progress that work as quickly as possible?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I sincerely hope that Murdo Fraser is not encouraging landowners to take measures to avoid their access duties and obligations. As he knows, we have provided additional resources to local authorities to enable them to extend the core path networks so that more people can enjoy the benefits of the countryside. We will continue to do that in the years and months to come.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with Her Majesty's Government about an Olympic bid and distributing planned events around the United Kingdom. (S1O-6495)

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

The possible bid by London for the 2012 Olympic games was raised at the UK sports cabinet meeting on 8 January. However, the discussions were general and did not focus on whether elements of the games could be dispersed around the country, although I believe that that could be a possibility.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I know that, technically, London is applying, but it is a UK bid. Although Scotland sometimes seems a bit far away from London, during Sydney 2000, the Olympic football tournament was spread around Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne and Canberra. Can the minister assure me that, in the event of London bidding successfully for the 2012 games, the Executive will enter into discussions with the Government and the bid organisers on the distribution of football or other events around the UK and on how to exploit the potential tourist benefits for Scotland? Does she agree that we need to be in on the ground floor in those negotiations?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am hesitant to make commitments for future members of the Scottish Executive, but should the bid be made and be successful, Scotland certainly could bid for elements of the competition. As Ian Jenkins suggests, football would certainly be one such event as it could be dispersed around the country to utilise our many excellent stadia. We could also consider the provision of training facilities. There are certainly possibilities for Scotland to be involved, although in the unlikely event of Scotland being an independent country by 2012, we might have less success in making such a bid.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The London bid, if it goes ahead, will of course be a British bid. Given that circumstance and the fact that the majority of members of the Parliament believe in Britain, does the minister agree that facilities such as the rowing centre in Strathclyde park, football stadia and the basketball stadium at Braehead would offer great opportunities to spread involvement to the rest of Britain? Does she also agree that we should take every opportunity to improve our communications with and our role in the bid?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

At the moment, the bid is predominantly the responsibility of Westminster, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Greater London Authority, as London would be the main beneficiary of the Olympic games. However, as members know, we have some excellent facilities in Scotland, and I believe that Scotland should be looking to maximise the benefits to the Scottish economy of the dispersal of a number of the events throughout the UK.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will promote healthy living in schools. (S1O-6478)

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

Healthy eating and physical activity are two main strands of the Executive's new approach to health improvement. The nutritional standards for school meals, which were announced on 19 February, aim to promote healthy eating. We want every school to become a health-promoting school by 2007.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I welcome the moves to improve nutritional standards in school meals for all our children. However, there are concerns about ensuring that children from the poorest backgrounds take-up their entitlements and eat the meals. What can be done to ensure that that becomes a reality for all children in Scotland?

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

I recognise the needs of children and young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds and from low-income families. It is important that we ensure that those who are entitled to free school meals are able to take up the opportunity without the fear of stigma. We have weighted the distribution of the money that is given to local authorities to ensure that the authorities with the highest rate of free school meal entitlement have an amount of money that will enable them to organise some campaigning on take-up.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I heard what the minister said about physical activity. Does she agree that the provision throughout Scotland of swimming as part of the curriculum in primary schools would be an enormous step towards healthy living? If so, can she explain why it has taken nearly two years to complete the audit of swimming provision that was first announced by her colleague, Nicol Stephen, in May 2001?

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

The member will be aware not only that Nicol Stephen has been examining the issue over a period of time, but that he answered a question on the subject in the chamber last week. He made it clear that he is continuing to take action on the matter.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Is the minister aware of the evidence that was given to the Parliament by the Child Poverty Action Group as part of the free school meals campaign, which illustrated that 100,000 children in Scotland live in families of the working poor and are, therefore, excluded from free school meals? Does she agree that the take-up of free school meals could easily be improved by allowing the working families tax credit to be a qualification for free school meals and that that is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament? Will she make the decision to increase the number of children who qualify for free school meals by making the working families tax credit a gateway to free school meals?

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

If Mr Sheridan was keeping up to date with changes in the benefits system, he would know that changes are due to be made in relation to the children's tax credits, which will have an impact on the qualification level for free school meals.

Let us be clear about what we have done. We are leading the way in introducing nutritional standards to ensure that every meal is a quality meal for young people in schools. We are also subsidising every school meal, targeting the young people who need it most with a free meal and providing free fruit for primary 1 and primary 2. Those are measures that, as a socialist, Mr Sheridan should welcome.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what factors will be taken into account in forthcoming decisions on the relocation of staff and offices of executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies. (S1O-6460)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Relocation decisions are based on a range of factors. Those include costs, the quality and efficiency of service, economic factors such as unemployment and other indicators of deprivation, the availability and suitability of staff, transport issues, environmental considerations, the position of staff and the individual requirements of the organisation concerned.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the minister accept the fact that, as yet, the relocation programme has not made a significant impact in ensuring that more of Scotland's communities share in the economic and social benefits? Glasgow has almost 20 civil service jobs per thousand and Edinburgh has 28 per thousand, while Tayside has only 9 per thousand. Does he agree that distributing civil service jobs away from the central belt and the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh to cities such as Dundee, for example, would save the country hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money every year in the cost of office space and car parking? Has the Executive any plans to conduct a full cost-benefit analysis of the possible savings to be made in future relocations to ensure that they secure value for money?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The Executive is doing that. Six hundred posts have been, or are planned to be, transferred out of Edinburgh. The relocations include the good work that Kate Maclean has done in Dundee with regard to the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. Work has been done elsewhere in the country on moving jobs out of Edinburgh. Fifteen Executive organisations are under review for relocation. The Executive is focused on the issue of relocation, which, unlike the Scottish National Party's policy of dislocation, is a successful policy. Unlike the SNP, we believe that Scotland should benefit from the policy of relocation.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Given that it might be the natural wish of many of the employees of the relevant bodies and agencies to be as far away from here as possible, and that Inverclyde compares favourably with Dundee in relation to fresh sea air and panoramic views, and having regard to job losses that the Inverclyde area has suffered, will the minister confirm that he will seriously consider, when allocating or relocating jobs, the parts of Scotland that merit specific attention?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

All parts of Scotland are under consideration, for different and valid reasons. For example, the Executive has changed its policy on the relocation of small units because a small, strategic investment by the Executive in remote rural communities can make a big impact. That is why the Executive continues to develop its relocation policy, which is delivering for all Scotland and which will be a success. As I said, 15 organisations are under review and we hope to report on those soon.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Is the minister aware of the partnership approach that is being adopted by the Ayrshire economic forum in its bid for Common Services Agency jobs? When will a decision be made on the CSA relocation?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I congratulate Irene Oldfather on her hard constituency work on relocation issues. I get copies of the Irvine Times and The Irvine Herald and Kilwinning Chronicle , and I know of the work that is being done on relocation in the areas that those newspapers serve. As I said, 15 organisations are being considered. My recollection is that the decision on the CSA relocation will be announced before the end of March this year.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

When will the Executive announce the relocation out of Edinburgh of Scottish Natural Heritage? The decision on that has been long delayed, even according to the Executive's timetable. Does the minister agree that, according to the criteria that he just detailed, there could be no better location for SNH than Battleby, just north of Perth?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Other people have advised me of better locations. It is clear that the Executive must decide on the best location based on the criteria that I indicated. However, the key fact is that we have a real, big commitment to relocation. We have relocated 650 posts and 15 organisations are under review. I suggest that that shows that the Executive is strongly committed to ensuring that all Scotland benefits from our relocation policy.