Scottish Parliament, 27 November 2003

291 contributions from 75 members. The official report.

Introduction

Violence Against Women

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business today is a debate on motion S2M-660, in the name of Margaret Curran, on violence against women, and three amendments to the motion.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am sure that members of all parties share my disappointment that we are here to discuss again the persistent problem of domestic abuse and violence against women and that we are still dealing with rising figures. However, this debate gives us the opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to recognising the importance of domestic abuse and violence against women in Scotland and to outline what we are doing about it. I know that Parliament shares that commitment and I want to reassure Parliament about the absolute commitment of the Scottish Executive and to inform members of the ways in which we have continued to pursue the problem.

We have promised to implement the "National Strategy to Address Domestic Abuse" in Scotland, which is a systematic plan of action that was approved by Parliament in November 2000 and which spells out action on a number of fronts. First, it says that we should inform ourselves about the nature and the scale of domestic abuse in Scotland so that we can form our policies and direct our resources. Secondly, it says that we should raise awareness so that no one in Scotland can turn a blind eye, and that we must create a climate in which violence against women is abhorred and those who perpetrate it shunned by society.

Let us be absolutely clear about the fact that every person has the right to live life free from the fear of violence or abuse. We must ensure that the women and their children who experience abuse have access to appropriate legal protection. Last but not least, we must ensure that there is adequate provision of appropriate refuge and support services.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

When the minister is considering where to direct resources in relation to refuge places, will she take account of the recent figures that show that Dundee has the highest rate of domestic abuse recorded by the police in Scotland? Information from Dundee Women's Aid indicates that of 153 requests for refuge places it was able to provide only 89.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

As I go through my speech, I will outline the work that we have done to tackle refuge provision. Examining the situation in detail was a specific task that we undertook as part of the national strategy. I am sure that Dundee has been part of that process, but I will ensure that the information that Shona Robison mentions is considered. Perhaps she can come back to me later if she is not satisfied with what I have to say on the subject.

I would like to focus on the awareness-raising aspect of our work. December 2002 saw the launch of our new advertising campaign, "doll's house". I am sure that many members will have seen that powerful advert, which makes it clear how domestic abuse affects children. Scottish Women's Aid estimates that there are 100,000 children and young people in Scotland living with domestic abuse and that, in 90 per cent of incidents, they are in the same room or the next room when violence occurs. It is therefore extremely important to raise awareness of what domestic abuse can do to children.

As well as the high-profile television advertising campaigns, such as "doll's house" and, previously, "behind closed doors", we are progressing our work on research and on specific information that we circulate to groups, which is still in demand.

The awareness-raising strategy has been developed in recent years by the national group to address violence against women. It focuses on, among other things, primary prevention, which aims to stop abuse before it happens by changing the attitudes that excuse or condone it. The working group has circulated a report on the subject.

Our most ambitious project has been the three-year refuge development programme, which is a £10 million programme to build or buy new refuges and to extend and upgrade old ones. We have invited local authorities to identify gaps in refuge provision in their areas and to apply for funding for projects to redress those gaps. We have also commissioned research—by a team that is headed by Dr Suzanne Fitzpatrick of the University of Glasgow—to investigate women and children's experiences, preferences and priorities in relation to refuge provision, and to assess the level and standard of available accommodation. A critical factor is the nature of the refuges that we provide. Housing support must be of the nature that women and children want and need.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Has any further work been done on the issue of women in refuges who are working? Quite often, the cost can be prohibitive either to the women or to Women's Aid, if it is providing the service.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

That is the kind of detailed subject that the refuge group was examining and that we want to address as we roll out refuge provision in Scotland. As the minister with responsibility for housing, I know that the core housing agencies have a critical responsibility to ensure that they meet the needs of women who are fleeing domestic violence. The matter is not the responsibility only of Women's Aid or refuges.

The refuge report is a comprehensive study of refuge today and makes a number of recommendations, some for the Executive to address and others for local authorities and Scottish Women's Aid to address. The preferred model of refuge that emerged from the research was that of a cluster of self-contained flats with communal facilities such as a meeting and counselling room, a children's room and an office, although other models, such as dispersed flats, were recognised and will be considered in coming years. This cluster model constitutes a large proportion of the projects that are being developed by the programme. Mary Mulligan has recently visited a number of those new refuges and recognises that they are a developing part of the service.

Those are clear examples of how the lives of women and their children who are fleeing domestic abuse are being improved. They are less and less likely to have to share a room with their families and kitchens and bathrooms with other families. They have, increasingly, the opportunity to rebuild their lives in privacy and with dignity while still receiving the support and help that they need. The recent announcement of the increase in Scottish Women's Aid funding from £192,000 to £246,000 will help us to develop our policy in that regard. In all, we are funding 27 projects throughout Scotland. When the programme is completed, which we hope will happen by 2005, every local authority area in Scotland will have refuge provision.

Of course, we are aware that there is more to be done to ensure that every woman who needs a place in a refuge can access one; we will reassess the position when the current programme has been completed. As I said in response to Elaine Smith, the development of new refuges in response to the housing needs of women and children who are fleeing abuse will continue as part of the core work of Communities Scotland through the social housing investment programme.

Another big success has been the domestic abuse service development fund. The current phase, which ends in March 2004, is supporting 55 local projects with £3 million a year that is available through Executive funding and matched funding.

The first two years of the fund have been evaluated and we intend to publish the report next month. The evaluation shows that the fund has allowed a lot of work to be undertaken and that it has had a considerable impact on the development of services. It also indicates that the results that have been achieved have been good value for money and gives a strong steer that the funding should continue for the next two years. It is clear that that funding is a vital component of the services that are required and I am pleased to announce that it will run for another two years from 1 April 2004.

The evaluation report identifies some problems and difficulties and makes a number of recommendations for improvement. We are therefore reviewing the rules under which the fund operates and we will issue new guidance within the next two weeks.

The domestic abuse helpline has also been evaluated recently. The evaluation confirms that the helpline is providing a valuable and necessary service, and makes some recommendations on the way forward. We are studying the recommendations carefully and will publish the report shortly. However, we have decided that we will immediately provide resources to allow the helpline to operate for 24 hours a day, every day, from 22 December 2003 until the end of January 2004, in parallel with the television advertisement. That will ensure that women who are experiencing abuse can get information and help at whatever time of day or night they need it over what can be a very un-festive season for them.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The news about the extension of the helpline is extremely welcome. The minister has, quite rightly, focused on the 90 per cent of victims of domestic abuse who are female, but will she confirm that the other victims can also access the helpline and make use of it?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Discussing this matter is an annual outing for Mike Rumbles and me. I want to make it absolutely clear that the Executive is committed to tackling domestic abuse, whoever experiences it. No one in Scotland should live with the fear of domestic abuse or violence. Mike Rumbles knows that we recognise domestic abuse as a gendered crime; that is why we focus our resources and strategies on violence against women and children. We will continue to evaluate the work of the helpline.

The work of the national group is meant to tackle the broader issues that are associated with violence against women and children, not just domestic abuse. The Green amendment addresses that point, which is interesting. We acknowledge that there are broader issues of sexual abuse. Violence against women and children is a blight on our society—we must take it very seriously and I acknowledge the thinking behind the Green amendment.

I am announcing today the establishment of a new fund—the violence against women fund—which will run for two years from April 2004. We hope that the work of the national group will address issues of rape and sexual abuse. The fund will make available £1 million over the next two years and is aimed at projects that fulfil primary needs in this area by providing direct services to women. We will issue details of the fund and I hope that we will be able to agree to the Green amendment to our motion today, because it highlights the kind of work that we are trying to develop.

As I said earlier, we are very aware of the impact on children and young people who live in families in which there is domestic abuse. We are aware that support for those young people varies throughout Scotland and that provision of resources is patchy. We need a much more strategic plan that will enable us to work in partnership with others—such as local authorities and grant-making trusts—to maximise resources and to ensure stable and consistent funding. We have therefore established a working group to develop a co-ordinated strategic approach to provision of support services for children and young people in families who experience domestic abuse. The group is chaired by a member of the national office of Scottish Women's Aid. A variety of people are on the group, including people from the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration.

