Scottish Parliament, 25 September 2003

385 contributions from 76 members. The official report.

Introduction

European Constitution

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-381, in the name of Phil Gallie, on the European constitution. There are two amendments to the motion.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Although I am tempted to argue the case against the United Kingdom joining the common European currency based on the overall disadvantage to Scotland and the UK, I will refrain on this occasion.

The UK Government is already committed to a referendum on joining the euro, but it has postponed it until "the time is right". The Swedish people have demonstrated that euro entry is not inevitable. That outcome and Gordon Brown's failure to take us even one step along the way to meeting his financial criteria for substituting the euro for the pound kick the euro into touch for the foreseeable future.

I am pleased that that leads us to debate the imminent and greater threat that we will face if the UK Government commits us to the draft European constitution, as submitted to the European Council in Thessolonika on 20 June. The draft constitution for Europe would undermine totally the long-held aspirations of people in the chamber who fought for the creation of a Scottish Parliament. It represents a major step away from the devolutionary ideals on which the Scottish Parliament is founded.

We welcome the accession of the 10 new European Union member states in June next year and we accept the need for a convention to establish an adjustment of procedures to take account of the effects of increased membership. However, we did not and do not support an outcome that removes our national sovereignty.

When Peter Hain was the UK Minister for Europe, he claimed that the draft constitution was nothing more than a tidying-up exercise. What trust can we have in the words of Peter Hain or his Government, bearing in mind the expositions that have been given at the Hutton inquiry?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I am pleased that the member recognises how the country was misled over weapons of mass destruction. Does he agree that he and his party were wrong to be the cheerleaders of that intervention?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I concede fully that I was misled by the Prime Minister. I believed that no Prime Minister of the United Kingdom would attempt to put in front of us the information that he did. I concede that I was wrong, and I make no apologies. I was naive; I believed that a Prime Minister of the UK would rise above such a situation.

Let us not kid ourselves: the proposed constitution would bring about a major change that would expand the existing extensive powers of the European Union, in particular the powers of the unelected Commission. A considerable loss of sovereignty in a range of areas would follow, in which I am sure the Scottish Executive will take an interest when it finds in future that its wings are clipped.

Recently, even Peter Hain has been forced to change his view. The Prime Minister, perhaps recognising that he could not hide away the contents of the draft constitution, has told him that signing up to the constitution is fundamental to Britain's and Scotland's future in Europe. Having drawn that conclusion, the Government has hastily abandoned all but a few of the amendments that it sought and is currently blotting out the red lines that it claimed it would not cross.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Mr Gallie does not make it clear whether the Conservative and Unionist Party is against the proposed draft constitution for Europe or against any written constitution for Europe. If the answer is the latter, does he not recognise that a constitution would limit the powers of Europe?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We are not against or for the draft constitution; we are for putting the draft constitution to the people of the United Kingdom and Scotland so that they can make a judgment. The debate is not about the merits of the draft constitution; it is about the fact that it will affect us all.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Will the member take an intervention?

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the member take an intervention?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I must continue for a moment or two, but I will give way to Irene Oldfather shortly.

Last month in our committee rooms, the Italian ambassador presented his country's objectives for its presidency, which is already in mid-term. At the top of his country's list of objectives is acceptance of the draft constitution and what Italy sees as a new treaty of Rome by the end of 2003. In answer to a question that I put to him, the ambassador said that, in his view, the draft constitution represented the "birth of a state". I put it to the chamber that his time scale for the creation of a new state, which allows less than six months for the consideration of a fundamental change to national Governments, is impractical and wrong, particularly if such a fundamental change has not been put to the people.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Will Mr Gallie explain why so many Tories voted against a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, which extended EU citizenship, why they were not in favour of a referendum on the 1986 Single European Act, which was the first treaty to mention economic and monetary union, and why they were not in favour of a referendum on the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997? Can he explain why the Tories are in favour of a referendum now?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Quite easily. It was not intended that the Single European Act should extend to our domestic policies. [ Interruption. ] It was not. It is on record that ministers did not accept that that should happen, although they recognised the value of the provisions on trade. We could say that the people were conned about the Single European Act. On Maastricht, there was a pull-back element.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Apologise.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

What I will apologise for is the fact that when Ted Heath took us into the Common Market, he did not explain that he was seeking not just a common market but a unified state of Europe. He eventually admitted it, and that is something that Conservatives have around our necks. However, I do not apologise for our actions in relation to either the Single European Act or the Maastricht treaty, which was a pull-back.

When we are considering the requirement for a referendum on such a fundamental change, we must examine what other Governments are doing. Denmark, Ireland, Spain and Luxembourg will hold referendums on the constitution. Portugal, Italy, France and Holland have indicated an intention to do so. Austria's position is sub judice. The United Kingdom Government is alone in saying that it will not hold a referendum, although I suspect that the Swedish Government might join it in that position shortly.

The motion calls for the Scottish Executive to register the Parliament's concerns with the UK Government if it presses ahead without consulting the Scottish people. The wording calls for action from the Scottish Executive, which is precisely in line with the wording of the Liberal Democrat amendment on Dungavel—another reserved matter—which the Executive supported. The terms of the motion are in line with the policies that are advocated by the Scottish National Party as well as by Charles Kennedy and Menzies Campbell, who—I am sure—will take a dim view of being stabbed in the back by Liberal MSPs if their policy is rejected in this chamber. However, the signs are not good. Tavish Scott's amendment might reflect Liberal opinion on Europe, but it avoids the principal purpose of this debate—the referendum issue. Do the Liberals want a referendum or do they not? If they do not, why do they have a different view from that of their party's leaders elsewhere?

The motion is neither pro-Europe nor anti-Europe. The discussion on the merits of the arguments for and against the introduction of a constitution that will take precedence over Scottish law and constitutional practice that has evolved over centuries will occur in the lead-up to a referendum.

Tony Blair has stated that the Government can win the consent of the British people in accepting the amended draft constitution. I ask no more than that the Scottish Executive advance the view of the Scottish Parliament that he should seek that consent.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that any proposed major constitutional change affecting the governance of our country should be subject to a national referendum; believes that the proposed constitutional treaty for the European Union represents such a major change and accordingly should be the subject of such a referendum, and calls on the Scottish Executive to convey the Parliament's concerns on this issue to Her Majesty's Government.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

It is a dozen sitting days since we last debated Europe in Parliament, and in this Tory-initiated debate, we have heard that the Tories are now the self-appointed naive party. They said that the people were conned. Of course, the Tories were the Government when the people were conned.

This debate on a Conservative motion, is not about the principle of referendums. It is not about whether the convention on the future of Europe proposals are good or bad for Scotland. The debate is not even about Scotland's constitutional position. It is about the Tories' abhorrence of all things European, which Mr Gallie demonstrated in abundance. The Eurosceptics—the extreme right wing of British and Scottish politics—have taken over the Conservatives, and I accept Mr Gallie's leading role as an extreme right-wing Eurosceptic.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will Tavish Scott give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No, I will give way to Mr Gallie's Euroscepticism in a few moments.

It might be possible to have some regard for the Tory position were it not for the lessons of recent political history. I know that Mr Gallie was a disciple of Mrs Thatcher. She did not provide the people of Britain with a referendum on the Single European Act—which was not, as Mr Gallie tried to suggest, a matter that had no implications for domestic British law; it had profound implications for the economy of this country. That was well understood at the time, and the act was fully debated in the House of Commons. I advise Mr Gallie to revisit Hansard to check the speeches that were made at the time. To suggest—as he has done this morning—that the act had no implications is bizarre. It had profound implications and the Tory Government of the day did not put the matter to the people of this country. Nor did it give people a vote on the Maastricht treaty or the Treaty of Amsterdam.

Today's motion has nothing to do with the principle of giving the people of this country a vote. Today's Tory motion is a mechanism to display the naked anti-Europeanism that is modern Conservatism.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Did Tavish Scott listen to what I said? He obviously prepared his speech before I spoke. At no time did I say whether I was for or against the draft constitution. I argued for a referendum. Why does he not support the Liberal Democrats' policy on holding a referendum?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I did listen to Mr Gallie's speech, and that is what I have just reflected on. His naked anti-Europeanism came through in bile, fury and all the old words such as sovereignty and federalism—all the feelings that the Tories trot out.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Has Tavish Scott read the "Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe"?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I have read it. Let me deal with the substantive issues on which the Executive is taking action. I have no difficulty with holding a referendum on the treaty. However, this is not the place in which to debate such matters, as they will be decided at Westminster. Mr Gallie was once an MP there. If he was so concerned about the matter, he have joined the rest of his Eurosceptic friends at Westminster to argue for a referendum—which the Tories previously opposed.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Implementation of some 70 per cent of the directives from the European Union is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. Therefore, I would have thought that the governance of Europe would be a matter of considerable interest to us. Can Tavish Scott tell us why the views of the Scottish Parliament on asylum are to be conveyed by the Scottish Executive to Her Majesty's Government but not our views on Europe?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I would have much more regard for the position of Mr McLetchie and the Conservatives if their motion addressed those issues—which are serious issues facing the Executive and Scotland. However, today's motion addresses the issue of a referendum that the Tories do not seem to have any views on. They do not have any views on the intergovernmental conference, as Mr Gallie just said—I presume that that is the Conservative position. They have no thoughts on how to make progress on the issue. The Conservatives' position has nothing to do with the issues that we need to discuss in this chamber, such as the IGC and its importance for Scotland, but has everything to do with getting across their naked anti-Europeanism in all matters.

Yes, the EU needs reform. The "Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe", which has been produced by the convention on the future of Europe, should be welcomed by all members. The text is positive. That is not just my opinion, but the opinion expressed by Neil MacCormack when he spoke at a recent meeting of the European members information liaison exchange network, which was chaired by Andy Kerr, the Minister for Finance and Public Services. The draft treaty forms the basis for a discussion at the forthcoming IGC, which will take the final decisions. The test of the IGC's progress will be whether the EU institutions become more transparent, more accountable, more effective and more efficient.

In the few moments that I have left, I will address the amendment in the name of Mr Stevenson, which Mrs Ewing will move. A different approach is advocated by those who argue that the convention's proposals on fisheries give the EU exclusive competence over fisheries. The Executive's legal advice is that the text does not change the position. Nevertheless, I understand and share the broader concern. That is why I repeat what I said in Parliament on 11 June:

"If a proposal emerged for any extension to EU competence, the Executive and the UK would oppose it vigorously."—[Official Report, 12 June 2003; c 653.]

I also reiterate the assurances that were given by the First Minister on 28 May. He said that both the Scottish Executive and the UK Government remain firmly opposed to any further extension of European competence in the area of fisheries. I accept the principle of Mr Stevenson's amendment—that if any proposed change to the constitution of the EU were to reserve power over fishing to the sole competence of the EU, that would be incompatible with Scotland's interests.

Hugo Young died of cancer on Monday. He was a distinguished journalist of immense abilities. He was also, in the beginning, a Euro-agnostic. He wrote a seminal tome entitled "This Blessed Plot: Britain and Europe from Churchill to Blair". I conclude with one of Hugo Young's observations on Europe, which he delivered on 2 January 1999:

"What is so strange about Britain - so particular, so fearful, so other-worldly - that she should decide to withhold her unique wisdom from the [European] enterprise?"

He concluded:

"In the 21st century, it will be exciting to escape from history into geography: from the prison of the past into a future that permits us at last the luxury of having it both ways: British and European."

I commend that sentiment to Parliament and ask members to reject the Tory motion and to support the Executive's positive approach to European engagement.

I move amendment S2M-381.3, to leave out from first "believes" to end and insert:

"recognises the many benefits that the European Union has delivered for Europe and Scotland; welcomes the draft constitutional treaty presented to the European Council by the Convention on the Future of Europe as an important step towards making the EU more effective, efficient, easier to understand, democratic, transparent and accountable; welcomes the reference in the draft treaty to subsidiarity and to the role of devolved parliaments in nations and regions, and welcomes the role that the Scottish Executive, in conjunction with Her Majesty's Government, has had in securing these references."

09: 47

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

It is rather difficult for me to pretend to be Stewart Stevenson, but I rise to move his amendment, which I support. Unfortunately for members, I do not have my colleague's wide variety of life experience, so I will address the specific issues of the debate.

Phil Gallie opened the debate. In a couple of minutes of boredom last night I virtually wrote his speech for him—I have heard it so many times. It is the single, transferable speech that the Conservatives make in this context, usually through Phil Gallie.

I very much welcome what Tavish Scott just said in connection with article 12.1 of the draft constitution, relating to marine biology and fisheries. I hope that that serious matter will be taken up by the Parliament, as we have a responsibility towards our fishing industry.

Although I welcome the debate—David McLetchie rightly noted how important the European dimension is to the Scottish Parliament—I must say that the Conservatives' allocating slightly over an hour to a debate on huge issues such as the euro and the constitution of Europe is, in fact, an insult to the rest of us in the Parliament who take such issues seriously. The SNP has dedicated at least four days of its Opposition debating time to European issues. That may not have been universally popular in the chamber, but we have addressed the issues, which deserve much more time.

The Conservatives are consistent in their attitude towards Europe. When they were in power, they sold us out. In 1972, the Scottish fishermen were described by Prime Minister Heath as dispensable. Then came the Single European Act, which was—as Irene Oldfather pointed out—one of the most significant pieces of legislation to emerge from Europe, and which was accepted by the Conservative Government.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will Margaret Ewing give way?

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I have only four minutes.

The Conservatives sell out our interests as they did during the signing of the Fontainebleau agreement, when the handbag was used. That has caused many problems, as those of us who are interested in regional aid know.

This is all populism. When the Conservative party goes into Opposition, it is a totally different matter: then the Tories become the great defenders of national sovereignty. I do not remember Phil Gallie fighting for a Scottish Parliament or Conservative members making positive comments about the concept of a Scottish Parliament. They opposed it and they are here only because of proportional representation, which they also opposed. The Conservatives are not so much Eurosceptics as Euroatheists. Some of their most effective politicians—not just in the Scottish Parliament, but in Westminster and Europe—are derided when they take a strong pro-European stance.