Another part of the work—which also featured strongly in last year's debate—has been the development of a training strategy. That work has been taken forward by the national group. Anyone who is familiar with this subject will always stress that everyone who, in the course of their work, comes into contact with women who are experiencing abuse should be able to give an appropriate response. There is therefore a demonstrable need for specific training for staff in a number of sectors including social work, education, health, the police, housing, criminal and civil justice and the voluntary and private sectors. There is a strong emphasis on multi-agency training for all. We have committed £700,000 a year for the next three years to ensure that the strategy is implemented.

I am sure that members will be aware of recent publicity about proposals for a pilot domestic abuse court. I am pleased to confirm that the Procurator Fiscal Service is working with the Executive, the Scottish Court Service and the police to develop such a pilot in Glasgow. We hope that it will be in a position to receive cases from April 2004 and that cases will be heard from around June. The court will be confined initially to summary cases from one division of Strathclyde police. Cases will be fast-tracked by the police to a designated procurator fiscal depute and will be dealt with by two designated sheriffs. We believe that bringing perpetrators to court quickly to be dealt with by people who have specific experience and training and who are in possession of all the relevant information will ensure that disposals are appropriate and consistent and that due consideration is given to the consequences for the victims. This is obviously, as I am sure members are aware, a complex matter and the practical details have still to be worked out. We have to ensure that appropriate support services are in place for offenders to reduce the chances of reoffending and to safeguard victims. Working groups are currently taking those ideas forward.

As recommended by the legislation group, we are considering research on child contact applications. Evidence suggests that there may be a correlation between domestic abuse and child abuse and that, as I said earlier, children are witnesses to the abuse in a large proportion of domestic abuse incidents. There is therefore concern that contact can be used by abusive partners to continue violence towards children and abuse of former partners. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that there is variation throughout Scotland in the practice of awarding contact orders. We need therefore to find out exactly what is happening.

We cannot be complacent about domestic abuse. Although we recognise its seriousness, the fact that the figures are still so alarming gives us pause for thought. We plan to develop the key points of our message. We are planning a series of art exhibitions across Scotland with contributions of pictures, prose, lyrics and poetry from the famous and the not-so-famous who have experience of domestic abuse.

I know that Mary Mulligan's son noticed Christina Aguilera's support for our domestic abuse campaign. That gave us a wee bit of credibility during the week of the MTV awards—not very much, but a wee bit. Travis have also agreed to contribute to the exhibition. It is important that we acknowledge the scale of domestic abuse in Scotland and it is welcome that celebrities are helping us to get the message across.

We are organising a three-day snapshot of domestic abuse between 5 and 7 December. Organisations and public bodies that provide services to women and children who have experienced domestic abuse have been asked to provide information on a set range of questions over that period. It will be the first time that such a widespread information-gathering exercise has been organised in Scotland and we expect that the information will be helpful in raising awareness and in planning appropriate services in the future.

Let me say again that no one should experience violence and domestic abuse in Scotland. The eradication of all forms of violence against women is a long-term goal. We have laid out the beginnings of a systematic plan. We have an ambitious and varied programme of work, which I hope we can extend to cover other forms of violence against women. We have not slackened our pace or slackened in our determination to tackle this very important issue. Although we may have some disagreements today on how best to take forward policies and strategies, I hope that I can say that I have the support of the whole Parliament—I do quote members in the course of my work—in tackling domestic abuse and violence against women in Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament approves the continuing progress made in implementing the National Strategy to Address Domestic Abuse in Scotland by raising awareness of the issue and increasing the protection of women and children experiencing domestic abuse and the services available to them and welcomes the work of the National Group to Address Violence Against Women in tackling this unacceptable behaviour.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I welcome this debate on an issue that is hugely important and terribly painful for thousands of women throughout Scotland. The debate is timely; this week saw the United Nations international day for the elimination of violence against women, and this month sees the start of an international campaign of 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. I warmly welcome both of those initiatives.

The reality in Scotland—the minister alluded to this in her speech—is that we still have a long way to go to come close to meeting the UN's aspiration. To date, we have failed to reduce, let alone to eliminate, incidents of violence against women. As the minister said, this debate takes place against the background of the domestic abuse statistics that were published yesterday. There were 36,000 incidents of domestic abuse reported to police in 2002—a slight increase on the previous year. When we reflect on those statistics, it is important to remember that they show only the incidents that are reported to police. Many more women will be victims of abuse but, for a variety or reasons, will not feel that they are able to come forward to report the abuse. It is estimated that somewhere between a quarter and a third of all women in Scotland will experience abuse at some stage in their lives. That is an appalling and sobering fact that we should pause to consider.

The consequences of domestic abuse, as already outlined, are absolutely horrific. They include damage to physical and mental health, depression, anxiety, psychosomatic problems, eating disorders and sexual dysfunction. According to Shelter, 40 per cent of all homeless women cite domestic abuse as a contributory factor in their homelessness. The single most quoted reason for women's becoming homeless is domestic violence.

When a woman is the victim of domestic abuse, there is a high risk that her children will be abused and assaulted as well or, at least, that they will witness abuse against their mother. That is the seriousness of the problem and I think that we in Parliament are as one in being determined to do more to tackle it.

We in the Scottish National Party welcome the initiatives that have been outlined by the minister, such as the national strategy on domestic violence and the national group to address violence against women and I welcome many of the more recent announcements. It will be interesting, for example, to see how the piloted domestic abuse court works in practice. The announcement by the Solicitor General for Scotland earlier in the week that all domestic abuse cases will now be held in the sheriff court is welcome, although in my perhaps not very extensive experience most domestic abuse cases are already heard in the sheriff court. Nevertheless, we should welcome the fact that that commitment has been expressly made.

I want to focus on three areas where we can still do better. I concede that they are areas where, in many cases, work will be ongoing. In a debate such as this, however, it does no harm to remind ourselves of the areas in which further work can perhaps be done. The first is the funding of services that are available throughout the country to abused women. There is no doubt—I am sure that everybody would agree—that availability of refuge and support services will often be the determining factor in whether a woman is able to escape an abusive situation. The Executive has made available significant sums of money and we all welcome that. However, as the minister said, the reality is that provision is still very patchy throughout the country, partly because national funding requires in many cases to be matched by local money. Shona Robison mentioned the situation in Dundee.

It is important to view funding levels in the context of demand for services. I was pleased to note the additional £50,000 that was made available to Scottish Women's Aid earlier this week, but when we consider that demand for the services of Scottish Women's Aid increased by 10 per cent last year alone, we can start to put that funding into context. A total of 72,000 women turned to Scottish Women's Aid for support and help last year. Increasingly, many such organisations will articulate a need not just for increased revenue funding but for capital funding. Those are points that we must bear in mind.

The second area that I want to touch on, on which the minister spent some time, is the raising of awareness of domestic abuse. I was struck by a study that was carried out five or six years ago by the Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust that showed that one in five young men and one in 10 young women thought that domestic violence against women was acceptable. I accept that a lot of work has been carried out in the interim and I hope that if a similar study were conducted today the results would be very different, but those figures serve to remind us that there is no room for complacency. We have to aim constantly to raise awareness and I commend the advertising campaigns, but we must never lose sight of or remove emphasis from the zero-tolerance approach. That is a powerful message and one that we must repeat and reinforce at every opportunity.

The third matter that I want to touch on is how we support women who are abused. One of the frightening aspects of the statistics that were published yesterday is that half of all cases of domestic violence that are reported to police involve women who have been abused before; in other words, women who are in many cases trapped in a vicious cycle of abuse. What that says to me is that we as a society are failing women who are abused, who find the courage to report that abuse, but who are then—for whatever reason—not given the support or the encouragement to allow them to escape their situation. It strikes me that if we are failing the women who come forward, we are not even getting close to the ones who for whatever reason do not find it possible—perhaps because they see what happens to women who report abuse—to come forward.

Too often, women who are the victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or rape feel that the system is not always on their side. They often end up feeling as if they are victims of the system as well as victims of the crimes that have been committed against them. When a woman reports domestic violence, rape or sexual assault it tends to be her life that disintegrates, not that of the person who committed the crime against her. Forty per cent of homeless women have suffered domestic abuse. We must consider how we can begin to shift the burden away from the victim on to the perpetrator and we can learn from international practice. In Austria, for example, when police are called to an incident of domestic violence they have the power to remove the abuser—usually the man—rather than have the women and children removed from the family home.

It is important to refer to the fact that prosecution and conviction rates for domestic violence and rape are too low in this country, which is a disincentive to people's coming forward. The minister said, rightly, that perpetrators should be shunned. However, according to yesterday's statistics, of 36,000 cases of domestic violence that were reported to police, more than half did not result in a crime or an offence being recorded. A third of cases in which a crime or offence was recorded did not then go to the fiscal. We have the second-lowest prosecution and conviction rate for rape in the European Union. Only 10 per cent of people who are accused of rape are prosecuted and only 6 per cent are convicted, which compares to 34 per cent and 20 per cent 25 years ago.

I welcome measures to which the minister alluded regarding better guidelines for prosecutors and I welcome the review of sexual assault and rape prosecution that has been announced. However, we have to do more; we have to be prepared sometimes to think outside the box of our traditional adversarial system more than we do without—obviously—prejudicing the rights of the accused. Would it prejudice the rights of the accused, for example, to do what many other countries do, and give a woman in the system who is the victim of sexual assault or abuse the right to independent legal representation? Many women who find themselves in the system do not realise until they are very far into it that the Crown is not there to represent them or to act for them, and that there is no one to speak for them. Those are all issues that we can consider if we are to be united in tackling what is a horrendous problem.

This week saw the United Nations international day for the elimination of violence against women. It is appropriate to end with a powerful quote by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, who said:

"Violence against women is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation. And ... the most pervasive. It knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth. As long as it continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equality, development, and peace."

That says it all, and we should take those words to heart as we debate this important issue.

I move amendment S2M-660.2, to leave out from "approves" to end and insert:

"deplores the fact that while over 36,000 women reported a domestic abuse incident to the police in the last 12 months, over half of the incidents did not lead to the recording of a crime or offence and only 66% of those recorded were referred to the procurator fiscal; is appalled at recent research which shows that Scotland has a prosecution rate of 10% and a conviction rate of 6% following rape allegations, the second poorest conviction rate in Europe; welcomes the 'prevention, protection, provision' theme of the National Strategy to Address Domestic Abuse in Scotland and work done to date, but believes that the Scottish Executive must consider what action could reasonably be taken to improve dramatically prosecution and conviction rates for rape and other cases of violence against women."

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is not with pleasure that I take part in the debate, but with a sombre sense of awareness that violence against women and domestic abuse are still the reality for far too many families in Scotland. On a highly-charged issue such as this, it is important that we consider the facts, disturbing and alarming though they are, because from them we may be able to reach some conclusions to instruct us, as politicians, about what we should be trying to do. Reference has already been made to statistics, according to which more than 36,000 incidents of domestic abuse were recorded in Scotland in 2002. That is the equivalent of 99 incidents of domestic abuse a day, which all of us would agree is a very troubling statistic.

The Executive's statistics show that domestic abuse is increasing. Even more alarmingly, the number of incidents against the same victim is increasing, highlighting that more women are trapped in abusive situations. It is that pattern that I want to consider in more detail. For the period 1 April 1999 to the end of 1999, 33 per cent of victims of domestic abuse had been involved in previous incidents. For the year 2000, the proportion in that category had risen to 42 per cent. For the following year, 2001, that category had risen again to 49 per cent and, sadly, for 2002—by which time, the number of recorded instances was more than 36,000, as Nicola Sturgeon said—the number in the previous incidents category had reached 50 per cent.

I do not think that anyone in the chamber is comforted by that; all of us are deeply disturbed by that pattern. Nicola Sturgeon raised an important point about the relationship between reported incidents and prosecution. I suggest that we should be careful before we lurch to simplistic analysis of the problem or simple solutions to it. I know, from my years in practice as a solicitor, particularly when I had occasion to handle matrimonial work—some of which involved very distressing instances of this type—that one of the most difficult issues to surmount is persuading the abused person to go forward with a court case.

Calling the police provides immediate reassurance and comfort and is the first step in dealing with a threat to safety or security or a threat to children. However, for many reasons, victims are understandably concerned about proceeding to criminal prosecutions. We must be sensitive to that. A domestic abuse victim's situation is unique. We must approach it with encouragement and, as the minister said, a combination of procedures that shows the victim that he or she is not alone and that the procedures and facilities out there can give help and support.

I will return to the statistics, about which I am especially concerned. All parties in the Parliament have made a genuine attempt to bring to public attention the enormity of the issue and to invoke measures to increase support for the victims of such abuse, including the "National Strategy to Address Domestic Abuse in Scotland" and "Preventing Domestic Abuse: A National Strategy". The motion refers to the work of the national group to address violence against women, which is another welcome initiative. Of importance is the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001, which the Parliament passed with all-party support.

All that is commendable, but when the Executive's research report on the 2001 act shows that many victims were not aware of it, it is clear that much still has to be done. I have reluctantly reached the inescapable conclusion that a culture remains in Scotland in which, for some cowardly and contemptible individuals, violence against spouses and partners—if behind closed doors and in the privacy of the home—is acceptable. The Parliament should collectively condemn that barbaric, primitive and repugnant culture. For as long as it endures, Scotland is stained and diminished.

Is it a coincidence that, as domestic violence has increased, serious crime in Scotland has gone out of control, as the figures that were released yesterday show? I regret to say that that is not a coincidence. We have a wider crime culture that only enhanced law enforcement and tougher court sanctions will address. I realise that the minister is not responsible for the justice portfolio, but I suggest that the Executive is collectively derelict in respect of its obligation to maintain wider law and order in our society. If law and order appears to be dissembling, there is—sadly—an inevitable implication for domestic abuse.

As politicians, we need to send out from the Parliament a message to victims, their children and their wider families that we have the political resolve to rid Scotland of this curse and to support victims with help, advice and practical measures. I welcome the minister's obvious commitment to attaining that objective. On domestic violence, we need to improve the transmission and dissemination of the messages of condemnation to perpetrators and of support to victims. We need to get those messages to where victims are, bring information to them about available help and advice and tell them what practical measures are on offer.

Two obvious examples of such measures are refuges, which I praise, and the proposed pilot domestic abuse courts. It is important that the procedures are dealt with through the sheriff court system and it is vital to ensure that procedures are as swift and efficient as possible, because otherwise, we shall discourage victims from taking to the criminal process their rightful charges against perpetrators. The Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill will also have an important role to play.

I commend to the minister an initiative that my party launched at UK level last Christmas, when 10,000 posters about domestic violence that carried helpline numbers from Women's Aid and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children were placed in general practitioner surgeries, hairdressers' salons, police stations and other locations where women could discreetly write down the numbers and seek help. Why do we not consider our own Scottish version of those posters, which could include the number of the domestic abuse helpline? That would give hope to victims at this pressure-point time of year—that is another factor of which we are all conscious. Such posters would also serve notice on perpetrators that no longer are their evil deeds invisible behind closed doors and that their nasty little secret culture is being brought to an end.

I am aware that legislative proposals at Westminster may include a register of those who are convicted of domestic abuse and that the Executive may be interested in replicating that proposal in Scotland. I urge considerable caution in examining that. I have referred to one difficulty that has dogged the prosecution of domestic abuse cases—victims' understandable reluctance, for many reasons, to bring criminal charges. If a victim felt that an additional penalty might attach over and above the court penalty, they might be uneasy about being responsible for that further imposition, especially if it could affect employability and stigmatise children.

I support the motion but warn against complacency, which is why I lodged the amendment in my name. The statistics do not permit complacency and the minister acknowledged that honestly in her speech.

I move amendment S2M-660.1, to insert at end:

"but notes with grave concern the escalating pattern of repeat victimisation highlighting the fact that more and more victims are trapped in abusive situations."

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

The title of the debate is "Violence Against Women", yet the motion narrows the subject to domestic abuse. Violence against women and domestic abuse are not the same thing. I was concerned that the Executive thought that they were, so I welcome the minister's proactive support for our amendment and I look forward to seeing details of the money that has been announced and how that is reflected in how rape and sexual abuse are addressed.

The aim of our amendment is to broaden the debate and to place more emphasis on the wider and far more disturbing issue of violence against women in the form of rape and the equally disturbing prevalence of child abuse. Behind those figures lies a hidden culture of degradation and exploitation of women. Behind those figures lie misery, injustice and the violation of women's and children's basic human rights.