I will give one example of the hypocrisy of the Conservative attitude. On Tuesday 23 September, Mr Brocklebank said in The Herald that we must consider

"the failed policies of the administrations at Westminster and Holyrood, especially in relation to the Common Fisheries Policy."

Who introduced the common fisheries policy but the Conservative party? Suddenly, on 23 September 2003, the Conservatives realise exactly what they have done. Struan Stevenson, for whom I have a high personal regard, did not exactly cover himself in glory when he took on a report of the European Parliament Committee on Fisheries.

The institutions of Europe must be examined seriously. Seven of the 10 accession states have a population that is the same size as Scotland's or smaller. They will have permanent representation on the Council of Ministers, but Scotland will not. We need to have strong, independent voices fighting for the interests of Scotland in Europe—not walking around the corridors and lurking on couches outside the meeting rooms. This Parliament must exercise its muscles, instead of being seen as a supine group of couch potatoes.

There is great potential in Europe. I do not regard it as perfect and we must be critical, but we should have a positive attitude. Europe is the place where business, employment and everything else lie for us.

I move amendment S2M-381.1, to leave out from "affecting" to end and insert:

"of the constitution of the EU which seeks to reserve power over fishing to the sole competence of the EU is incompatible with Scotland's interests."

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Most of us agree that there is a basic hypocrisy in the Conservative position. There is no point in burying our heads in the sand. If we accept the principle of enlargement—and this morning the Conservatives have told us that they do—we must accept the principle of reform. The Conservatives want a referendum, but they have never held one on a European treaty.

I begin by saying a few words about the process that led up to the draft constitution. Given the motion that the Conservatives have lodged, it is important to put that on record. The Scottish Parliament and its European Committee have been discussing the future of Europe for approximately three years. Almost a year ago today, the committee held an open session in the chamber with the public and United Kingdom convention representatives. The basic question that the conference tried to address was, "What is Europe for, and how can it be reformed to ensure that, post enlargement, we have more democracy, transparency and accountability and that we encourage citizen engagement?" In the four or five minutes that have been allocated to me, I do not have time to cover the entire deliberations of the committee. Suffice it to say that, based on months of evidence taking, debates in the Parliament and consultation with the public, the European Committee made a direct submission to the convention. It also held a private meeting with the UK Government representative on the convention, Peter Hain—at which the Conservatives were represented—and circulated its views to UK convention representatives. Ninety per cent of the committee's views, which were endorsed by the Parliament, found their way into the UK submission to the convention; therefore, many were included in the draft constitution. I assume that through the IGC process, the Government will continue to articulate and negotiate those views. Perhaps the minister can assure us of that in his summing up.

When he visited the Scottish Parliament, the President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, said of the European Committee's work in this area:

"I would like to pay particular tribute to the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament for its active engagement on the work of the Convention. You have been at the forefront in terms of bringing forward ideas and proposals."

The point is that there has never been more consultation on a treaty revision since the treaty of Rome. The Scottish Parliament, the European Committee and the Executive have played a full role in that consultation. It is disingenuous of the Conservatives, who did not consult on the Single European Act, the Treaty of Amsterdam or the Maastricht treaty, to ask for a referendum on the draft constitution.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Does the member agree that the consultation that has taken place has been at a political level, rather than at the level of the people? Given the increasing disengagement of the population at large from the political process, is it not the case that very few ordinary people have been engaged in the consultation?

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

If Mr Sheridan had listened carefully to what I said, he would have heard that there was public engagement with civic Scotland in the chamber. Young people from schools came along and presented ideas; 129 people came to the chamber. If that is not public engagement, I do not know what is. The event was designed to address the point that Mr Sheridan has made.

Europe is on our doorstep. It is not a wish, an aspiration, an idea, a dream or—if one is Phil Gallie—even a nightmare, and it will not go away. Europe is a reality. We must move forward from that reality to create opportunities for our citizens—an issue to which the first part of Tavish Scott's amendment refers.

Looking to the future, beyond constitutional change, I believe that Europe offers potential. In the past, during 18 years of Conservative Government, Europe has been a tremendous force for social change. If in the future it presents opportunities, we should be there to grasp them. We can do so if we are committed to the vision of a prosperous, peaceful Europe. That is what people told us they wanted from the European Union when we asked them in the chamber what Europe was for. We want jobs for our people, communities free from the scourge of unemployment and a European society founded on social justice, in which each can achieve to the best of their ability, regardless of race, colour or creed.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

I am in the last minute of my speech.

Our choice is between integration, as proposed by the partnership parties, or isolation, as proposed by the Conservatives—between moving forward and remaining anchored in the past. Working in partnership with our UK and European neighbours, Scotland can have the best of both worlds. Fulfilling our potential as a key player in the new Europe of the 21st century, we can leave a legacy of peace and prosperity to our children and our children's children. I hope that today we will focus on those positive issues, extend the warm hand of friendship to the accession countries, many of which have set up offices in Scotland, and say to them, "Welcome to the European Union. We in Scotland are pleased to see you. Your long ice age is over. We want to work in partnership with you." I hope that we will send out that message from the chamber today.

I support Tavish Scott's amendment.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

As members know, we are very tight for time. Speeches will have to be restricted to four minutes, plus a little time for interventions. One speaking slot is still available. Once Mr Sheridan and Mr Ballard have discussed how they wish to divide that up, they should let the clerks know.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Today I want to draw attention to the practical problems that EU integration is bringing to our food production industry. I declare an interest as chairman of the Scottish Association of Farmers Markets and as a farmer.

In particular, I want to deal with the problems faced by small butchers and, further up the food chain, food producers. I start by addressing one of the problems facing the meat trade: the confusion of butchers as the 1 October deadline for the implementation of EU legislation approaches. In the past, local butchers disposed of waste products in landfill, but from 1 October new EU directives and regulations will require all carcase waste to be rendered, incinerated or composted. The Scottish Federation of Meat Traders Association estimates that the new regime will cost small butchers' shops about £7,500 annually. That will affect butchers not only in my constituency but throughout Scotland. Consumers will not be any better off, but many local butchers that are already on the knife edge of viability will be unable to stand the additional cost and might go out of business. That is all driven by needless EU regulation.

At the beginning of the food chain, farmers are facing a similar problem with the disposal of fallen stock, as Tavish Scott will know. An implementation date of 1 October looms, with no scheme in place in Scotland. The blame for the lack of an appropriate scheme to pick up fallen stock must be laid firmly at the feet of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A piece of EU legislation that is greatly exciting sheep farmers at the moment is the proposed implementation of an EU-wide sheep-tagging scheme, which George Lyon will know about. The proposals as they stand are unworkable. The record-keeping involved for individual sheep tagging and movement recording will be so complicated that farmers and their staff will be unable to carry out the recording as well as farm.

Those are examples of current or proposed pieces of EU legislation that are likely to destroy or damage parts of the food production industry. They will not benefit consumers in any way whatever, but will export jobs and services to other parts of the world, where, ironically, such constraints will not apply.

Those examples affect the industry that I come from, but they are indicative of the burden of red tape and bureaucracy that industries throughout Scotland and the UK have to deal with constantly. They are classic examples of how additional cost burdens caused by European legislation reduce the viability of business and are indicative of the malaise that is keeping the powerhouses of the European economy, namely France and Germany, in the doldrums. They are manifestations of creeping and centralising government and diktats that sap the will to succeed of small businessmen throughout the country. They are examples of the hundreds and thousands of needless pieces of EU legislation.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member give way?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I am just finishing.

They are reasons why we must not rush headlong into further European integration and why there is a need for a referendum on the EU constitution. They are the reasons why I urge members to support Phil Gallie's motion.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

This debate was trailed in the past week as being about the euro and the governance of Europe, but we have not heard a single word from the Tories about the euro.

In the past week, Murdo Fraser has lodged a motion about the Swedish experience. I am just back from Sweden, having gone to observe the euro referendum. I pay tribute to Anna Lindh, whom I met the week before she was murdered so dreadfully. She will be a grave loss to every pro-European throughout the world. I am sure that she was destined to be a leader of the Swedish people and it is very sad that she is no longer with us.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The member said that Anna Lindh will be a loss to every pro-European. Surely in the world of politics, anybody who takes a conscientious stand should be missed by every politician.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I accept that totally. I do not demur from that point.

Less than a year ago, the opinion polls in Sweden showed that 70 per cent of the Swedish people were in favour of the euro. Murdo Fraser has made much play of the part that the media played in the referendum. Contrary to what the Tories are saying, the media did not concentrate on issues around the euro. In fact, they concentrated on the splits in the Social Democratic Party, the Government team and the trade unions. The people did not really have a chance to hear what the issues were and did not understand—

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

No. I do not have time just now.

There is an interesting parallel in this morning's debate with the situation in Fife Council, where the Tories make common cause with the communists on these issues. As always with the underlying issue of the virtues or otherwise of euro membership, opinion is divided.

While there is much sound and fury over any future referendum on the euro and much coverage in the media, the British are still the least well-informed, by their own reckoning, of any of the citizens of EU member countries. There is little systematic, structured or objective information available to policy makers and the citizenry, and there is no real forum for people's views to be aired. There is little open debate that is not led by either the protagonists or the antagonists—there are no objective and trusted middlemen leading the debate. Apart from the one that Irene Oldfather mentioned, we have declined to set up any forum for consultation and deliberation or for the public to expose the issues surrounding the decision whether to enter the single European currency. Instead we rely on the testimony of expert witnesses including economists, pundits, trade union leaders, journalists and pollsters. We would do well to reflect on the difference between a referendum and an opinion poll. Polls are on-going—here today, gone tomorrow—and they are not binding. When an interviewer asks about our opinions, attitudes, values, behaviour or knowledge, what we say is not binding.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If we are so ill-informed about European issues, as the member claims, does she agree that the best way in which to bring those issues out so that they can be properly debated is to have a referendum?

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Her Majesty's Government is committed to having a referendum on the euro. There is no question about that and it is not at issue. I will move on quickly.

The answer to the question whether we should join the euro depends on which way we look. If we look back in time, it is obvious that the US dollar has been of unique importance to the United Kingdom economy. With the demise of sterling under the burden of financing the second world war, the dollar became the world's principal trading and reserve currency. Commodities became priced and traded in dollars and the Bretton Woods arrangements confirmed the global supremacy of the dollar. Given the UK economy's dependence on foreign trade, managing the relationship between sterling and the dollar has been critical to successive British Governments over the years.

We need to look forward not just 10 or 20 years but 50 or 100 years and to consider two scenarios. The first is one in which the UK remains outside the euro. In those circumstances, the significance of the euro to the UK economy is likely to grow from its lowish base at present. In time, the euro's significance may come to rival that of the dollar. There is likely to be a delicate balancing act between the two. If sterling does not become part of the euro, the answer to the issues raised in the motion is simple. The dollar will undoubtedly remain the most significant currency outside the euroland economy, as it is already. I and my colleagues in the Government hope that we will become part of the euro. We must subscribe to the economic tests of Gordon Brown, my colleague at Westminster.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I begin by expressing gratitude to the Executive, on behalf of the SNP, for supporting what our amendment says about fishing. The future of the fishing industry matters to the whole of Scotland, not just to the fishing communities that are directly affected. Any further threat to the industry must be resisted at all costs, irrespective of the source of the threat.

I will try to widen out this debate on the future of Europe because I believe that there is a major problem inside the European Union. I say that as someone who firmly believes that Scotland's future lies inside the European Union, ideally as an independent member state. There is undoubtedly a huge gulf between those who run the European Union and the people of the European Union. That was exemplified in the Swedish referendum last week. Despite what Helen Eadie said, the yes campaign was very well funded. It was supported by all the leading business organisations and all the—

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

rose—

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Let me finish. I will give way to Helen Eadie in a moment.

The yes campaign was supported by all the trade unions and all the main political parties. Despite the universal support of the political and economic establishment, the people of Sweden refused to accept the euro. That was not just a judgment on the euro. There is a general feeling throughout the European Union that those who are driving towards centralisation and driving through policies that appear alien, if not downright daft, are creating conditions in which people become increasingly sceptical or sometimes even hostile to the whole concept of the European Union.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Alex Neil is distorting the facts. The fact is that there was equal funding for all political parties in the euro debate in Sweden. Money went to all the political parties from the lottery, trade unions, party memberships and the state. In fact, the media did not play a part in educating the people on the issues, and instead focused on the splits within all the political parties, particularly those in the Social Democratic Party.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The fact is that although the whole Swedish establishment was in favour of the euro and campaigned vigorously in favour of it, the people told it to get lost. As one Eurocrat observed last week, every time there has been a referendum in any country in the European Union, the result has been a very narrow yes vote or, as has been the case on most occasions, a no vote. The problem is not confined to Sweden or Scotland; it is a universal problem in the European Union.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Will the member give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Unfortunately, I do not have time.

Politicians—particularly in the European Commission and elsewhere in Europe—had better listen to the people because, if we do not, they will turn against the whole concept of the European Union and its positive aspects.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the member give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I do not have time.

That is why a referendum is absolutely essential. Every time we take a major step forward in respect of the European Union—or every time we take a major step, whether one regards it as a step forward or not—we must take the people with us. If we do not, the people will lose interest.

I have some points to make on the euro, although unfortunately, because of the time, I will not be able to develop them in the way I would like. Irrespective of one's position on the euro, the one thing that I would like the Executive to have the courage to do is to undertake an assessment of the impact of UK membership of the euro on the Scottish economy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has published 28 papers on the euro, but the issues that are raised in the paper on the housing market, for example, relate to the market in the south-east of England and are entirely different from the issues facing the housing market in Scotland. We should have an informed debate when we come to the euro referendum, whenever it takes place. Whether one is on the yes side or on the no side, we should at least have an informed debate about the impact on the Scottish economy.