The consequences of that violence extend beyond the narrow confines of the home. Such violence affects key parts of life, such as individual well-being, including health; and wider family members, who are caught up in fear and guilt. A significant consequence is the perpetuation of poor role models.

Thousands of women and children in Scotland experience a horrifying range of sexual violence each year. From rape to child sexual abuse and everything in between, there is an epidemic in our country. One in two of our girls and young women experiences some form of verbal, physical or sexual gender-based abuse by the time that they are 16.

Throughout the 20th century, women campaigned to have their basic human rights respected. We have the right to vote, yet, in today's Europe, women are still being beaten, threatened, bought, sold and killed simply because they are women.

I do not deny that the Executive's actions on domestic abuse are laudable. Domestic abuse causes huge amounts of misery for families who are caught in cycles of violence, but so does rape. As we have heard, the crime of rape has a 6 per cent conviction rate. Can anyone tell me what would happen if such a rate applied to any other crime? If only 6 per cent of burglaries were successfully prosecuted, there would be an outcry.

Throughout the country, women survivors of sexual violence—and men survivors, too, whom we should not forget—try to come to terms with their experiences. They try to access services and support that do not exist and try to obtain justice that is not available. Our amendment asks the Parliament to recognise the urgent need and asks the Executive to expand its work to tackle violence against women. Unless we recognise the links between forms of violence and challenge them in the round, we will always have only patchwork solutions.

A survey by the Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust in 1998 as part of its respect campaign interviewed 2,000 14-year-olds to 21-year-olds in Glasgow and Fife. The results were appalling. The survey found that boys and girls thought that forced sex was more acceptable than hitting. More than half of the young people thought that women provoke violence in a range of contexts by, for example, how they dress or flirt, and more than half of them knew someone who had been hit by their male partner. Exactly half of them knew someone who had been sexually assaulted. Such a culture of violence must be fully recognised and challenged.

We must widen the debate to address the appalling rise in child abuse and child pornography and we must stop the shameful trade in trafficking women, many of whom come into Britain. We must ensure that services and justice are available for those who experience rape and other forms of sexual violence. Domestic abuse is not the whole story.

I urge members to support my amendment so that, together, we can truly tackle violence against women. I move amendment S2M-660.3, to insert at end:

"but urges the Scottish Executive to consider making an equally strong commitment to tackle rape and sexual abuse."

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I apologise on behalf of Margaret Smith, who has phoned to say that she is ill and cannot speak. I also apologise that, as a result, members will have to listen to me twice, as I will sum up.

The UN international day has been mentioned. Research shows that the problem that we are discussing is an international problem rather than a local Scottish problem, as sectarianism and our way of drinking, for example, are Scottish problems to some degree. There seems to be a flaw in the characters of many people and in our society that allows so much violence in homes.

Sometimes, I am unhappy during debates and think that there is a great gulf between ministers' rhetoric and what they achieve. However, I do not think that at all in this debate. A genuine commitment has been translated into genuine action. Margaret Curran said many constructive and helpful things. Real action is being taken, although it is obvious that there is still a huge way to go. I am happy to emphasise the Liberal Democrats' commitment to the matter as a group and to emphasise my personal commitment. I also recognise the commitment of the other parties. The debate has been excellent and constructive attitudes have been shown. The other parties have made critical and constructive points and the Parliament is united. We should be able to make real progress, although the issue can be hidden and is difficult to tackle.

There is a relationship between what we are discussing and antisocial behaviour, which is one of the big issues that the Parliament is currently tackling. Research shows that most of the more serious offenders who come before the children's panel come before it first when they need protection from violence at home or violence as a result of a break-up in their family. Sorting out such violence between partners when children are young will help us, although many other things need to be done.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Does the member agree that one of the key strands of the antisocial behaviour legislation is challenging some of the behaviour of young men against young women in the streets? Does he agree that if we tackle the notion that a culture of disorder and violence is acceptable, that will have repercussions for the quality of relationships that young people have when they are older?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Yes. We must challenge the idea that violence towards anyone at any time is acceptable.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Hear, hear.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I know that my friend Mike Rumbles annoys people, but there is still an issue in respect of men being beaten up, although it is a much smaller issue. Any sort of violence against anyone at any time is unacceptable. I take the points that Shiona Baird made about rape, for example, as well as domestic violence.

We must educate children much better than we currently do. Members have mentioned research that shows the appalling attitudes of many young people. It is not only boys who must be educated about unacceptable behaviour; girls should also be educated about it. There is a strand of Scottish culture in which girls accept that being beaten up is part of the deal. We must completely eradicate such views being held by boys and girls.

We must improve the legal system—members who are more skilled than I am have mentioned that. I will take one example. I have been assured that the police never do anything about alleged violence by teenage sons against their mothers. I have written to the Solicitor General for Scotland about that matter. If what I have been told is true, it is very bad.

There are other aspects of the matter that we do not pursue as effectively as we could do through the police and the legal system.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am struck by what Mr Gorrie says about the attitude of the police to teenage sons. If Mr Gorrie has more information about that, the chamber would welcome a slight expansion of his comments. I confess that I was unaware of that attitude. If what he said is true, that is appalling.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I was told that by someone whom I think is a well-informed source and I have written to the Solicitor General for Scotland to clarify whether it is true. I am sure that any information that she can give will be circulated as widely as possible.

Drink exacerbates domestic violence. Sometimes when I have said so in the past, people have thought that I was saying that drink excuses domestic violence. It does not do so in any way. Crimes that are committed as a result of drink are worse crimes. If a person drinks excessively, they are consciously and deliberately removing their normal human inhibitions. That is not acceptable.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Does the member accept that domestic violence is not caused by drink, but by an imbalance of power between the male and the female?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I entirely accept that domestic violence is not caused by drink. I said that it was exacerbated by drink, which is a fair point.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

It is often said that that is an explanation. How can one explain the fact that a man drinking in a pub will not beat up the person who is standing beside him—the crime is not exacerbated in that form—but can control himself until he gets home and abuse his partner when he reaches the house?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

To be honest, there is a flaw in the member's logic. A male who gets drunk is more likely to beat up his partner than if he is not drunk. They might still do so if they are not drunk, but more will do it when they are drunk. Anyone who has any intelligence—even drunk people have intelligence—will know not to try to beat up the larger guy next to them, but to beat up the smaller woman when they get home, which they can then do in peace without anybody disturbing them. Drink is a factor.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

No. I think that I have dealt with the matter.

We must deal with the culture that exists in Scotland that clyping is not on. That is a huge problem that we must solve. It inhibits someone who should tell on her partner who is beating her up and it stops neighbours and other people saying that they think that Mrs X is being beaten up. We must somehow get over that culture. It can be quite honourable not to clype on people, but we must explain to people that it is correct to clype in the cases that we are discussing.

The news about more refuges is important. Many years ago, I resigned from the church that my family had attended for three generations on an issue that was related to women's aid. Refuges are important.

Tenancy rules have improved a bit, but they could be improved still further to ensure that the violent male—or occasionally female—is ejected and the woman does not have to leave the house with the children.

A lot of good work is going on for which there is much support in the chamber. We must focus on getting the legal system and the educational system to deliver and on changing the attitudes of a substantial minority of our fellow citizens.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

First, I declare that I—along with Rhona Brankin MSP—was a founder member of Ross-shire Women's Aid more than 20 years ago. At the time, it was an outpost and was for many years the only refuge in the north of Scotland. I am still a member and director of Ross-shire Women's Aid Collective and attend refuge meetings when I can. Through my involvement with Women's Aid and the passage of the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001 in the previous parliamentary session, I believe that I am in a position to speak about what we have achieved on the ground to protect those who have experienced domestic abuse.

To head off Mike Rumbles, who is about to leave the chamber and who did not support the Executive in the previous domestic abuse debate, I say that I fully accept that not all domestic abuse is perpetrated by male partners on female partners. Some men are abused by female partners; there is abuse in some gay relationships; and parents and grandparents are abused by children and grandchildren. However, as 90 per cent of domestic abuse cases involve abuse by men against women, it is right that the main thrust of Executive policy should address that statistic. The root of the problem is power—the power of a man over a woman—which is the very reason why many women take a long time to leave an abusive relationship.

Four years ago, I made a speech in this chamber on the lack of provision in the Highlands for women trying to escape domestic abuse. I spoke about the distances, the isolation, the small communities, the lack of refuge and the overstretched Women's Aid workers.