It is a great pity that this debate is curtailed to one hour. I hope that we will have a much more wide-ranging debate on the future of Europe in the not-too-distant future. However, the main message has to be "Take the people with us", because if we do not we will sow the seeds of the destruction of the European Union in years to come.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I am grateful to the Greens and the SSP for helping with the management of this debate. The next speaker is Mr Ballard.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, although I am disappointed that it appears to be impossible for the third and fourth-largest political parties to make a full contribution to the debate. [ Interruption. ] I mean the third and fourth-largest Opposition parties. [ Interruption. ] Could members let me speak, please?

The UK Government's line has been that there should not be a referendum on the convention, because it is a tidying-up exercise. I emphasise the point that has already been made: it is not a tidying-up exercise.

I refer to three articles of the draft constitution in particular. Article 10, on European Union law, states:

"The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union's Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States."

That is new. It was not in previous treaties. Article 6, on the legal personality, states:

"The Union shall have legal personality."

Article 8, on citizenship of the European Union, states:

"Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship; it shall not replace it."

The key point is that a new citizenship is being introduced.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Does Mark Ballard accept that under articles 1 and 9 of the treaty, the member states confer competences on the European Union, therefore conferral goes from the member states to the European Union, not vice versa?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

The fundamental question is whether we are we moving towards a European superstate—a federal Europe—or whether we are staying at the level of a Europe of nations. The problem with the constitution is that that is not clear. Irene Oldfather is correct that articles appear to argue in terms of conferral, and there is fairly strong emphasis on subsidiarity, but there is a great deal in the constitution that hands additional powers to the Council of Ministers. The fundamental problem with the constitution is that it is a muddle and is not clear.

Some powers will be exclusive competences of the European Union and some will be shared between the European Union and the member states. That is a poor way to define a constitution. Can members imagine a situation where powers were shared between this Parliament and the Westminster Parliament? Can members imagine a situation where the Scotland Act 1998 stated that responsibility for asylum, for example, was to be shared between this Parliament and the Westminster Parliament? Can members imagine the mess and muddle that that would cause? That is the central problem with the constitution—it lacks a clear vision. It does not actually help the important debate about whether we go for a single, federal European super-state.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member give way?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member give way?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No. The member is in his last minute. Everyone knows that speeches are limited to four minutes, and three minutes and 40 seconds is into the last minute.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I would have taken those interventions. I am sorry.

For the reasons I have outlined, I believe that the constitution is bad and unclear. There is an important debate to be had about the future direction that we want for the European Union. As it stands, the constitution does not help us. That is why we need to hold a proper debate, through a referendum and the discussions that will be engendered by it, on where we stand and on the wider issues, which are not clarified by the constitution.

In Sweden, it was the Swedish Green Party and the Left Party, the sister party of the SSP, that led the campaign against the constitution.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You are beyond four minutes—you are at four minutes and 20-odd seconds. Wind up, please.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Across Europe, from all sides of the political spectrum, there is wide opposition to the constitution and to the European Union, which lacks transparency and the ability to act in the interests of the people, and which continues to act in a closed, centralised and opaque fashion. That is why I support Phil Gallie's motion.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

The Conservative motion is nothing if not topical. The European Parliament yesterday endorsed the outcome of the European convention and the convening of an intergovernmental conference. The debate, however, is slightly inconsistent with the message given by David McLetchie—who, unfortunately, has left the chamber—on Monday, when he said that the electorate was put off by the Parliament constantly debating the constitution of Scotland. So instead, we debate, under a Conservative motion, the constitution of Europe. It gives us another opportunity to fill more pages of the Official Report with speeches on the convention, and to debate a motion that the Westminster Parliament debated last week.

I can only repeat the position that I and Liberal Democrat colleagues have expressed on a number of occasions in the past, in both the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Does the member acknowledge that Mr McLetchie's concern arises from his involvement in the legal scene? Does he accept that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that is contained within the constitution will have a major undermining effect on Scottish law? Is that not justification for any member to raise the issue?

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

The legal argument was put forward by the member's learned colleague Mr Ancram in the debate at Westminster. I refer him to Hansard for that.

I believe that it is in the long-term interests of Scotland and the United Kingdom to be active players at the heart of Europe. Given the enlargement of the EU and the breadth of the organisation, it will be more important than ever that Scotland and the UK play their part in building coalitions, defining the strategy and direction of the EU and ensuring that we exploit its benefits. It is in that regard that I support the Executive's motion.

My constituency benefits from the investment of European structural funds. That is a live issue, given the enlargement of the EU and the possibility that such funds will cease in the future. I was more than a little disappointed when the SNP and the Conservatives chose to attack me in the media for securing a members' business debate on that subject; that was shameful.

We are living in an increasingly interdependent world—pollution, crime and war do not respect borders. In the global economy, European countries are stronger with an integrated market and a single currency. The message that countries in the EU can better defend the interests of their citizens by sharing power—a point on which I disagree strongly with Alex Neil—is supported by the people of Malta, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, Poland, the Czech Republic and Estonia, each of which has held a referendum on entering the EU. In the case of Slovakia, the yes vote was 92.4 per cent.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I hear what the member says about the fact that the accession states voted positively. As someone who visited the Baltic states under the auspices of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office during the Soviet occupation, I can say that those people looked towards the European Union as an economic and social polar star.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

As a Liberal Democrat, I fully endorse the concept of those nations pooling sovereignty and sharing the burden and the opportunities. I separate myself from the SNP on the concept of moving away and detracting policy.

I would be more sympathetic towards the Conservatives' motion if they took a consistent view on referenda and on membership of the EU. The Conservatives do not wish to have a separate referendum in Scotland, nor do they wish foreign affairs to be a devolved matter. It is hypocritical that they wish to debate the proposed constitutional treaty. As the matter is reserved, it is no surprise that the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament take the same view as our Westminster colleagues. Our view is that, as a matter of principle, a referendum is necessary when a Government produces proposals on Europe that would involve a major shift in control, any transfer of significant powers from member states to European institutions or any alteration to the existing balance between member states and those institutions.

I believe that the convention proposals raise issues of constitutional significance in relation to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the passerelle clause and the right to withdraw. However, we live in a United Kingdom, in which that issue is reserved to Westminster. If it were to respect that concept, the Parliament would be doing a service to the people.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I call Mike Rumbles for a two-minute speech.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

When I first read the motion, it seemed somewhat attractive, but Phil Gallie's speech bore little relation to the motion. I would not touch with a bargepole a motion on Europe that Phil Gallie had lodged. Tavish Scott spoke about the Conservatives' "naked anti-Europeanism", which was clear for all to see. Mr Iain Duncan Smith has ended the civil war on Europe in the Tory party; it is clear that the lunatics in the Tory party are in charge of the asylum. [ Interruption. ] I have obviously touched a raw nerve with the Conservatives.

We need a positive engagement with Europe. In the debate so far, we have failed to focus on the European constitution. I take issue with the rather extreme view of the Greens, as expressed by Mark Ballard, who seem to be in association with the right-wing Tories in the Parliament.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am afraid that I have only about 50 seconds left.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Thank God.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Well done, Phil.

The proposed EU constitution will limit the powers of Europe by defining the constitution in writing.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I cannot, although I would do so normally.

There will be a clear limitation on the constitution of the new Europe. Alex Neil made some good points, but my colleague Jeremy Purvis showed that the people of Europe have a very positive view and that is what we must focus on.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I will also allow John Swinburne two minutes to make a brief point.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

In the event of the UK's adoption of a single European currency, stringent legislation would have to be introduced to avoid the pitfalls of the last currency change in the UK. The introduction of decimalisation just over 30 years ago coincided with an overall hike in the cost of living. Everything was increased in price through the creative accountancy process of transposing prices to the decimal system. There is no doubt that the same will happen when Scotland, or rather the UK, embraces the euro. Senior citizens, who work with very restricted budgets, will suffer a particular disadvantage.

The adoption of a European constitution could only be beneficial for those of my generation. Members should look at the difference between the state of French and German senior citizens and the state of those in the UK, 20 per cent of whom still live below the Government's own poverty level. That is shameful. Whatever term is used to describe that poverty—absolute poverty, relative poverty or any other kind of poverty that the socialists want to call it—it still amounts to being very poor.

My generation would welcome any improvement in standards forced on us by Europe. Gordon Brown might baulk at the living standards of some of the elderly in Europe—the 75p award that he made a couple of years ago bore witness to that—but, along with everyone else, he would just have to follow the European line.

I am encouraged by the constitution, which seeks to give fundamental rights, such as rights to property, which do not apply in this civilised country. It is shameful that senior citizens in possession of their homes still have to sell their houses to pay for their residential care.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

With members of the SNP ripping out each other's entrails in Inverness, I welcome the opportunity to participate in a debate with the real Opposition, as David McLetchie describes his party. That said, I see that John Swinney has taken the precaution of keeping his Rottweiler in chief chained up here in Edinburgh while all the other members of the SNP are in Inverness.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Me!

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Sorry, Margaret.

One would think that the Tories would take the opportunity to set out their core beliefs on the key social and economic questions over which this Parliament has jurisdiction and to give the electorate an opportunity to assess the Tories' alternative vision for Scotland within the UK. Instead, as Jeremy Purvis pointed out, the Conservatives have chosen to debate constitutional issues that are properly reserved to Westminster and on which their party has been divided for nearly two decades.

We should probably not draw too many parallels between Dr Bill Wilson and Kenneth Clarke, although both are detested by the leadership of their respective parties, not because they disagree with the official party line, but because they expose the gaping holes that John Swinney and Iain Duncan Smith seek to paper over.

In the Tories' case, as Tavish Scott pointed out, the motivating factor seems to be an animus that is directed at Europe. It is not possible to have a rational debate about Europe with the Tories. They cannot express clearly what might well be legitimate concerns about the direction that Europe is taking by having a debate about how the common agricultural policy should be modified, about the deficiencies of the fishing policy or about the lack of a co-ordinated foreign policy as a counterbalance to the international dominance of the USA.

Instead, Tory criticism of Europe is dominated by two factors. First, the Tories were heavily involved in the formulation and development of some of those policies. They were involved in debates about the CAP and the common fisheries policy. Secondly, the Conservatives are so fundamentally, gut-wrenchingly opposed to Europe that they are simply incapable of having a rational debate.

It is interesting that the Tories' opposition to Europe is so irrational that they have taken themselves away from their normal constituency. Look at what businesses say about Europe compared with what the Conservatives say. Some 52 per cent of our trade is with Europe. Businesses are strongly supportive of EU membership. That is not only because they want to protect access to European markets, as we could have much of that access whether or not we were inside Europe. The crucial thing is that we have the membership rights within Europe to determine how businesses and our economy operate. If we lose those membership rights—whether they are taken away or, as the Tories suggest, given away—in effect we will become powerless and potentially bankrupt.

Instead, we need to consider how we strengthen our role within Europe. As Helen Eadie said, we need to have a debate on the euro to consider whether and on what terms we should join the euro.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

rose—

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

We need to have that debate in a rational way, not in the way that that lot want to have it.

Let me say one thing about referendums. The Tories have never had a referendum on Europe.

The Maastricht treaty made fundamental changes in the terms of trade in Europe and in the arrangements within Europe, but did the Tories have a referendum on it? Did they hell.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

They were right not to have one, though.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

That may be so.

I recall that the most successful referendum that we had in Scotland was the water referendum, but what did the Tories do with that? Some 70 per cent of people said no to their proposals, but the Tories ignored that result. We are still paying for the consequences of the fact that the Tories ignored democratic procedures.

I do not care too much for having a debate unless people are prepared to debate rationally and to operate within democratic frameworks. Let us have some honesty from the Conservatives on the issue. They have had an opportunity to debate the issues, but I do not think that they have delivered.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I always enjoy listening to Phil Gallie because he has such marvellous selective amnesia. He showed that again this morning, when he said that handing powers over to Europe was a kick in the teeth for those who had fought for the Scottish Parliament. I certainly cannot remember any of those who sit on the Tory benches fighting for the Scottish Parliament.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Gosh, okay.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

As I mentioned, it must be recognised that, in Sweden, opposition to the euro was led by people from the Left Party and the Swedish Green Party. In Ireland, opposition was led by people from the Socialist Party and the Green Party. Opposition to the convention and to the euro is not confined to people on the right.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Thanks very much.

Phil Gallie also spoke about his worry over the loss of sovereignty. The SNP's concern is that Scotland does not have any sovereignty. Phil Gallie talked about UK sovereignty. I want some Scottish sovereignty. That is what we are all about.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Like Linda Fabiani, Alex Neil made it clear that the SNP believes in independence within Europe. Our problem with that is that the proposed constitution will result in there being no independence for any country within Europe.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I do not agree with Alex Johnstone's view on that. The constitution is still being considered. We broadly welcome the constitution, but some elements of it give us serious concerns, which were also outlined by Mark Ballard.

One thing that bothers me is that, whenever I go over to Europe to speak or to take part in fora, Scotland is termed a region. People say to me, "You are from the regional Parliament in Scotland." Scotland is not, and never has been, a region. Scotland is a country and a nation. The constitution needs to recognise the principle of self-determination, but that is absent at the moment. Whether or not members agree with Scottish independence, they must agree that every nation has the right to progress with the will of the people of that nation. We should not shut one of the doors that would allow that to happen. I hope that everyone in the chamber will agree that Scotland is a nation and that we should have the right to achieve full self-determination as a nation within any constitution for Europe.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Does the member recognise that Scotland already has self-determination and that, at every turn, independence has been rejected by the people of Scotland?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I recognise that every nation has the right to move forward. The people of Scotland have the right to reject independence, if they so choose, but they also have a right to vote for it—no matter how many years down the line—if that is what they want. We should not shut off that opportunity by not providing for the right to self-determination in the European constitution.

We must also recognise, as Alex Neil said, that people do not feel that they are part of the European Union. Quite often, that is the fault of the way that the Government relates to Europe. On mainland Europe, people feel much more European than we do in the UK. Even Ireland has a much more European feel about it than the UK. I feel strongly that that is because of the way in which UK Governments relate to Europe and because of some of the language that they use about the European Union.

I will finish by picking up on what Irene Oldfather said, which I very much agree with, about the aim of Europe being to have a peaceful Europe. I completely and utterly agree with that and, in that regard, I am a Europhile. However, I want Europe to be a force for world peace. The UK does not promote world peace when it looks across the Atlantic instead of looking to Europe. That is another reason why I want Scotland to be an independent nation in Europe. Scotland would benefit from Europe, but Europe would also benefit from Scotland.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I really know that the Tories are wrong on this issue when I recall the times that, like most members, I have spoken to and debated with modern studies classes around our constituencies and regions of Scotland. Time and again, issues are raised about how Europe and the world have changed. As politicians of our day, we are asked about enlargement, about the great wars that this nation has fought and about the carnage of the two world wars that so disfigured Europe. That was the overwhelming motive of those behind the fledgling European Coal and Steel Community—

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No. Let me finish.

Enlargement is of enormous political significance as it comes only 14 years after the collapse of the Berlin wall and the subsequent collapse of the Warsaw pact.

All those immense issues have confronted us in our short political time. Even in the lifetime of this Parliament, some important issues have emerged and, time and again, we are asked about Scotland's relationship with those issues. As Linda Fabiani said, the European role in all that is important and significant. The Conservatives are wrong because they simply do not understand how strongly many of the coming generations feel about those things and how they realise that Europe is an important part of that process.

There is a huge difference between having an informed debate on the future of Europe and having a referendum. That is why I have no truck with the Conservative position. Let us be completely honest—

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Let me finish this point.

In a referendum, the debate would be polarised and the issues would be narrowed and squeezed so that they could be projected in black and white. What we need in Europe—

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No. I will finish this point, then I will give way.

The point was made in different ways by Alex Neil, Jeremy Purvis, Helen Eadie and Des McNulty and I agree with the theme of what they said. What we need in Europe is real engagement with the people's agenda—I see Mr Sheridan nodding his head—and with the citizens of Europe. We need real engagement on Europe across a period of time so that those of us who believe in it strongly—and, in fairness, those who do not—can demonstrate and articulate that. We need to be able to do that properly over a period of time. In a short, concentrated three-week period, we will never achieve a real debate about the matters that will confront us not just over the next year but over the next 10, 50 or 100 years. That is the process that we need.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is extraordinary that Mr Scott is arguing against his party's policy of having a referendum on the European constitution. Why does he argue against his party leader?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I just despair at times in this chamber. We need to consider how we take forward a debate across the range of those issues. Yes, we will have a referendum on particular matters, but it is more important in the longer term that we build a consensus—not even a consensus but a debate—about what must happen in Europe, how we must develop Europe and why Europe is so important.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Will the minister give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No. I will not give way to Mark Ballard, because I will come back to the points that he made.

I hope that I have reflected where the Executive stands on those wider issues.

Irene Oldfather asked about the European convention. I assure her that we will continue to press her points and the points that were made by the European and External Relations Committee.

I have two observations to make about the Conservatives. If anything defines the Conservatives' position on Europe, it is the fact that two of their MEPs, Daniel Hannan and Roger Helmer, campaigned for a no vote in the Estonian referendum on membership of the EU. Roger Helmer MEP is, apparently, classic; he visited Malta, Slovakia and Estonia to campaign for a no vote and he has a 100 per cent failure rate. I presume that that is the Tory definition of a strategic success these days.

I understand that Murdo Fraser has to sum up for the Tories, but I have a final observation. I was able to find out that Mr Fraser is still a member of the Bruges group.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No I am not.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I must give Mr Fraser the website address, because I found his name on it. It will be interesting to reflect on Mr Fraser's membership of the Bruges group along with those well-known Europeans Norman Tebbit, John Redwood, and Christopher Gill. That sums up the Conservative party's approach to Europe.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am afraid that Mr Scott will have to do his research a bit better in future.

Why are we having this debate? Eighty-two per cent of the British people want to have a referendum on the EU constitution. The Conservative party wants to have a referendum, as do the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, the Green party, the Scottish Socialist Party and Mr Swinburne. There is a clear majority of people in Scotland and in the Parliament who want a referendum on the EU constitution.

The most striking aspect of the debate has been the shameless behaviour of the Liberal Democrats and their cheerleader, Mr Scott.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In a second.

Clearly, the Liberal Democrats have been reading the campaign handbook, which says that they must act shamelessly. That is exactly what we have heard from them today. Nationally they say that they want to have a referendum, but in the chamber they slither and squirm and try to get out of it. Why? Because they are so out of touch with public opinion.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In a second.

The Liberal Democrats are being told at their national conference that they must downplay their stance on Europe because it is unpopular with the voters.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

In my intervention on Mr McLetchie, I made clear my position and the position of my party. Will the member confirm that, in the autumn of 2002, he signed the Bruges group paper, "Top down is the wrong way up!"? He is a signatory to that paper with Lord Tebbit, John Redwood and Christopher Gill, who are all well-known Eurosceptics. If he is proud of that, perhaps he will explain that honestly to the people of Scotland.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I signed that paper and I am proud of it.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does Murdo Fraser agree that the most shameful and disgusting comments that we heard this morning came from Mike Rumbles? Given that my party and the Parliament agreed to reduce the stigma of mental health problems when we passed the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, I ask my colleague Murdo Fraser to ask Mike Rumbles to apologise to the chamber.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mary Scanlon has made the point well. Perhaps we will hear from Mr Rumbles later.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Does the member agree that, contrary to what Tavish Scott said, after the two Irish referendums on the Nice treaty, the Irish population were incredibly well-informed about what the Nice treaty implied, far more so than the UK people have been after any debate?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Ballard has made a good point, if I may say so. It is typical for those who see public opinion going against them to say that we must have a proper debate, but when we propose a mechanism for having such a debate—a referendum—they get cold feet.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have taken three interventions in a row and I must deal with more points that were raised in the debate.

Irene Oldfather and others made the point that the Conservatives did not hold a referendum when they were in Government. They are absolutely right but, let us face it, times have changed. The Government has had referenda on a bewildering variety of issues. There was a referendum on whether Middlesbrough should have an elected mayor. There was a referendum on whether Hartlepool should have an elected mayor—and they ended up electing a monkey. The Government, which has had referenda on all those issues, cannot bring itself to hold a referendum on the fundamental issue of the new European constitution. According to Peter Hain, the constitution would have substantial constitutional significance.

The Government will not hold a referendum because it knows that it would lose. That demonstrates its utter contempt for the views of the Scottish people on the issue. The Parliament has a duty to make it clear to Tony Blair that we will not accept that situation.

Helen Eadie said that we are ill-informed about the issues and I quite agree. That is why we must have a referendum, so that we can have a proper discussion of the issues, let the arguments for and against be aired, and let the people decide.

The SNP made a comment about fishing, which is a vital issue. I heard Margaret Ewing mention my colleague Struan Stevenson, who is the president of the European committee on fisheries. It is incumbent upon him to represent the views of the UK Government in relation to the constitution and the fact that it might enshrine the CFP. That is not the position of the Conservative party.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I cannot give way to the member because I do not have time.

Yesterday in the European Parliament, Struan Stevenson made it clear that that is not his personal position and that he fully endorses Conservative party policy. That was underlined by Iain Duncan Smith in Perth on Saturday, when he said:

"A future Conservative government will 'unilaterally withdraw' from the CFP if national control of fishing stocks cannot be renegotiated".

I trust that all members paid close attention to the recent Swedish referendum on the single currency. Sweden is a small country, as is Scotland, and despite all the relentless pressure from the Swedish establishment, to which Alex Neil referred, the Swedes whole-heartedly rejected the euro. That was a resounding victory for the ordinary citizens of Europe whose views are consistently ignored by the self-styled statesmen in Brussels.

The greatest weakness of the EU in its current guise is its woeful lack of democratic accountability. It is, therefore, a disgrace that the First Minister and his deputy are pressing ahead with their involvement in the so-called Scottish euro preparations committee, with a view to bouncing the Scottish people into the euro against their will.

If Europe is to move forward with the consent of its people, it is essential that the Parliament stands up for the interests of Scotland and insists that Her Majesty's Government holds a national referendum on the proposed European constitution. A referendum is supported by members from all round the chamber. It is the policy of the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the Greens, the SSP and the SSCUP. The Labour party should support the Conservative motion; its members know they want to.

Criminal Justice System

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-380, in the name of Annabel Goldie, on public confidence in the criminal justice system. There are two amendments to the motion. I invite those members who want to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to bring this debate to the Parliament. If the issue that is hot on the lips of Scotland is the cost of the new Parliament building, the second most frequently voiced concern is undoubtedly the state of law and order in Scotland.

In my experience of speaking to audiences throughout Scotland, I have found that two particular aspects of the problem are preoccupying the minds of the public—sentencing and policing. I therefore welcome the fact that those concerns have been recognised by the First Minister, who has rightly identified as critical the regaining of trust and confidence in our criminal justice system. Equally, I am pleased to propose for genuine debate the other issue that is critical to public confidence—policing in our communities.

Implicit within the phrase "regaining trust and confidence" is recognition that somewhere along the line, trust and confidence have gone. Sadly, gone they have, in a big way. According to the 2001-02 Scottish household survey, a crime is committed every 1.2 minutes—in the time that this debate will take, 62 more crimes will have been committed—a violent attack takes place every 32 minutes, and every day there is a drug-related death. Disquietingly, 24 per cent of Scots feel not particularly safe or not safe at all when they are walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark.

If we look at the Executive's crime statistics for 2002 and compare them with a base point of 1997, we see that rape and attempted rape are up 24 per cent, non-sexual crimes of violence are up 25 per cent and drug crime is up 37 per cent. From the prison statistics that are provided by the Scottish Executive, we see that that the number of persons who were recalled from supervision or licence is up 430 per cent and, according to the General Register Office for Scotland, drug-related deaths are up 70 per cent. Lawlessness in Scotland has reached unacceptable levels and public confidence has disintegrated.

That leads to yet another undesirable and unquantifiable consequence, which is that many people no longer report crime because they believe that there is no point in doing so. People are unconvinced that the perpetrators will be detected and charged. Even if that is accomplished, they believe that the subsequent court process will be tortuous and unpredictable.

For many members of the public, the final straw is the prospect of automatic early release from prison. The public are as fed up with the situation as they are with the sight of ministers weeping, wailing and gnashing their teeth. The public want political leadership; they want action to be taken now.

The first step towards re-engagement with the public is higher police visibility in our communities. The best intelligence in crime detection comes from forming a relationship with the community. The police cannot detect crime and deter criminal activity by sitting with a laptop in a command centre. Of course, strategic intelligence policing has a role to play, but not in isolation.

The founder of the modern police force, Sir Robert Peel, said:

"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

That is why my party has several suggestions to make. First, we would place before the police an additional resource of £45 million to facilitate concentration on neighbourhood activity. If anyone seriously questions the wisdom of that approach, they need only look at New York. In the 1980s and 1990s, New York had an appalling record on crime and, interestingly, community policing had withered away. Rudolph Giuliani applied three principles to address the situation in New York: crime should be seen as a crime and not as a social statement; police should be deployed in the streets, working in partnership with communities; and the criminal justice system should work swiftly, with effective action being taken against reoffenders. During Rudolph Giuliani's eight years in office, crime fell by 60 per cent.

Secondly, we would require all police boards, through their chief constables, to prepare a neighbourhood protection plan that was designed to deliver a zero tolerance approach to crime.

Thirdly, we would require regular publication of localised crime statistics to highlight areas that were in need of attention and methods of best practice. Given that that information is currently available to crime prevention panels throughout Scotland, I fail to understand why it cannot be made available to the public at large.

I call on the Scottish Executive to comment on our proposals; I urge its members to come forward with their own thoughts. There is capacity for debate in this area and I hope for some constructive distillation of thoughts.

It is not enough to reconnect the police with communities. I welcome the intention to reform High Court procedure in Scotland. Indeed, I am certain that the McInnes review will make proposals for summary court procedure. Those proposals, of themselves, will not reinstate public confidence in the criminal justice system. They are merely lubricants for a mechanism that has in part become rusted.

The nub of the problem is that, for as long as automatic early release applies to sentences that are imposed by the courts, the public will continue to have a major problem with the criminal justice system. I agree that it was a Conservative Government that introduced that well-intended measure. The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions—as the Liberal Democrats frequently find out. However, it was the Conservatives who, recognising that the measure was not working, abolished automatic remission in 1997. The Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 laid down that early release would take place only if it had been earned by co-operation and good behaviour. It also set down that the maximum remission would be one sixth of the original sentence. However, the reprieve never happened. The Labour Government at Westminster repealed the provision, which is why we are where we are today.

If anyone has any lingering doubts over the continuing nonsense about automatic early release, they need only look at today's newspapers. They will see that appeal judges have doubled the prison sentence of a stealth rapist from 18 months to three years, which is good news, as far as the public and I are concerned. However, the Executive's refusal to end automatic early release means that the sentence will be brought back to 18 months. I doubt that the public will understand the sense of that.

The sentencing commission has been asked to look at automatic early release, but only for sentences of less than four years. What a nonsense that will create; criminal A, who is sentenced to five years will spend two years and eight months in prison while criminal B, who is sentenced to four years, will spend four years in prison.

If the First Minister is serious about regaining the public's trust and confidence in the criminal justice system, his two priorities have to be neighbourhood policing and an end to automatic early release.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the recognition by the First Minister of the need to "regain trust and confidence" in our criminal justice system; believes that a step towards restoring such confidence would be to introduce honesty in sentencing by re-enacting sections 33 to 41 of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997, which were repealed by section 108 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; notes that public confidence has been further undermined by the lack of visible policing in too many communities, and calls on the Scottish Executive to consider how accountability to the public in the delivery of police services might be enhanced.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The hypocrisy and deceit that the Conservatives display in any discussion of early release is quite breathtaking, as are some of their references to the sentencing commission. It is clear that the Conservatives have not listened to what the Executive is saying. Last week, the First Minister made it clear—yet again—that automatic early release of prisoners will be considered by the judicially led sentencing commission and that it will be a priority for the commission.