I now want to celebrate the changes that have been made. The new refuges in Elgin, Inverness and Dingwall provide not cramped, one-family-to-a-room accommodation but are self-contained modern flats with disabled access that give women dignity and privacy. Indeed, I was recently glad to welcome Mary Mulligan to the Dingwall refuge, to show her what has been achieved with the money that the Executive allocated for refuges.

Refuges in Wick and Orkney are planned and outreach workers are giving advice to women in Caithness, Sutherland, Skye, Wester Ross and Lochaber. However, things are still not easy. Women in many small communities still suffer in silence and are unwilling to draw attention to themselves. Winning the trust of people in some communities takes patience and someone sitting for a long time in an empty room waiting for people to make contact. As we have seen in Skye, once that trust has been won, the number of reported cases of domestic abuse rockets. The statistics keep rising partly because women will report what is happening to them when they realise that help is available.

One of the most welcome of the Executive's initiatives is the support for children's workers in refuges. We have only recently become fully aware of the psychological, emotional and sometimes physical damage to children who live with the domestic abuse of their mother. The input of children's workers in refuges has been invaluable and the testimonies contained in Barnardo's recent publication "Bitter Legacy: The emotional effect of domestic violence on children" show how much that input is needed.

Refuges provide physical protection to women who have experienced abuse and the law protects their rights. The Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill was the first committee bill in the Scottish Parliament and sought to offer anyone, regardless of gender or relationship, an interdict with powers of arrest against abuse.

I have read with interest the assessment of the effectiveness of the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001. It has been used by many solicitors; indeed, one solicitor has said that it is the first piece of legislation that he turns to in such cases. However, there is still a lack of awareness among police that they have such powers of arrest and, more worryingly, among women themselves who do not know that the act exists.

It is also interesting to note in the report on the working of the 2001 act that more than half the women who responded felt that the police were now more aware of how to deal with domestic abuse; however, only about a third felt that the courts understood domestic abuse. That feeling is borne out by remarks from the police, lawyers and sheriffs that still show a lack of understanding of the barriers that a woman faces when she tries to leave an abusive situation. The courts have to realise that that cannot happen overnight; the process can take many years.

We must tackle that worrying issue. In that respect, I welcome Elish Angiolini's announcement this week that Scottish Women's Aid will be involved in advising the Crown Office. As the people in Scottish Women's Aid know about domestic abuse, it is only right that they should be closely involved in all the programmes that the Executive is promoting. Changing the culture in the courts is crucial and I look forward to the measures proposed in the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill making a considerable contribution to giving women the confidence to use the court system.

It will be much more difficult to change the culture of society. In that respect, I welcome the establishment of special courts and—as was flagged up—the introduction of lists and registers of abusers if they are properly used. I also welcome the announcement of funding for social work and education and hope that health board workers will also receive some of that money. After all, health visitors are often the first people who realise that something is wrong in a household, but they do not know how to deal with the problem. As a result, they back off and nothing happens.

We have to get into the schools and teach children from an early age about relationships. We must also convince young people that violence and abuse do not make healthy relationships. Although changing such a culture is not easy, we must try to do so. As Nicola Sturgeon pointed out, we have to examine the measures that have worked in other countries and be prepared to adapt them for ourselves.

We must win this campaign to ensure that domestic abuse becomes totally unacceptable. Such abuse means women with broken bones, stab wounds and mental health problems; traumatised children with disrupted education; young girls who are forced by their boyfriends to have sex; and leaves blighted lives from generation to generation.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Although I acknowledge Shiona Baird's point that violence against women encompasses more than domestic abuse, I will, like Maureen Macmillan, concentrate on domestic abuse. Indeed, I will do so largely because in the past week I attended the annual general meeting of East Kilbride Women's Aid group. It had been a couple of years since I last attended such a meeting and I was struck by the fact that, as other members have mentioned, those who work in the field of domestic violence and other agencies such as councils and the police recognise that there is more working together and that the Executive and the Parliament are very serious about the measures that they are taking to combat domestic abuse.

East Kilbride Women's Aid covers East Kilbride, Cambuslang and Rutherglen and has many referrals—mainly self-referrals—from women. However, I was rather bothered by a statistic that emerged from the AGM showing that, of the 173 requests for refuge places last year, 137 women and 190 children were turned away because of lack of space. I am sure that that situation is replicated throughout the country. As a result, I was interested by the Executive's announcement of its refuge development programme and on-going work on the issue. Such work is extremely necessary.

I draw the minister's attention to another matter that was raised at the AGM. I was going to write to the minister about it, but then thought that the debate was an apposite place to raise it. I should make it clear that I do so very much in the spirit of seeing whether we can do something about the problem.

South Lanarkshire Council quite rightly applied to the refuge development programme and received £150,000 for two new refuges in the area. The local housing association was asked whether it could acquire the properties and said that it would see what it could do. I should point out that there is a lack of social housing in East Kilbride, but that is a whole other debate.

The housing association tried to reach an agreement with a developer about a development that was about to be opened. However, the development is quite small and the developer had already agreed to two units for the hospital discharge programme and a children's home and was not willing to agree to any more non-mainstream housing on the site. That kicked the idea into touch.

As neither the housing association nor the council had any other suitable properties, they looked into acquiring a couple of properties on the open market. The idea sounds fine, and it is great that that can happen, but they then hit the next problem, which was more to do with practicalities than with will—after all, everyone has the will to achieve this aim. The problem is that East Kilbride has a very buoyant housing market. Because the money comes from public agencies, those agencies are allowed to acquire properties only at the district valuer's valuation. Houses in East Kilbride, especially those of the required size and type, sell for a lot more than the market valuation.

I suspect that the same thing is happening in other areas and I ask the minister to look into the problem. As I have said, I have no doubt that everyone involved has the will to establish these refuges. The money has been sitting there for almost two years and no housing has been acquired. Meanwhile, in one year, 137 women and 190 children are turned away for lack of refuge space. I ask the minister to look at that situation and see whether some pragmatism can be applied to help with the practicalities of what is a very good policy initiative.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the debate on this important subject. Violence against women is clearly unacceptable, as is violence of all kinds. We should all work to build a society where people can go about their lives free from the fear of abuse or violence from any other party.

Although I welcome the debate, I highlight an aspect of the debate on domestic abuse that is often overlooked. I refer to domestic violence where the victims are male. Although it has already been touched on in the debate and I do not wish to steal Mr Rumbles's thunder, it is an important subject to highlight.

The 2000 Scottish crime survey disclosed that 19 per cent of women had experienced domestic abuse at some point in their lives. However, the same survey showed that 8 per cent of men had also been victims—a substantial proportion.

Domestic abuse of all kinds, whoever the victim and whoever the perpetrator, must be equally unacceptable, or the Parliament's commitment to equal opportunities and inclusion is meaningless. This is by no means the first debate that we have had in Parliament on violence against women, but I do not recall a debate on violence against men. I will be interested to hear from the minister when the Executive intends to debate that subject.

Violence against men in the home is a serious matter and much of it goes unreported. If it is hard for a woman to report domestic abuse, it is probably even harder for a man to admit that he has been abused by his partner. After all, men are supposed to be the stronger sex and many men in such circumstances would face the fear of ridicule. We must work to remove that stigma.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Surely the point of the debate is that women are victims of violence. The people who make them victims of violence are much stronger than they are. The problem is the risk and the number of deaths of women and children every year as a result of such violence.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do not dispute for a moment that women are victims of domestic abuse. If the member had been listening, she would have heard me say just that. My point is that we cannot focus exclusively on situations where women are victims. It is unfortunate that that is what we have been doing.

Maureen Macmillan made a good point when she intervened on Donald Gorrie to say that domestic abuse is all about the power balance. In most relationships it is correct to say that the man is the dominant partner. However, that is not the situation in every relationship and there are relationships in which the woman is the dominant partner and that must also be recognised.

I looked up the Executive's website on domestic abuse to see what it had to say about the matter. There is a brief statement on that website that says:

"some men are abused by their male or female partners."

Everything else on that website relates to women; every photograph is of a woman. Even the children who feature on the website and who are photographed with the women are girls and not boys. Not a single male is featured on that website. If the Executive is saying that domestic abuse can affect men and children, that is not the impression given by its website.