Indeed, Cathy Jamieson made it very clear that the commission will not kick things into the long grass. She said that the commission would report on a rolling basis on the clear priorities that have been established by the Executive. Annabel Goldie said

"The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions",

when she spoke about the change to the law that was introduced by the Conservatives. Although she is right about that, what she did not do was to put the matter in context. The Conservatives introduced the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 on the basis of many years of deliberation, including by the Kincraig committee, which was established by the Conservatives. The Conservative Government then took four or five years to introduce legislation.

It was not the case that in 1997 the Conservatives discovered that the road to hell was paved with good intentions and that there was a problem. What we had was a very clear act of political expediency ahead of the 1997 election. There is provision in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 that allows the Secretary for State for Scotland to make by subordinate legislation changes to early release. The Conservatives chose not to do that, but instead introduced hasty legislation ahead of the 1997 election. They did so for reasons that were purely political and which had nothing to do with tackling crime or with law and order. They simply wanted to try, as they desperately saw it, to enhance their election prospects in Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

rose—

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Before Annabel Goldie speaks, she might want to reflect on what her party said at the time in its white paper "Crime and Punishment". It said that the changes that it was to introduce in the 1997 legislation would be

"dependent on a number of factors",

one of which was obviously the

"sentencing practice by the courts."

The white paper also said:

"If there was no change in sentences imposed, the effect on prison population would be an increase of ... 1,000 in the first year"

and

"2,200 in the fifth year."

Notwithstanding the huge change in prison numbers that was anticipated, paragraph 16.9 of the white paper went on to say:

"All increases in expenditure arising from the proposals ... will be accommodated within planned resources."

There was not a single extra penny for the huge increases in prisoner numbers that were anticipated by the Conservatives. I say to Annabel Goldie that that was why there had to be a change in legislation in 1998. What the Conservatives did was irresponsible and uncosted and the prison places were not prepared. The measure would have led to mayhem and disaster.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I refute that in its totality. Interesting though the minister's history lesson may be, we are now in 2003. Scotland has a devolved Parliament that has responsibility for law and order, yet we are in a shocking state. The public knows that and wants the Scottish Executive to tell them what is happening.

I ask the minister for a point of clarification on the sentencing commission. When the Minister for Justice confirmed that the commission will look at automatic early release, she said that it would do that only in respect of sentences of fewer than four years. Is that the—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You have overrun your time, Miss Goldie.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

While we are on the subject of three-year and four-year sentences, I point out that proposals that Bill Aitken brought forward the previous parliamentary session on behalf of the Conservatives during consideration of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill in would have meant that people serving a three-year sentence would have had to serve longer in prison than those who had been sentenced to four years, simply because of the foolhardy and cackhanded way that the Tories had treated the matter. We certainly intend that the sentencing commission will examine the broader range of issues and ensure that some of the problems that have been identified are tackled. [Interruption.] I am not sure about the time, Presiding Officer.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The clock has been inadvertently restarted. I will keep my eye on the time and will let you know when you are into your last minute.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Obviously, we must get issues such as short sentencing, long sentencing and parole right; the sentencing commission will consider those matters. However, we accept that short sentences sometimes do little to deter and nothing to rehabilitate offenders. We cannot afford to have prison populations increasing without examining the underlying causes for that, which is why we want to have a debate on the need for a single agency. Although we want to consider credible alternatives to imprisonment that the judiciary can trust, we will also examine how to make sentences effective for people who have to serve them.

On policing, police officer numbers are at record levels. At the end of June, there were 15,560 police officers in the Scottish police service, which is an increase of 335 since June 2002 and an increase of 848 since June 2000. Over the past three years, support staff numbers have also increased by 891 to 6,066 in whole-time equivalent terms.

Staffing increases have been made possible by record levels of funding. This year, the total revenue and capital funding for and in connection with the police will top £1 billion. We have made our commitment. Indeed, in the partnership agreement, we also made commitments to increase the number of police officers on operational duty, to assist chief constables to meet their target of an increase by 500 in the number of special constables and to expand the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. We are acting on our pledges. On top of all of that, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has already pledged to increase the number of officers on operational duty by 250 by 2005-06 and we will also consider releasing 300 experienced police officers from escorting and other duties for operational tasks.

We are providing resources and the framework for the police to operate within, we are examining sentencing and we are taking a responsible approach to all law and order issues. We are putting our money where our mouth is, which is something that the Conservatives failed to do in the past. People will see that this Administration in this Parliament makes effective arguments while the Conservatives simply express hot air.

I move amendment S2M-380.3, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:

"welcomes the Scottish Executive's decision to establish a judicially-led Sentencing Commission and the commitment to introduce legislation to modernise the operation of the High Court; recognises that the Scottish Executive will act on the McInnes Review and will bring forward further proposals for court reform; notes the measures being introduced that will give more support to victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system, and believes that the record number of police officers in Scotland, the substantial increase in civilian staff and the moves to release police officers for front-line duties will enhance delivery of police services in local communities."

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

If you zero the clock halfway through my speech, Presiding Officer, maybe I will get eight minutes like Hugh Henry did.

There is widespread recognition that our justice system has a number of problems. However, in reflecting on the Conservative motion, I agree with the minister that the sentencing commission is best placed to examine the issue of early release; indeed, that has been an SNP policy for some time. It is irresponsible of the Tories to suggest that we should abandon early release when our prison system cannot cope with the current number of prisoners. We must examine the issue not in isolation but as part of the bigger picture of the justice system.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No—I have very limited time.

On the speech on justice that the First Minister made last week, I must confess that I found the parts of it that I read to be rather confused. I noticed that he did not mention the privatisation of police cells and those who man them, which now appears to be Executive policy. The SNP will oppose that measure, although the Executive might be able to form a right-wing alliance with the Conservative party to push it through.

In his speech, the First Minister set out his platform for regaining public confidence in the justice system. For example, he said that the blame culture in the system had to stop; its different components must stop blaming one another for the system's problems. He then proceeded to blame those who work within the justice system for causing those problems. Any attempt to end the blame culture must start at the top; the First Minister should take the lead.

In this short debate, I will touch on two main areas of concern—policing and prosecution. As we have heard today, ministers often rattle on about the fact that there are record police numbers. However, they do not tell us about the extra burdens and duties that have been placed on the police because of sex offenders legislation, the establishment of surveillance units under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 and compliance with recent health and safety directives and the new European Union working time directive. As anyone in the police force in Scotland will point out, the effect of any additional officers—however modest that number might be—is automatically neutralised because of those extra burdens.

I understand why constituents complain constantly that we do not have enough police officers in our communities and that, when the police are contacted, they say that there will be a delay in responding to the call because of a shortage of manpower. That type of response undermines people's confidence in the justice system. As a result, if we are trying to regain the public's confidence and trust, we should be honest with them. It is okay to say that there are record numbers of police; however, we also have to make it clear that those numbers do not address the current level of demand.

I will turn briefly to the issue of prosecution services. In its manifesto for the previous Scottish Parliament elections, new Labour stated that it had

"delivered ... the highest ... clear-up rates since the Second World War".

That is correct. However, we have not been told that since 1997 the number of prosecutions has collapsed by almost one sixth. Since 1997-98, the number of cases marked "no proceedings" rose from 12.5 per cent to 17 per cent last year. I understand why people wonder about the point of reporting incidents when they are told that there will be a delay when they contact the police and when they find out that more cases are marked "no proceedings" when they are referred to the procurator fiscal. Even the police wonder about the point of referring cases to the procurator fiscal. If we are to change the way in which our justice system is run, we must have more honesty and we must ensure that we deliver the necessary resources.

From the comments of constituents who have spoken to me, it is clear that their combined experience of the police and prosecution services has undermined their trust and confidence in the system. It is time to support the staff who are doing a difficult job within the system and ensure that they have the resources to do the job properly.

I move amendment S2M-380.1, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:

"notes the First Minister's recent recognition of the problems within the justice system; notes that public confidence in our justice system is undermined by insufficient resourcing of our police and prosecution service, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to ensure that future funding of the justice system reflects the demands being placed upon it."

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

All members agree that there is a real crisis of public confidence in the criminal justice system. Indeed, we see it day in, day out and week in, week out at our surgeries and in our constituencies. I have been a victim of crime four times over the past two years and the other day I received a citation from the Crown Office to appear as a witness in court. I had no idea what I was being cited for, given that I have been a victim of crime four times. No one had ever told me that the crime of which I had been a victim had been cleared up or that something had been solved and somebody arrested. I had to telephone the Crown Office to find out why I was being cited; in the end, it turned out that I was being cited as a witness to a crime that had happened six months before the crime that I had initially been told on the phone I was being cited for.

That kind of thing happens all the time to people who come into contact with the criminal justice system. People are kept waiting in court, which is an issue that we hope to address through High Court reforms and the work that the McInnes committee is doing on summary justice. Moreover, the public have to make call after call to the police. Michael Matheson is right to say that, although there are 800 more police officers and 1,000 more civilians assisting the police, the burden on our police officers is constantly growing. In the constituency that I represent, the police who should be on the street are often called in to deal with policing issues in Edinburgh city centre. As a result, I am pleased by Cathy Jamieson's comment that she is examining the number of police officers and funding throughout Scotland and that she is looking in particular into the request from the chief constable in Edinburgh.

It is also clear that the issue is very complex. That may be part of the reason behind the Conservatives' confusion on the matter. They introduced a policy of mandatory early release in 1993 and then—miraculously, just before an election—repealed it in 1997. However, it is clear that they suggested the repeal of automatic release in 1997 without thinking through the impact of that policy in terms of the increase in the prison population. At the time, Lord McCluskey said:

"They acknowledge that there is likely to be an effect upon the criminal justice system of a very disruptive kind."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 1997; Vol 578, c 1815.]

That statement stands now, as it did in 1997. There would be a very disruptive impact in terms of the numbers of prisoners going into a prison system that, according to Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons yesterday, is holding record numbers and cannot cope. Staff cannot cope and people are not able to get the treatment and care that they need in prison to try to prevent them from offending again when they come out, which is surely part of what prison should be all about. That is one of the problems with the Conservatives' proposals.

There is another problem. If somebody is released on licence before they have reached the end of their sentence, there is a period in which they can be assisted by social workers to get themselves back into some kind of normal life in the community. If we take away from prisoners any incentive to behave themselves and to try to be rehabilitated, what message does that send to people in prison? I am not saying that I am not in favour of automatic release. However, the sentencing commission will be independent and judiciary-led, and we should appreciate our judiciary. For the most part, with the odd extreme exception, members of the judiciary do a good job and are good public servants. An independently led sentencing commission is more likely to come up with a system that not only deals with the problem of public confidence, which has been outlined by Annabel Goldie and by the First Minister, but addresses the complexities of the debate, such as what will happen to prison numbers if we change the present arrangements.

The sentencing commission is the right body to examine bail, remand, fines and automatic early release. I shall welcome its report when I see it.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Before I open the debate, I should tell members that although I intend to allow all members five minutes, that time limit will include interventions and it will be a very tight five minutes. If members do not stick to that limit, other members will not be called. I call Margaret Mitchell.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

My colleague Annabel Goldie has highlighted two measures—ending automatic remission and putting more police on the street—that would play an important part in restoring confidence in the criminal justice system. However, there are other measures that would help to restore confidence and regain trust.

Those measures include first, improving the efficiency of courts. To be frank, there is little point in catching criminals if the courts are not capable of dealing with them. On that point, I agree with Michael Matheson; too many cases are being shelved. A startling example of that is the staggering 17,000 criminal cases that were dropped last year, which represents as many as 72 cases a day not making it to court. Furthermore, it is taking longer to bring the accused to trial—on average, three weeks longer than it did in 1998-99. The solution is to speed up the court system by properly resourcing the Procurator Fiscal Service with more procurators fiscal and by introducing weekend and evening courts to reduce the backlog.

Secondly, we must ensure that effective alternatives to custody are in place, with adequate sanctions for when breaches occur. Enforcement of existing alternatives to custody has given rise to concern because of the lack of proper supervision of community service orders, and because of cynicism and disillusion that so many fines go unpaid. Last year, 7,074 fine defaulters were sent to prison, which works out at a daily average of 61. Although they do not make a huge contribution to overcrowding in prisons because they stay for only short periods, fine defaulters are an unnecessary drain on the public purse. According to the Scottish Prison Service's annual report for 2001-02, the average cost of a prison place is £30,177 per annum, which works out at £82.66 a day. That money could be used to ensure that alternatives to custody, such as community service orders and supervised attendance orders, are properly resourced.

There are two categories of fine defaulters: those who genuinely cannot pay and those who are wilful fine defaulters. Those who genuinely cannot pay have the opportunity to opt for supervised attendance orders. That has worked well in Hamilton district court, where a social worker meets the fine defaulter prior to their appearance at the means court and helps them to fill out a form that accurately lists their income and necessary spending commitments. That exercise helps the defaulter to make a realistic evaluation of what, if anything, can be offered to the court to clear the debt. If it becomes apparent that the defaulter simply cannot pay, the social worker explains that a supervised attendance order is an alternative that is geared to sorting out the problem that led to the person's being unable to pay the fine and, if possible, to addressing the underlying causes of the behaviour, such as drink or drug abuse, that led to the imposition of the fine in the first place.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does Margaret Mitchell agree that it would be more appropriate to have a fines system that ensured that fines are in proportion to people's income, than it is to penalise people who are in poverty? A £200 fine to a pensioner means a lot, but a £200 fine to someone on Margaret Mitchell's wages is very little. It is a question of establishing a system that is more sensitive to people's circumstances. What she proposes does not recognise that.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Sentencing is the priority of the judge, and a justice of the peace in a court takes account of that. It is already built into the system.