I am sure that members will remember the Executive's advertising campaign that had the strapline:

"1 in 5 women live with the constant threat of domestic abuse."

The television adverts featured dramatic pictures of women and were designed to create the impression that one in five women was regularly the victim of physical abuse, or to put it another way, that one man in five was a violent abuser of women.

Unfortunately, the truth of the matter was somewhat different. The Scottish crime survey showed that one in five women had experienced domestic abuse at some point in their lives. That is a world away from saying that they lived with a constant threat.

Domestic abuse is defined widely—as on the Scottish Executive website—to include

"keeping you short of money"

and

"telling you what to wear, whether or not to wear make up."

I do not dispute that those are serious issues, but they are a world away from the popular perception that domestic abuse has to be physical.

Following complaints that were made to the Advertising Standards Authority and the Independent Television Commission, the Executive changed the strapline on its adverts to the more accurate:

"One in five women have experienced domestic abuse in their lifetimes."

It is rather unfortunate—to put it mildly—that the Executive used taxpayers' money to promote a distorted message in the first place.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I think that the member has forgotten that the Tories are going through a modernisation process and that they have been beginning to come up to date on such issues. The analysis that I thought was shared by the entire Parliament is that the violence perpetrated against women and children is overwhelming and a profound and serious issue. Although we removed from the strapline the word "constant" because it was interpreted to mean "perennial", we were clear that one in five women lives with the fear of domestic abuse in Scotland. We are committed to that fact and all our documents and publicity will make that absolutely clear. It is distressing that the member undermines that key message this morning.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is, frankly, outrageous for the minister to suggest that I do not take the issue seriously. I said that the Advertising Standards Authority looked at the advertisements and came to the view that they were inappropriate. If we use taxpayers' money to promote a message, we should do so accurately. It does the Executive no credit to make ill-founded statements such as the one that the minister has made. I hope that the Executive will reflect on that issue in the future when it comes to similar debates.

I also hope that the Executive will treat the issue of violence against men as a serious issue worthy of attention.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

I declare an interest: I am a member of Fife domestic abuse forum. I meant to start my speech differently but, following Murdo Fraser's comments, I need to say that I give the Executive credit for getting across the message about domestic abuse against women—I think that we are not hard-hitting enough.

I thank the Executive for introducing the debate. We should not lose sight of why we are having the debate this morning—we are recognising Tuesday 25 November as international day for the elimination of violence against women. We are having the debate because such violence is overwhelming and a blight on our society.

I thank all those people who have worked with the Parliament—the police, local authorities, the judiciary, the health service, the voluntary sector and I could not possibly miss out Scottish Women's Aid—to tackle the problems of violence against women. I pay tribute, which I do not often do, to Margaret Curran, whom I have known in a number of guises throughout many years. She has worked tirelessly on the subject and has championed it as a minister in Parliament.

Domestic violence against women is a blight on Scottish society. In the first session of Parliament, there was action against domestic abuse as a priority and we all welcomed the introduction of a strategic framework to deal with the problem, which is very damaging to society. It is in that context that Fife domestic abuse forum, of which I am proud to be a member, progresses the Executive's agenda locally. I pay tribute to the members of the forum and, in particular, to Sheila Noble and Avz Crossley. I am sure that many communities have such local champions who advance the cause. Without those people, we would not be where we are today.

Fife domestic abuse forum is a truly multi-agency partnership. We have heard much about that this morning. We are working together to maximise resources and to co-ordinate a strategic and holistic approach to the subject. In Fife, 9,706 women—I say to Mr Fraser that that is no small number—many of whom have children, contacted the domestic abuse—

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

My point was that we must get a balance in the debate. I hope that the member understands that I did not suggest for a moment that there was not a serious problem of domestic violence.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

That is how it sounded to me.

In 2003, some 9,706 women, many with children, contacted either the domestic abuse unit or one of the three Women's Aid groups in Fife.

The forum has a steering group and a number of working groups on subjects that range from criminal justice to health and housing. I reiterate what the minister said about the importance of housing.

The education group, which prepares guidance and information for schools, has now become a core welfare group that addresses domestic abuse, child protection and racial incidents.

The rape and sexual assault working group, which will soon have its second AGM, was formed in recognition of some of the points that have been made, because we had a significant gap in services in Fife for those who have experienced rape or sexual assault.

One of the major local achievements of the forum was the new refuge that the minister opened in central Fife. It is a first-class refuge and its knock-on effect for women in Fife has been enormous. Women have been staying longer, so we can implement the necessary package of care for them and their children. We needed quality services and now we have them. I welcome the new refuge that is planned, with £395,000 of funding, for west Fife, and I am sure that my colleague Helen Eadie will say more about that.

The next stage of the forum's awareness-raising group's "Talk" campaign is being launched this month to link to the 16-day action on men's violence against women and children. The campaign is targeted at harder-to-reach groups and work has been going on with the deaf and black and ethnic minority communities in Fife. The awareness-raising material produced for the campaign echoes the sentiment of today's debate: there is no excuse for this most unacceptable of crimes, which has a catastrophic effect on our families.

The Fife domestic abuse forum and other domestic abuse projects in Fife have benefited from the domestic abuse funds released by the Scottish Executive over the past three years. I make a plea to the minister today to ensure that that funding is continued so that that vital and first-class work can continue.

I return to comments that I made during last week's debate on vulnerable witnesses, as chair of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Some people in our society have undergone such sexual abuse for many years, have kept it secret and still live with the problem. We are all agreed that no one in Scotland should live in fear. Domestic abuse and violence against women and children are totally unacceptable. There is no excuse—not today, not next week, not ever.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am pleased that the Executive has scheduled this important debate today. I believe most strongly that we need to tackle the issue and I support the action that the Executive has taken so far, both in raising awareness of domestic abuse and in dealing with it. I know that there is much to be done. I am also conscious of, and support, the commitment in the partnership agreement to take forward the national strategy on domestic abuse.

My one very real reservation, and the one point that I cannot support, is the minister's contention in today's debate that domestic abuse is simply a gender crime. It is not. I do not see how that comment fits with the statement in the Executive's document "Preventing Domestic Abuse: A National Strategy", which states:

"Violence against men is equally unacceptable."

I know that the minister said that this morning, but she went on to talk about its being simply a gender crime. I also do not see how the motion before us today fits with the Scottish Parliament's founding principle of equal opportunity.

There is no doubt about the fact that violence against women in domestic situations is a real and substantial problem.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Does Mike Rumbles accept that lung cancer is not solely a smoking issue, but that, by addressing smoking, we can get to a big part of the problem?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Patrick Harvie is absolutely right. I do not have any problem with that.

As I was saying, it is right to focus on the major issue that is before us. However, the minister in particular and members in general will be aware that victims of domestic violence are not exclusively female. The statistical bulletin in the criminal justice series published by the Executive gives details of what I mean. In 91 per cent of cases reported to the police, the victims were women. In 9 per cent, the victims were men. That means that more than 3,000 incidents of domestic violence are not recognised in the terms of the Executive motion before Parliament today.

If there is anyone who says that those statistics are not important or that those incidents are not serious, I can only say that there are none so blind as those who will not see. Behind those bald statistics lie real people, traumatised by that unacceptable violence. I have had some of the men and women behind those statistics come to see me in my advice surgeries, some in tears as they related their awful experiences.

In yesterday's debate on the Procedures Committee's report on the founding principles of the Scottish Parliament, I took the opportunity to highlight one of the committee's recommendations that deals with the issue of equal opportunities. The committee said:

"We recommend that MSPs should always apply equal opportunities principles in their work."

That is absolutely correct. I have had male victims of domestic abuse come to see me and ask me why the Scottish Parliament does not seem to recognise their equal rights to be treated as victims.

I am delighted to hear that the helpline is expanding; it has a really good and useful role to play. I do not want to see any victim of domestic violence being put off from contacting the helpline and asking for help under the misapprehension—from the messages coming from this chamber—that domestic violence is an issue only if the victims are female. Although it focuses, correctly, on the main victims of domestic violence, 91 per cent of whom are women, the motion that we are debating today does not incorporate the 9 per cent of victims who are men.