The exercise that I have described would help fine defaulters to make realistic evaluations of what must be offered. The pilot exercise in Hamilton, which is aimed at encouraging more use of supervised attendance orders, gives the justice of the peace more information about defaulters' real means and helps defaulters to make an honest evaluation of what they can pay.

Public confidence will continue to be undermined if wilful defaulters, such as our very own Tommy Sheridan, are allowed to sneer at the system and manipulate it to their advantage. Defaulters such as Tommy have the means to pay but opt instead to let the taxpayer pick up the tab. That is clearly unacceptable. There is a means by which to rectify that problem, which is to implement section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 or section 221 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

The measures that I have outlined and those that were highlighted by Annabel Goldie would go some considerable way to restoring confidence and trust in the criminal justice system in Scotland. All that is required is the political will to implement them.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The question whether the public have confidence in our criminal justice system probably depends on people's experiences have been; for many people, those experiences have certainly not been good. The First Minister has called for a restoration of public confidence in the system because, having listened to people's views, he believes that many people have not had a good experience of our criminal justice system. I have confidence in our agencies, but I believe that there is a need for reform. The Justice Committees of the previous session of Parliament called for joining up of the system. I believe that that was an important call.

We have all dealt with cases in which constituents complain about delays or postponement of trials, trial outcomes' not being satisfactory and the general treatment of victims and witnesses in the system. I had a case recently in which a trial was postponed on 10 occasions. It was a very serious trial, but the witnesses were threatening to pull out because they simply could not endure having to face another cancellation. The Crown Office often gets the blame for those problems, but it is important to establish who does what in the system. The Crown Office is not responsible for running the courts; rather, the Scottish Courts Administration, which is a separate organisation, is responsible for that.

One of the biggest reasons for delay is the lack of witnesses. Witnesses fail to turn up because citations do not arrive in time or because people's addresses are not properly recorded. We must fix the system, although I know that there are some pilot schemes in place to do so.

I voice a word of caution about Margaret Mitchell's call for evening courts and weekend work. I do not oppose that idea per se, but she should not run away with the idea that our fiscals and agencies do not work at the weekends, because they certainly do. We must build that in to any proposal.

There have never been more seizures, more arrests or so many changes to the criminal justice system. No one can deny that the Labour-Liberal partnership has taken bold steps to reform the criminal justice system, but the question is: what will we do next? It is a fact that there are record police numbers, but the debate on police visibility versus intelligence-led policing is a crucial one. We should not underestimate the quality of policing that we can get from intelligence-led policing. For example, crime management systems are able to determine that a number of housebreakings are taking place in a particular street and allow us to identify who might be responsible for them.

I will address the question of honesty in sentencing. Successive Governments have wrestled with the question of what sentencing is for. Is it for punishment, deterrent, public safety, rehabilitation or even retribution, or perhaps all five? Perhaps we will never agree on which of those elements should be included in sentencing, but that is also an important debate. The Tories want honesty in sentencing. We certainly need clarity and consistency in sentencing, which is why I support the sentencing commission.

We have not been able to address the question of rehabilitation in our prisons to any great extent over recent years. That has been due mainly to overcrowding and a failing prison estate. If we were to follow through the specific proposal that Bill Aitken talked about in the previous session of Parliament there would be serious overcrowding—his proposal would lead to an increase of about 1,800 prisoners. We would certainly not be able to address the question of rehabilitation in our prisons if we had to deal with more prison numbers. Bill Aitken suggested during the previous session that his proposals would not give rise to an increase because judges would take prison numbers into account. Let us be clear about who does what in the system: judges are not responsible for prison numbers and they should not be required to take that into account in sentencing. We have to manage prison numbers, whatever decisions we take. That is not a matter for judges.

Annabel Goldie asks for political leadership. I think that we have that. We have introduced the sentencing commission, reform of the Crown Office, support for victims of crime and reform of the High Court and youth courts, to mention but a few of the reforms that are taking place.

The Parole Board for Scotland, which is responsible for early release on licence, has largely got it right, although there is perhaps room for improvement.

As other members have said, more use must be made of community sentencing in order that we can address the question of what we do in our prisons. We need to know where we are going in relation to alternatives to custody. There is considerable consensus in the Parliament that we need to move more quickly to ensure that more options are available and that those options are used. There is evidence that in certain cases community sentencing can be more effective than prison. The Executive should be pressed to tell us where it is going on that issue.

It is possible to have a criminal justice system that meets public expectations on serious crime. The crucial issue that we must address as politicians is people's direct experiences of the system. I hope that we get a further chance to do that.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is not often that I speak in justice debates as I tend to concentrate on economic matters, but this is an extremely important subject that affects every community in Scotland.

I will make three points; I hope that the minister will take them in the spirit in which they are delivered. My first point—I will explain to the minister privately later why I am raising the issue—is that I think that it is time that the Executive checked progress in implementing the changes to the Scottish Criminal Record Office's fingerprinting service because of some recent difficulties. Unfortunately, matters are still sub judice so I do not want to say any more than that, but I draw the matter to the Executive's attention.

My second point relates to an issue that Pauline McNeill mentioned—reform of prisoners. We seem to concentrate, with justification, on using prison as a punishment for crime. Other countries put much more emphasis on trying to reform people who are serving prison sentences with a view to ensuring that a higher percentage of them do not reoffend when they get out of prison. It seems to me that we must put more resources into, and give more attention to, reforming an offender's character as well as punishing them for the crime. If I may say so, the private prison in Kilmarnock is particularly poor at performing that aspect of its remit, which highlights the danger of bringing the profit motive into the prison service—essential services such as reform and rehabilitation of prisoners are given low priority and do not receive the attention and resources that they deserve.

My third point is that the profile of crime in Scotland and in many other European countries shows that drug or alcohol abuse is often involved somewhere along the line. The first committee that I served on in Parliament was the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee back in 1999. We carried out an inquiry into drug misuse in Scotland. I remember vividly going to Cumnock to take evidence in private from two drug addicts. They told us that it was their belief that up to 30 per cent of the population in Cumnock were regular abusers of drugs. Cumnock is a very poor community with high levels of unemployment and deprivation.

The following week we went to Aberdeen, which is at the other end of the spectrum economically—it is a relatively prosperous area. We were again told by drug addicts who gave evidence in private in Aberdeen that they reckoned that up to 30 per cent of the adult population of Aberdeen were involved in some kind of drug abuse. That was specifically about drugs as opposed to alcohol.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I would like to put on the record some information that the Justice 1 and Justice 2 Committees have been given. There is some evidence that sheriffs are taking that kind of issue into account in determining what they choose to do with the accused. They feel that there is more chance of the person getting the drugs rehabilitation treatment, care and attention that they need if they put them into prison than if they leave them on the streets of Cumnock or Aberdeen.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I accept that point.

The point that I am making is that we must address the issue of drug and alcohol misuse—alcohol is often a bigger problem than drugs—if we are to get to the root causes of crime in our society. Much of the debate is about, and much attention is paid to, what happens once the crime is committed. We must investigate better means of prevention. One way of doing that would be to improve dramatically the services that are available in respect of drug and alcohol abuse and misuse.

I have raised three points: first, I would like the Executive to re-examine the fingerprinting service that is provided; secondly, it should consider the rehabilitation—or lack of it—of prisoners, in particular in the private prison in Kilmarnock; and thirdly, the Executive should revisit the question of what additional effort needs to go in to dealing with the problems of drug and alcohol misuse.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call Karen Whitefield, who has a very tight five minutes. I will then have to restrict the time that is allocated to speeches to four minutes.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Tory party's choice of subject for the debate is strange. It is strange that the Tories should feel that now is an appropriate time to feign interest in the criminal justice system, when the Scottish Executive has embarked on the most ambitious and radical set of criminal justice reforms in generations, when it has delivered increased resources to our police, prisons and criminal justice system and when reducing antisocial behaviour in our communities is a key priority.

The Executive is bringing forward those proposals and making that investment because it has listened to the concerns of ordinary people. Throughout the summer, the Executive consulted widely on the problems that face communities so that their experiences could help to shape the antisocial behaviour bill. Yet the Tories choose today to call for an increase in police numbers. Between 1993 and 1997 police numbers fell by almost 1,500. Today, there are record levels of policing in Scotland. Miss Goldie's concern for high-visibility policing seems somewhat hollow to me and to the people whom I represent.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Circumstances in the early 1990s in Scotland were totally different from circumstances nowadays. Nobody would disagree that circumstances were different everywhere in Europe then. The issue is not what the Tories feign to do. Does the member accept that, as we speak, the public in Scotland have a real concern about automatic early release and levels of policing?

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

The issue is that we are listening to the communities that we represent and are working hard to introduce measures to tackle and address their concerns.

It is strange that the Tories have chosen to call for more resources when their underlying policy is to cut public expenditure. Never mind honesty in sentencing—it would be much better if there were honesty in Tory policy.

From talking to my constituents, I know that youth crime and antisocial behaviour continue to make the lives of many people in our communities a misery. Those problems are often caused by a small hard core of individuals who have little or no regard for anyone but themselves. Decent people in communities throughout Scotland are desperate for such problems to be tackled.

That is why I welcome the Executive's measures to tackle such problems. Measures such as the forthcoming antisocial behaviour bill, the creation of the Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency, the confiscation of drug dealers' assets and profits and the introduction of an increased number of closed-circuit television cameras demonstrate that the Executive not only talks tough on crime but acts.

Of course, the Tories would have us believe that being tough on crime means simply locking up more people. I am confident that the sentencing commission will ensure that Scotland will have one of the toughest and most effective sentencing regimes in the world. I do not mean simply that more people will be locked up. We should imprison those who are most violent and most persistent and who pose the greatest threat, but equally we should always aim to rehabilitate wherever that is possible.

Recently, I listened to a speech by Sheriff Hugh Neilson, who is involved in the youth court pilot in Hamilton. He believes that the combination of early intervention and intensive interagency working—which are the key characteristics of the youth court pilot—will deliver substantial benefits in reduced levels of recidivism.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that much needs to be done to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour effectively in our communities and there is no doubt that the Executive, the courts, the police and all the agencies that are involved in the criminal justice field must redouble their efforts. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the Executive is determined to deliver on those issues and to make a real difference to the communities that we seek to serve.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Colin Fox has four minutes.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

The Parliament appears to have debated law and order many times in the five months for which I have been an MSP. However, one of the public's concerns has not been addressed in any of those debates—the widespread belief in Scotland that there is one law for the rich and another, severer law for the poor. I am sure that, in recent years, the population of Scotland has thought that Lord Archer, Jonathan Aitken and Ernest Saunders of Guinness represent the rich exceptions in the prison population rather than the rule. Public perceptions and confidence in the criminal justice system can often be affected by the hysteria that is whipped up by politicians in the chamber and outside it.

Last night, I had the pleasure of attending a presentation by Edinburgh's children's panel which, like many of its counterparts throughout Scotland, does a valuable job in dealing with children who fall foul of the law. The Edinburgh children's panel was too polite to mention this matter, but it must have been incensed by remarks that the Tory leader David McLetchie made in Sighthill the night before. He said:

"People don't have confidence in the Children's panel ... It doesn't bring home to youth offenders the differences between right and wrong."

That is a shameful insult to the thousands of volunteer panellists in Scotland who deal with youngsters day in, day out. Their work is admired throughout the world. In their own words, they address the "needs and deeds" of youngsters' behaviour. It would have been better if Mr McLetchie had encouraged people in Sighthill and elsewhere to volunteer to become panellists to see for themselves what panellists are dealing with.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I have only four minutes, which is a minute less than the time that other members have had.

The Tories talk about honesty in sentencing policy. They must address the fact that, compared with other countries in Europe, Scotland sends one of the highest proportions of its population to jail. Some 117 people out of every 100,000 are sent to jail. There have been record levels for the past two years, but the Tories propose building more prisons and sending more people to jail. That is a bankrupt idea, if ever there was one. Nothing has been learned. It costs £28,000 per year for each prisoner to languish in jail. Criminologists throughout the world agree that the length of a sentence is no deterrent whatever to committing a crime. As Pauline McNeill and other members have mentioned, prisons have a poor record on rehabilitation. Is it any wonder that, according to figures released by Safeguading Communities, Reducing Offending in Scotland, 53 per cent of the Scottish population believe that most people come out of prison worse than when they went in? That is the reality.

I am reminded of the film "Primary Colors", in which the Bill Clinton character says that any idiot can burn down a barn. In other words, it is easy to criticise. However, I point the Executive in the direction of an example that works—work in Finland. We should consider the Finnish example in the light of Scotland's experience. Finland is roughly the same size as Scotland, but it sends people to jail at less than half the rate at which we do—52 in every 100,000 people. Its crime record is studied internationally and its prison population is lower than it was 20 years ago. Finland investigates alternatives to incarceration and has a progressive system.

What is the effect of such liberalism? Does it lead to rampant crime? No, it does not. Unlike the situation in Scotland, 82 per cent of Finns say that they have no fear of going to the top of the road for a pint of milk late at night. That figure is the lowest in the world.

I offer that experience to the minister. The public in Scotland want an effective criminal justice system that works and not simply a harsher system. The public want a cure for the problem and not a harsher response.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

In the short time that is available to me, I too would like to focus on sentencing.

We need to put matters in perspective. Tens of thousands of people are sentenced by the courts each year and only a handful of cases make it to the pages of the press on the basis that the sentence is considered to be inappropriate. Where cases make it to the press, considerable dismay results, but we should keep a sense of perspective about the scale of the problem.

However, we cannot afford to be complacent. We recognise the real sense of injustice that the public feel in such situations, but research from SACRO—which has been mentioned—indicates that the public want a more effective system rather than a harsher system. That should guide all our deliberations.