I want to let Maureen Macmillan know that I will support the Executive in the vote tonight for all the good work that it has done and is doing, and I would like it to do even more good work and to take a more inclusive approach.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I make it clear that the Executive is not saying that domestic violence against men never happens. Nor is it saying that no resources should be dedicated to tackling that problem. However, the Executive has a different analysis from the one that Mike Rumbles and Murdo Fraser are espousing. Shiona Baird articulated the point at issue quite clearly in her speech. The status of being a woman leads to certain forms of violence perpetrated against an individual; that is why we broadened out the group to look at violence against women. We are not saying that violence against men does not exist, but it is the nature of the experience of being a woman that attracts a form of violence. That is most clearly articulated in sex slavery, which is at one end of the spectrum, but domestic abuse has a specific pattern as it is perpetrated against women. That is what we are saying.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That goes to the nub of the issue. I hope that the minister recognises my concern, which was also expressed by Murdo Fraser, that we do not want to forget people. That is important. I am not criticising the Executive for focusing on the major element of the difficulty, as 91 per cent of the victims are women, but my concern is about equal access and equal opportunities. When the Executive is so good on equal opportunities in all the other spheres that we deal with, I cannot understand why there seems to be a blind spot with regard to equal opportunities when considering the victims of domestic violence.

I hope that, when we next address the issue of domestic violence in this chamber, the motion that we debate will be inclusive and not exclusive in its recognition of the complete unacceptability of domestic abuse, from whatever source it comes.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

I concur with most of today's speakers that tackling domestic abuse is an important issue and that the Scottish Executive has made progress in the past four years. The figures—which are what we should be focusing on—are very disturbing indeed. I thought that it was one woman in three, not one in five—although members can correct me if I am wrong—who will suffer domestic violence at some stage in her lifetime. What that means is that we all know someone who has suffered domestic violence. It also means that, with 129 MSPs, there must be women sitting in this chamber who have suffered domestic violence and abuse, and men who are perpetrators. That is what the figures mean. It is an uncomfortable fact, but the problem is endemic.

I welcome the extension of the domestic abuse services development fund to 2006. Domestic abuse is seen as a women's issue, and most of the services are aimed—correctly—at making women safe. Murdo Fraser made the huge assumption that men and women experience society in the same way—they do not. That is why we are having this debate. Much of the discussion has been about women's services and I support completely what has been said, although we need more places, safe housing and other things.

Men are the perpetrators of this violence and abuse, and it is structural. Once we start to deal with the issue of making women safe, we have to address the question of what we are going to do to hold men accountable for their behaviour. Next year, Glasgow will pilot domestic abuse courts. That is a huge step forward and we will see how that impacts and what will change because of those courts.

Women who are involved in the domestic violence probation service have raised the issue of the need for credible sentencing—not just fines or a rap over the knuckles, but credible sentencing for men who perpetrate the violence. Another issue is whether there should be a social inquiry report and a risk assessment of the men who appear in the courts. The figures that Annabel Goldie cited for repeat offending behaviour are a factor. An important part of the joined-up approach should be having a social inquiry report on the men in the system and social workers being aware of the need for a risk assessment for the women and children.

Most women do not want to leave their family home or their relationship; many of them want to stay. What they want is the men's behaviour to change, but we know that that does not change unless there is some form of intervention. Nevertheless, we need that behaviour to change and we must start to address how we approach that. There are already pilot schemes, as part of the domestic abuse services development fund, that are aimed at educating men to change their behaviour. However, funding is a key issue if we are to make women safe and stop violent behaviour against them. There is a men's pilot scheme in north Edinburgh, and we need to see what impact that has had. The scheme is partially funded by the domestic abuse services development fund, but it is also funded by the national lottery. If we are serious about tackling the problem, we must provide 100 per cent funding for such projects.

The other issue that is coming out of the implementation of that policy is that, when men are going through that education process, their partners also need support. There must be support for both sides. There is no funding for partners at the moment, and that needs to be addressed. There needs to be different funding—individual support—for partners who are going through that process. I ask the minister to consider that.

The issue of domestic abuse is being raised in a big way. The fact that women are now coming forward means that, although progress is slow, women are gaining the confidence to speak about it. The days of saying, "It's just a domestic," and, "It's nothing to do with me," are over, which shows huge progress in our society. However, there is a long way to go.

Members may be surprised to hear that we are calling for credible sentencing and for the issue to be treated seriously by the courts, given our views on the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. I am not point scoring—I agree with Donald Gorrie's points—but I ask members to read the Barnardo's report "Bitter Legacy: the emotional effects of domestic violence on children". It contains the harrowing and heart-breaking stories of children who have suffered domestic abuse. Those children have been given access to projects that have changed their behaviour, given them their lives back and created self-esteem. However, three steps before, they might have been getting tagged or been dealt with under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. Domestic violence is endemic in our society and the figures show that it affects children dramatically. That must be considered in deciding the approach that is taken in other areas of policy.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I welcome the fact that the Executive is holding this debate during the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, and I draw Parliament's attention to a march on the subject that will take place next Thursday evening.

The importance of having a critical mass of women in the Parliament should never be underestimated. One of the most telling manifestations of the potential that that creates was in the swift and decisive approach that our young Parliament took in tackling domestic abuse in its early years. I join Marilyn Livingstone in recognising Margaret Curran's tenacity and personal commitment to the issue over the years. I doubt whether we would have seen the same level of action coupled with the same sense of urgency in a more male-dominated Parliament. Our Presiding Officer, George Reid, told me recently that, when he was a young Westminster MP, he forged an arduous campaign to have domestic abuse addressed only to see it fizzle out after 18 months on account of a lack of support.

I was the gender reporter to the Equal Opportunities Committee during the previous parliamentary session and was able to make my own contribution to the Parliament's domestic violence agenda. One of the most significant pieces of work that I undertook for the committee was a report on the wider issues that are involved in violence against women and children, which sought to make lateral connections between violence and discrimination. That report can be found in the "Gender Reporter Bound Volume", if anyone wants to read it.

The clear message that came from all the groups to which I spoke during that process was that many of the problems that women face—including violence—must be tackled head on, in a joined-up way. As Frances Curran said, the ultimate solution must lie in changing attitudes with the support and encouragement of social structures and cultural messages. Unfortunately, those structures and messages continue to portray women's needs and rights as less significant than those of men, and to propagate the imbalance of power, as Maureen Macmillan said.

One way in which to challenge those structures and cultural messages undoubtedly lies in early intervention through the education system. Can the minister tell me what the current status of Zero Tolerance's respect project for schools is? What funding has the Executive provided, and is the project being rolled out? Zero Tolerance played a key role in informing and carrying out prevention work in Scotland, in particular through its considerable contribution to the prevention strategy. It is unfortunate that that contribution seems to have been omitted from the acknowledgements in the strategy document. Will the minister acknowledge that contribution and take steps to address that omission?

Challenging those pervasive and subliminal cultural messages will undoubtedly prove difficult, and it is important that we do not forget the other challenges that remain. Structural inequality remains a reality in our society. In spite of reports that women are breaking through the glass ceiling, the evidence shows that men still have the advantage when it comes to the workplace and the home. Men earn more, have better jobs, enjoy better chances of promotion and do less in the home. Most women in full-time jobs earn only 82 per cent of the salary that is paid to a man who is doing the same or similar work, and women's income from pensions, benefits and investments is just half that of men. In talking about discrimination, I commend the work of the close the gap initiative and the campaign for equality pay audits.

Inequality at structural, cultural and political levels serves to privilege men over women and creates the conditions for violence. As we have heard, and as the minister has accepted, the continuum of male violence against women and children is not limited to domestic violence but includes actions such as rape, sexual assault, child sexual abuse, sexual harassment, human trafficking, prostitution, pornography and female genital mutilation. I was interested to note that the sexual health document that was recently launched by Malcolm Chisholm states that the extent of the problem of female genital mutilation in Scotland is currently unknown. The issue is of concern, given the fact that Amnesty International has noted that the practice appears to be continuing among some immigrants from countries where mutilation is practised, despite child protection laws in their country of residence.

Only last week, "Newsnight Scotland" reported the case of a woman from Sierra Leone who is seeking asylum in this country and whose application has been refused. She suffered female genital mutilation and has considerable justification for thinking that her daughters will suffer the same fate, if indeed they are returned to her. I implore the minister to see whether she can intervene with the Home Office in that case, which represents a significant issue of violence against women and children. Given the Executive's impressive record on tackling abuse, I have little doubt that it takes the issue seriously. It is a cross-cutting issue, although it was in Malcolm Chisholm's brief last week.