I welcome the fact that the Executive has set up a sentencing commission, which was a Labour manifesto commitment. The commission will consider improving the consistency of sentencing, the effectiveness of sentencing in reducing reoffending and arrangements for early release from prison. That is a helpful approach to ensure that we balance the protection of the public and appropriate punishment with the need to maintain trust and confidence in our justice system, and in sentencing in particular.

Annabel Goldie spoke about the need for political leadership. We should consider Tory political leadership in relation to early release. As we have heard, the Tories passed the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, which made provision that a prisoner serving less than four years would be released automatically after half their sentence had been served. As the minister said, with an election looming in 1997, there was a hello to political expediency. Malcolm Rifkind showed a burst of literary taste by borrowing from Dostoevsky, but showed little substantial thinking in introducing the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997. Parole was abolished and any real prospect of early release for good behaviour was reduced.

Annabel Goldie claims that the Tories have seen the light. She said that we should forget the past and that we are all right now. However, the Tories cannot wipe away their history. The people of Scotland will not let them do that. If the Tories were serious about their plans, the cost of implementing them would have been built into their spending plans. How much was set aside? Nothing.

I will finish with a short but important history lesson. Under the Tories, crime doubled, the number of criminals caught fell by a third, recorded crime increased by 166 per cent and police numbers were reduced. Members should look beyond the Tories' crocodile tears. Their legacy is one of high crime levels and massive under-investment. That puts the debate, which was initiated by the Tories, in context, because the Tories are all talk and no action.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am sorry, but I am in my final 30 seconds.

Yes, we need to reform the criminal justice system. However, unlike the Tories, Labour has the objectives of more police officers on operational duty and on the beat, an effective prosecution service, courts that deliver a fair trial, appropriate sentences for those convicted and, ultimately, a reduction in reoffending. Unlike the Tories, we are on the side of the hard-pressed communities who daily experience the consequences of crime.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

What do the general public—our voters—want from the justice system? I believe that they want a fair system that brings criminals to justice and assures the public that the law is protecting them. The public believe that courts are perhaps too lenient and that judges are sometimes out of touch. The public do not understand why someone who is sentenced to 12 months or two years is released after six months or one year.

Does the public really understand the justice system? In 2002, an NFO System 3 survey on sentencing concluded:

"Public views on appropriate sentencing are however varied and complex. When asked to consider the details of specific cases members of the public generally opt for disposals which are broadly in line with those that would be imposed by the courts."

Many perhaps think that the courts or the prosecution service serve the criminals rather than the public. Too often, people are reluctant to report crime to the police or come forward as witnesses. If they do so, they often say afterwards that they wish they had not done so because their experience of the court system was not a good one.

Those are all understandable concerns that I believe the Executive is well aware of, which is why it has put justice at the top of its agenda. As Hugh Henry said, there are more police officers than ever before and we are committed to recruiting further police officers in this parliamentary session. The extra police will perhaps alleviate the problem to which Michael Matheson referred.

Part of the justice agenda is the sentencing commission, which will be led by a judge of considerable experience, Lord MacLean. He will be able to examine in depth all aspects of sentencing, including sentencing effectiveness, early release and the use of bail and remand. The commission will tackle the public's continuing concerns and I believe that it will rebuild public confidence in the justice system. I hope that the commission will also examine how to keep people out of prison in this day and age. For example, should fine defaulters go to prison? There should be another way of dealing with that offence. Imprisoning fine defaulters is perhaps the single reason for Cornton Vale women's prison being full.

Annabel Goldie's motion asks us to re-enact sections 33 to 41 of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 and end the automatic release of prisoners. I suggest that doing that would result in a significant increase in the work load of courts because an increasing number of accused people would opt for a not guilty plea and take their chance in court on the day. Perhaps Annabel Goldie wants the legal profession to increase its take-home pay to more than its present level. I agree with Pauline McNeill that Annabel Goldie's policy would result in more overcrowding in prisons. Surely we do not want that. As other members said, the Tories' plan would probably lead to an extra 1,800 or more prisoners in the prisons' daily population. What would that cost us?

Time has moved on and we must look forward. We must examine the current situation and decide where we are trying to get to. The partnership agreement put reform of the justice system at the top of the Executive's agenda. I believe that the reform of the High Court will address Margaret Mitchell's concerns. I also believe that the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill's proposal to give more support to victims and witnesses will make the general public more confident about reporting crimes to the police and going to court. All the measures to which I have referred are only the start of restoring confidence in the Scottish judicial system.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The debate has been interesting and many good points have been made from all parts of the chamber. I will try to deal with some of those points in the few minutes that I have.

Annabel Goldie started by referring to the Scottish household survey of 2001-2, about which she made valuable points. However, the survey also found that a third of women, a quarter of young people between the ages of 16 and 24 and more than half of people of pensionable age felt that it was unsafe to walk in their communities after dark. Obviously, the problem is not only the fact of crime but perceptions of crime.

The substantive issue of early release, which is referred to in the Tory motion, cannot be dealt with in isolation. That is why the Scottish National Party agrees with allowing the sentencing commission to do its job. Hugh Henry, Michael Matheson, Margaret Smith and many other members commented on that. We must give the commission the independence and the time to come up with proposals that we can debate at a future point.

If we did as the Tories suggest and suddenly stopped the automatic early release of prisoners without dealing with the overcrowding in our prisons, our overstretched system would collapse. Again, that point was made by many members, including Michael Matheson, Hugh Henry and Margaret Smith. We must deal with the issue of early release in the round and not in isolation. If we are serious, we will consider the number of people who are sent to prison in the first place, especially those who are imprisoned for minor offences such as the non-payment of fines. That is the way to go, rather than simply getting rid of automatic early release.

Margaret Mitchell talked about fines and fine defaulters. However, I agree with what Michael Matheson said about unit fines. Many countries throughout Europe use unit fines, which would be an effective way of dealing with the problem of the non-payment of fines. Statistics show that a high proportion of female prisoners are in prison for fine defaulting. Surely there is a fairer, more constructive way of dealing with that offence.

I agree with other members that there must be a way of ensuring that when offenders are released back into society they are ready to play a useful part in society. That is why there must be an increase in the number of programmes within prisons to help rehabilitate offenders prior to their release. Margaret Smith, Karen Whitefield and Alex Neil made good points on that issue. Our aim must be to reduce the current high incidence of recidivist behaviour. Public confidence in the justice system would be much higher if we achieved serious reductions in the number of released prisoners who reoffend.

Some of the most important points raised in the debate were around ideas on alternatives to custody. Again, Margaret Smith, Margaret Mitchell and Pauline McNeill made excellent points on that subject. We must take a serious look at all the ideas in that area, including the suggestion of weekend sentencing. We must also ensure that we consider the best and most successful examples of alternatives to custody from around the world. It is not good enough only to say that we have more police and that we have spent more money. That in itself will not do anything. We must match resources to the demands of the system. Saying that there are more resources does not mean that they match the system's needs. That is clearly shown by the increase in cases that end in no proceedings from 12.5 per cent in 1997 to 17 per cent in 2002-3.

I pay tribute to Colin Fox's comments on children's panels. I agree that the Tory leader was utterly wrong in his comments about panels. Margaret Smith's comments about her personal experience of the justice system were helpful. Personal experience brings a light to the subject that is often missing from our speeches. It is important that we take the personal experience of individuals into account when we deal with the justice system.

I hope that the SNP amendment to the motion will be supported, as it tackles the idea that we must match resources to the demands within the system.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The debate has been exceptionally good for a short one. All parties have made a number of well-considered and appropriate suggestions. I pledge that Cathy Jamieson and I will examine carefully suggestions that are worth considering in more detail. In fact, many of the suggestions were in tune with what we are already considering.

Several speakers brought out the fact that, although we are doing a number of things and doing them well, many other aspects of our criminal justice system need to be improved. That is why the Executive is putting so much emphasis on challenging the way in which we operate and on challenging ourselves and others to do much better.

Pauline McNeill spoke about some of the problems in the court system, such as the length of time that it takes for cases to go through court and some of the problems that are associated with witnesses not turning up. A number of organisational aspects will have to be given clear consideration.

I will build on some of the comments that Annabel Goldie and others made on the way in which the police operate. The police will continue to have a debate on how they use their resources, on visibility and on intelligence-led policing.

What we have been saying about rehabilitation is fundamental. I was encouraged by the number of speakers in the debate who said that prison should not only be about imprisoning violent people and taking them off the street. Karen Whitefield is absolutely right that those who commit serious crimes need to be imprisoned and taken off our street, but she and others also spoke about the need for change. Alex Neil spoke about the need to reform prisoners. Colin Fox spoke graphically about the Finnish experience, which is not unique.

I say to Alex Neil, Colin Fox and others that some of the issues with rehabilitation—the fact that prisoners are not being prepared for release and the fact that we have such high reoffending rates—are precisely the reasons why we are so intent on having a debate about a single corrections agency. The social work services are not working as effectively as they could with prisons. The agencies in general are not working well together.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

The minister talked about Annabel Goldie. Does he agree that the legal fraternity is very much to blame for encouraging guilty people to plead not guilty up to the 11 th hour, thereby tying up police time—Annabel Goldie wants to see police on the street—and curtailing the time that they should be out doing their duties? The judicial fraternity must look inwards before it can get the confidence of the people.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The debate is not about trying to apportion blame; it is about trying to identify problems and come up with solutions. Annabel Goldie talked about the sentencing commission. I say to her that Cathy Jamieson has made it clear that we will not rule out anything on the sentencing commission. We want a full investigation into all aspects of sentencing. We will give priorities and guidelines on that. Many of the comments that have been made will be given careful consideration.

When we debate imprisonment, it is clear that the Tories are still being deceitful and dishonest. They promise that more people will go to prison for longer, but they do not identify the resource issues. Just as in 1993 and 1997, they are not answering the question. Perhaps the Tories are about to surprise us with their own alternative to custody. Perhaps they are going to draw on Rosie Kane's experience and come up with an offer of community imprisonment in which they agree to take in prisoners. The sentencing commission might want to think about whether an offender would want three months with Annabel Goldie or three years in Barlinnie. That would certainly be a difficult choice.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Hugh Henry began the debate by accusing the Conservatives of not listening. I have news for him: the problem is that we have been listening and, over the past few weeks and months, we have heard Jack McConnell talking tough about locking people up, Cathy Jamieson talking soft about rehabilitation and, this morning, Hugh Henry largely talking nonsense. Part of the problem is that we simply do not know where the Executive stands on the issue. Its policies do not have a credibility gap; they have a credibility chasm. Where does the schizophrenic Executive stand on some of the most important issues that affect Scottish people today?

I will make one thing clear: the Conservatives believe in making things easy for people. That is why, after due consideration and a lot of thought, we lodged amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill—debated in the Parliament earlier this year—which are now exactly in line with the First Minister's thinking. What was Hugh Henry's response on that occasion? He voted most of those measures down. Certainly, the wiser counsel that we offered prevailed to some extent, in that the nonsense of 16 and 17-year-olds going through the children's hearings system was done away with. However, if the Executive really wanted to do something, all it had to do was to accept my amendments. Unfortunately, it did not.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I am not surprised that Bill Aitken can hardly keep his face straight, because I do not think that even he believed that. Does he not accept that the consequence of what he proposed in the debate on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill would have been that those who had been sentenced to three years would have spent longer in prison than those sentenced to four years?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

As Annabel Goldie graphically illustrated in her speech, that is exactly the way that the Executive is heading. When the matter came before the Parliament, I said that remission should be done away with in its entirety. That would have resolved the difficulty.

As I have dealt with the minister, I will make one more point about the Executive's policy. We have not heard from the Executive whether the sentencing commission will consider early release overall, or only for short-term sentences. There is genuine doubt on our part on that.

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

I clarify that the sentencing commission will consider all those issues.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am obliged.

I will now deal with some of the other speeches. Uncharacteristically, Michael Matheson made some pretty sound points. He dealt with the increased pressures on the police and the fact that there is considerable public apathy on the reporting of crime. He began to drift from the straight and narrow on unit fines, which are SNP policy. It is entirely open to any judge who is imposing a fine to take fully into consideration the offender's means. Indeed, the High Court requires that they do so.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

That point relates to the amount that the offender repays. It is about a proportionate fine for the individual. A millionaire should pay more than a pensioner if they are found guilty of the same crime, and we do not have that facility in the system.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Mr Matheson is wrong on that point. The High Court has held that it is totally appropriate for two offenders in the same case to be fined different amounts.

Pauline McNeill made a sound speech on the Scottish Courts Administration and clarity in sentencing and then failed rather badly to expand on her ideas on community sentencing. We all believe that community sentences would keep a lot of people out of jail if they worked. However, when the former Deputy Minister for Justice tells me that something like 25 per cent of community service orders are not fully complied with, and when I have sound reasons for believing that 50 per cent of them are not fully complied with, I think that they are seen not to be working.

Alex Neil said that he did not often speak on justice matters. The obvious advice that I have to give him is that he should stick to what he is good at. Apart from coming out with the old canard of Kilmarnock prison, he did not have too much to contribute.

Colin Fox started off with the plaintive cry that it is basically the rich who gets the pleasure and the poor who takes the blame and attacked David McLetchie for stating that people had no confidence in the children's panel system. I can tell him that many children's panel members do not have confidence in the system either, as a third of them resign every year. There is clearly an issue there.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am in my last minute—I am genuinely sorry not to be able to give way.

Colin Fox raised the matter of Finland jailing fewer people than anywhere else. I have some interesting statistics for him. Although he is quite right about that, people in Finland also seem to commit more crimes per head of population than is the case anywhere else—the figure of 7.4 per 100 population is much higher than in most comparable European countries.

This has been a fairly good debate, with some constructive contributions. The Executive is very much on trial, however, as is the justice system. There has been far too much talk and a total absence of action to date. The people of Scotland will be watching anxiously to see what develops in the months ahead.

First Minister's Question Time

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-215)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I welcome Ms Cunningham to First Minister's question time. I hope that she enjoys the experience, and we all genuinely hope that Mr Swinney is back in his rightful position next Thursday.

Next week, the Cabinet will discuss our progress in implementing the partnership agreement and the legislative programme.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I see that the First Minister is trying to deploy some of his allegedly legendary charm.

This morning, the chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland, Sir Roy Cameron, was asked whether he could see custody services being owned and operated in the same way as private prisons. He replied in the affirmative. Will the First Minister take this opportunity to say that the privatisation of police custodial services is not, and will not become, the policy of his Government?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The privatisation of custodial provision in police stations and that sort of environment, which I believe may have been covered by the reference made by the chief inspector of constabulary this morning, is not currently the policy of the partnership parties, nor of the Government.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I am glad that the First Minister is saying that that is "not currently the policy". I also asked him whether he would rule it out for the future. Contracting out police custody services means contracting out what we in the real world call police stations. That was explicitly dealt with during the interview with the chief inspector this morning, so the First Minister must today rule out for any time in the future the privatisation of Scotland's police stations.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

This is a diversion from the Scottish nationalist party. We have an absolutely excellent chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland. He has been one of our most respected police officers, with an excellent record in the force and an even better record since he became chief inspector. He has been at the forefront of the initiatives that are now being driven through the system to ensure that police officers who join the force for a career—serving the public, catching criminals and ensuring that they are convicted when that is the right thing to do—spend their working time on those activities, and not doing things that should be done by somebody else. Roy Cameron has been innovative in his thinking at times and, through a number of proposals that he has made, has been at the forefront of that drive. I welcome his involvement.

We have no plans at all to contract out police stations in Scotland, but we support, and will continue to support enthusiastically, ways in which we can divert activities and work responsibilities from police officers to civilian staff and companies—where appropriate—when that is safe and the right thing to do. That is how to ensure that more police officers are on the beat in Scotland.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

The difficulty for the First Minister is that the chief inspector of constabulary was asked explicitly about the privatisation of custody services this morning, and replied in the affirmative. If the First Minister's denials are correct, I ask him to explain why the Deputy Minister for Justice is on the record this morning as welcoming the comments made by Sir Roy Cameron. He said that Sir Roy's comments

"are very much in tune with what we are talking about."

Either the First Minister is repudiating the Deputy Minister for Justice—which I would gladly invite the First Minister to do—or he is repudiating HM chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Not at all. It is wrong to misinterpret in that way the totality of the remarks made by the chief inspector this morning. He is an independent assessor of the way in which our police force operates in Scotland. When he makes a suggestion—even one with which we might disagree—he has a right to be heard and we should listen to him seriously. When the Deputy Minister for Justice makes a sensible contribution at the launch of the report this morning and says, in a general way, that the original remarks made by the chief inspector are to be welcomed—before the chief inspector was asked any specific question—he is right to do that too. It is wrong to come to the chamber and misinterpret those comments.

We need to ensure that, where police officers are currently wasting their time on administrative tasks, those tasks should properly be carried out by civilian staff and not by police officers. When police officers are sitting around courts, wasting their time waiting for cases to come up that might not be heard, we must reform the court system so that they can get back on the beat and back to conducting investigations, which is the job that they signed up to do. We should transfer responsibility for transferring people or documentation from one place to another, when police officers are doing that rather than being out on the beat or carrying out investigations. I hope that the nationalist party will support us on all those measures when they are debated in the chamber in due course.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-216)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will meet the Secretary of State for Scotland next week in Bournemouth, and I am sure that we will have some interesting discussions.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I hope that the First Minister and the secretary of state get round to discussing the flagging performance of the Scottish economy, as opposed to the flagging performance of the Labour party.

One of the problems that business organisations identified in relation to our economy is that some small businesses are facing increases in their water bills of between 25 per cent and more than 500 per cent, when their consumption of the product consists of little more than boiling the kettle for their morning cuppa or flushing the loo.

The Executive recently announced an underspend of £394 million. It also received a £196 million stock transfer windfall from the Treasury. Out of all those millions, will the First Minister consider introducing a transitional relief scheme to ease the burden of water charges on our hard-pressed small businesses? I am told that such a scheme would cost less than £10 million over a three-year period.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No. My views and those of Mr Finnie and other Executive ministers about the way in which Scottish Water handled the increased water charges over last winter and into the spring have been expressed over recent months in this chamber and elsewhere and are on the record. We have had assurances from Scottish Water that future decisions—not just increases, but decisions—on water charges, particularly for businesses, will be better handled, with more consultation and clearer analysis in advance of the impact of decisions.

At the same time, it is right and proper that we invest in the water supply and ensure that the service can pay for itself. It is also right that we ensure that we meet international standards, which I believe all Scots, including those who own businesses, want us to meet. That is the right thing to do and I believe that we can do it inside the public sector. I know that the Scottish Conservatives' policy is to privatise the water industry. We believe that that would be wrong. It would lead to higher charges and an even worse relationship with businesses. We want to see an efficient and effective public water service in Scotland.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I thank the First Minister for his answer. Perhaps we might explore some of those issues. First, I am pleased to hear his acknowledgement that Scottish Water mishandled the latest round of increases. We have had transitional relief schemes in the past when there were substantial increases in business rates, so, given the acknowledged mishandling, why cannot we have such a scheme now for small businesses at a relatively modest cost?

There is a broader issue, which the First Minister rightly identified, about the ownership and structure of our water industry. Contrary to what the First Minister said, by comparison with our nationalised industry, private water companies in England and Wales have lower charges for domestic and business customers. In addition, the water that they supply to their customers is of a higher quality.

In the face of that incontrovertible evidence concerning the quality and cost of the service, why will the First Minister not consider taking Scottish Water out of the public sector and turning it—at the very least—into a mutual company that is owned and run in the interests of its customers? According to all the evidence, that would allow it to deliver a more efficient and cost-effective service than it delivers at present.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The deputy leader of Scottish Labour is looking forward to receiving Mr McLetchie's application to become a member of the Co-operative Party on the basis of his conversion to mutuality.

This is an important issue. For the record, I make it clear that I did not say that Scottish Water had mishandled this year's price increases. However, we have had assurances from Scottish Water that it will handle price increases better in future. That is the right approach to take, and it is right for ministers to intervene in that way.

It is also right that we ensure that Scottish Water has a charging scheme that can properly finance the investment levels that the water industry in Scotland urgently requires. It needs those investment levels because of the years of underinvestment under a Conservative Government that was not interested in the quality of Scotland's water and that had a pointless debate about ownership some 10 years ago, instead of genuinely investing in the service and ensuring that it met the national and international standards that we would expect it to meet.

We are determined not only to have a public water service in Scotland, but to have one that meets those standards and that is run efficiently. That will involve some tough decisions. It will involve people having to pay for the service, and the service will have to become leaner and more efficient. However, we believe that that is the right solution, not the privatisation of Scotland's water.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

In the context of a question about the economy, can I have the First Minister's assurance that, in his discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland, he will emphasise the importance of a healthy UK defence industry, in particular for the continued viability of the Govan shipyard and for the people and prosperity of that area of Glasgow?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That is an important point, which I have discussed with Alistair Darling since his appointment as secretary of state in the summer. I am sure that we will have more discussions about it in future.

A healthy UK defence industry is vital not only for our national defence, but for jobs in Scotland. That is particularly the case in Gordon Jackson's constituency, which covers the Clyde and the shipyards, where the number of apprenticeships is increasing dramatically 20 years on from what appeared to be a terminal decline in the number of apprenticeships in Scotland. Young people are being given the opportunity to get back into that industry and to learn the skills that will help them in future.

We are also securing jobs in regiments and support industries for defence elsewhere in Scotland, especially in Perthshire. I hope that those who will vote—at a conference somewhere else this week—on whether to shut down the Scottish defence industry will think again, think twice and back it instead.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Following the publication yesterday of the findings of the UK Government's national debate on genetically modified crops, which concluded that the majority of the public never wants GM crops to be grown under any circumstances and that only 2 per cent of people would be happy to eat GM foods, will the Executive use its devolved powers over agriculture to respond favourably to the public debate?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Mark Ruskell makes a serious point. The public consultation was a serious exercise, not only in hearing the views of the public, but in holding a dialogue with the public. I understand from yesterday's report that that dialogue, and the way in which it was conducted, was commended by the independent person responsible as a way in which the Government could develop consultations in the future. We, too, have a good record on consultation, including, for example, the consultation on antisocial behaviour that was conducted over the summer, which was more of a dialogue with the public than a straightforward paper exercise.

On the specific issue of GM crops, we have said consistently that we will take a straightforward, scientific approach. We will analyse the evidence and make announcements about our policy once we have that evidence. We believe that that is the right way in which to handle the matter, and that is what we are going to do.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's position is on the fairness of the council tax, particularly in relation to pensioners. (S2F-233)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Under the current system, council tax benefit is available to those who have difficulty paying, including pensioners.

The partnership parties agree that the council tax system could be improved. That is why, following consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, we will establish an independent review of local government finance.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Our pensioners are being hammered by the unfair Tory council tax. Commenting on a recent report, Help the Aged stated:

"rises in council tax continue to increase the financial misery faced by the least well off pensioners. ... Our research shows that council tax is not just a property tax, but a pensioner tax."

A bill for the abolition of that pensioner tax has now been proposed to the Parliament. The Labour party's partner in Government believes not in improving the council tax, but in replacing it. Will the First Minister change his position and stand up for the pensioners, instead of standing up for the wealthy?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not believe that the Labour party's policy in the May election, which was to improve and extend council tax bands, is in any way protecting the wealthy or not looking after pensioners. It is no secret that two different views on the issue were expressed in the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos for the election. We have taken the right decision to refer not just those views, but the views of other members to an independent review of local government finance. That is the right way of handling this matter.

I hope and expect that the independent review of local government finance will place under scrutiny and find wanting the plans of the Scottish Socialist Party for a Scottish service tax, which would penalise a significant number of people in our society who are not at all wealthy and would centralise local taxation in Scotland, instead of giving local authorities more power and responsibility.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I thoroughly welcome the opportunity to debate our and other ideas for replacing the council tax. Seven political parties are represented in the chamber, five of which want to replace the council tax. The old Tories and the new Tories still defend that system. Is it not time that the First Minister supported a system, based on personal income, that starts to fleece the fat cat's wallet, instead of continuing to plunder the pensioner's purse?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

In Scotland we already have a system of local government finance that is derived largely from personal income tax. Under the current system, the largest proportion of local government expenditure is financed by national Government grants to local authorities. National Government taxation is based largely on a variety of systems of personal taxation.

I do not accept that local government finance in Scotland is largely property based. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise by an independent review of local government finance but—as I have said before—like socialists throughout the last century in Scotland I believe that there is a role for property-based taxation, because property is related to the ability to pay. I am disappointed that Mr Sheridan does not see that link. I hope that he can be persuaded that it is wrong to penalise doctors, dentists and others whom we want to recruit into the health service, and other professions in Scotland, just so that he can grab the sort of headlines that he tries to get by claiming that he wants to abolish local taxation. He does not—he wants to replace it with a far worse system.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister was elected on a programme that did not include proportional representation for local government, but he plans to introduce it. When can we expect the First Minister to abolish council tax and to introduce the increase in income tax that his Liberal colleagues recommend?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We will be happy, following discussions with colleagues in local government, to initiate our independent review of local government finance. That is the agreement that we have made, and that is what we will do. I hope that the level of discussion in the independent review will be slightly higher than that which sometimes takes place in the chamber on this subject.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive is taking to combat the skills shortage in Scotland by welcoming people who wish to come to live and work here. (S2F-227)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

To deal with Scotland's population decline we need to retain talent within our borders, to attract ex-Scots back home and to attract talent from all over the UK, Europe and further afield.

We are preparing plans to take forward our fresh talent initiative, which includes improved promotion of Scotland abroad and the establishment of a one-stop relocation advisory service for those who wish to live and work in Scotland.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

As part of the next stage of the fresh talent initiative, will the First Minister consider ways in which we could improve the collaboration among Scottish universities in large international markets where people want to come to study in Scotland? In particular, given that a common Scottish brand proved so effective 20 years ago in the field of inward investment, will he consider whether there might be lessons there in how we promote Scottish higher education internationally?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That is a sensible idea. Scottish universities have an excellent reputation world wide. They have a lot to sell at home and abroad and if they do so in a collaborative way, they will maximise their impact and we will maximise the number of people from all over the world who want to come here. I hope that we are able to convince many of those people to spend longer in this country and to live and work here as well as studying here.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister is encouraging people to come here for higher education, but does he agree that when we get people to come to Scotland we have to give them good reasons to stay? Will he spell out some of the ways in which he thinks that we, in an underpowered, devolved set-up, can keep as many people who want to stay here as possible? For example, we could release the many asylum seekers who take a long time to get their asylum confirmed in this country and get them into our economic system.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Let me be clear about this. As Mr Gibson knows, I do not believe in a separate immigration policy for Scotland. Having a single immigration policy for the whole United Kingdom would make sense to any logical person in Scotland.

I also genuinely believe that we can intervene in that system to the benefit of Scotland's economy and our society in the years to come. We can do so not only by ensuring that more Scots stay here, which is part of what our initiative must try to achieve, but by improving the chance that people from elsewhere in the world will choose to make Scotland their home and to work here. We can do that now.

We have an amazing opportunity. Scotland is back in the international limelight. We have an opportunity because the UK is increasing the number of people who get work permits. We have an opportunity because of the number of people who seek, and get, asylum or refugee status in Scotland. We have an opportunity to say to them that we have one of the best education systems anywhere, we have a world-class higher education system, we have scenery and a countryside that is almost second to none, we have cities that are increasingly cosmopolitan, metropolitan and successful and we have potential in our economy. If we go out and sell that message across the world, rather than talking Scotland down, we will see more people wanting and choosing to live and work here.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Executive has had with the Home Office regarding the introduction of identity cards. (S2F-223)