Evidence of harm to women who have experienced any or all of the aforementioned forms of male violence is well documented, but the underlying connection between all forms of male violence against women has rarely been recognised. Women will not achieve equality, and we will not tackle gender discrimination, while we continue to accept a society in which women are systematically undermined by the pervasiveness of all forms of male violence.

Male violence against women is premised on women's inequality in society. It is a fundamental violation of human rights and it is clearly unacceptable. I hope that my work as a gender reporter in the current session of Parliament will prove useful in informing debate and policy and in encouraging the Executive to continue to take a comprehensive view of the whole continuum of male violence against women.

I was pleased with Margaret Curran's announcement this morning. I support the motion and commend the Executive for continuing to work to reduce progressively, and eventually eliminate, all forms of violence against women and children.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I apologise to Maureen Macmillan for missing the beginning of her speech. I listened to the rest of it and it was excellent.

I say to Mike Rumbles and Murdo Fraser that everyone has sympathy with what they say. I recognise that there are perpetrators of violence against men, but we cannot get away from the facts: 90 per cent of recorded abuse is against women and 92 per cent of violence against women is perpetrated in the home, which is a place in which one is supposed to feel safe and secure. If Mike Rumbles and Murdo Fraser want to highlight the issue that they raise, I advise them to lodge a motion for a members' debate on the matter. I am sure that most of the members who are present would come along to such a debate, to listen and to contribute.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I have one disagreement with Murdo Fraser, which is on his call for an Executive debate on violence against men. My point was that we should consider domestic violence in the round—we should consider domestic violence against everybody.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I take Mike Rumbles's point, but he could still instigate a members' business debate on the issue if he wants to.

I commend the work that is carried out by Women's Aid and the other agencies that are involved. I say to the minister and the Executive that the special emphasis that they have put on violence against women is most welcome. Unfortunately, the issue will not go away. When we look at the figures, we can see that something is going terribly wrong. We must get to the nub of the issue: why does violence continually increase, year after year? It might be that, with the continuing advertising campaigns that highlight domestic abuse, women are becoming more confident in reporting incidents to the police, as Frances Curran mentioned.

However, I believe that the upsurge in domestic violence—and violence against women as a whole—is also related to some men's disregard of women as equals. We should reconsider the national strategy that was produced to address domestic abuse. The strategy centres on prevention, protection and provision—that is fine, but the strategy must also put more emphasis on education, particularly given that one in five young men think that it is all right to be violent towards women and that one in ten young women think that violence towards women is acceptable.

Education must play a bigger part in the strategy; I mean not only education in schools, but education through the media. When we look at the ways in which women are portrayed in films, magazines, videos and in some places of so-called entertainment, there is scope for a strategy to educate the media on women's role in the world. There is a direct link between violence and what happens in some places of entertainment. Some people say that we cannot control the media; that might be so, but we have legislative powers over places of entertainment and the licensing of such places.

For example, we are considering the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. I have suggested that we amend the 1982 act, as has Glasgow City Council, and I believe that Edinburgh City Council is also considering the 1982 act in relation to the licensing of places of entertainment such as lap-dancing and table-dancing clubs, which could be licensed in the same way as sex shops. I hope that the minister will take that on board and consider amending the 1982 act, as that would be welcome. Women are portrayed as objects, not people, in those clubs.

When we talk about lap-dancing clubs, sex shops and other such places of so-called entertainment, we have an obligation to women in society to make the case that such entertainment is not acceptable. I am not being prudish about what goes on in those clubs; I am considering their wider impact on society and how women are perceived as objects, whose bodies can be used and abused.

Until we educate not just men but society as a whole to relate to women on equal terms, and until we make inroads into changing what I call the laddish culture that is so prevalent—particularly in the media—we will, unfortunately, continue to have debates such as this one. It would be a dreadful indictment of the 21st century if we had to turn up next year to have the same debate. There should be a little more education of the media and we should take a firmer hand in educating young people and society as a whole to treat women as equals, because I believe that the way in which women are portrayed contributes to their being regarded and used as objects and to the perpetration of violence against them. I support the Executive's motion.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. There is a recognition that the debate on women's rights has progressed, even if we accept the caveats that Elaine Smith put forward about its success.

An understanding of the reality of male violence against women must be at the heart of any understanding of the inequality that women suffer. Male violence continues to deny women and children their rights to peace and hope for the future. We should underline the fact that all the support for women—the refuges, the sad, discreet taking down of phone numbers in such a way that no one notices—and the welcome developments in women's aid services overwhelmingly revolve around the fact that men create the need for such services. We must be clear that we are dealing with the consequences of men's actions and we must focus on those actions.

Violence against women—in particular, domestic abuse—has no international, religious, racial or class boundaries. Shocking statistics have been highlighted by the 16 days of action campaign for the elimination of gender violence. It is a fact that in the United Kingdom, a woman is murdered every three days by her partner or ex-partner. It is a fact that a woman rings a Women's Aid project somewhere in Britain every two and a half minutes, every day of the year. It is a fact that violence against women worldwide kills or incapacitates more women aged between 15 and 40 than cancer, malaria, accidents and war combined.

Recently I had the opportunity to attend the 25th anniversary of Glasgow Women's Aid, which was a great occasion. The increased support for the organisation was visible in the increased number of workers. We had an opportunity to celebrate and pay testament to the women who fought to develop the service and to make people recognise that domestic abuse was—and remains—a problem. Their achievement did not happen by accident and it was not easy; there was a long-term campaign to persuade people that there was a problem. We should never forget that women were at the centre of that campaign. The scale of the problem is indicated by the fact that the people who suffered from the problem organised and fought for change. If violence against men in the home is increasing, the development of men's aid organisations will probably be the first indicator of the problem.

At the Glasgow meeting we also had an opportunity to hear the stories of women who had survived domestic abuse and for whom the lifeline of Women's Aid had offered strength and hope—far more than just refuge space. The meeting was also tinged with the bitter regrets of people involved across the range of women's organisations—Say Women, Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid and others—that their services are still needed.

We must acknowledge the work that is going on in education and training across the agencies. The work to give a voice to young people who are experiencing domestic abuse is particularly important.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Does Johann Lamont accept that it is difficult for victims of domestic violence in the home, particularly men? They almost feel ashamed of it and want to hide. She seems to be saying that it is up to them to sort themselves out before we address that issue.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am saying that not one policy wonk, no matter how good they are, in the Scottish Executive thought, "It's a good idea for us to talk about violence against women and to address the problem." It was women who brought it on to the agenda and women who made the connections between the punches and what causes the violence. I understand that there are problems with males' role in society, and the debate that women generate about violence against them creates an opportunity to challenge such stereotypes.

I hope that there is recognition of joined-up working, particularly in work with young people. That is why I am driven by the legislation on and the broader strategy to deal with antisocial behaviour. I accept the points that Frances Curran made about vulnerable young people out in the streets, but as a society we must mark clearly that male aggression and the way in which young men on the streets conduct themselves with the young women who are with them are unacceptable. I shudder to think of some of the things that happen to young girls who perceive such behaviour as being acceptable, and to think that those young boys, if not challenged at that age, will grow up to be the men who terrorise their communities and their own families. We must acknowledge that male perpetrators of violence do not pop up at 25—we must challenge that perception.

I will finish by reflecting on the broader issue of violence against women. I acknowledge the important work in my area of the Glasgow violence against women partnership. I was recently at an excellent launch of Glasgow's support for the 16 days of action for the elimination of gender violence, and draw attention to the definition that was used:

"Male violence against women includes stalking, rape and sexual assault, domestic abuse, child sexual abuse and prostitution."

There is, of course, a contentious argument about prostitution. I congratulate Glasgow City Council on its courageous approach to prostitution, which acknowledges that women who are involved in prostitution are also victims of male violence. The council has sought to turn the spotlight on those who use prostitutes, rather than harass the women who find themselves in such circumstances. There are, of course, consequences to the broader development of such work. We need—and I urge the Executive to seek—improvements in immediate and follow-on responses to survivors of rape, sexual assault and domestic abuse in Scotland.

The greatest hope of those involved in the work against male violence is that they will make themselves redundant. The Parliament and the Scottish Executive have a role to play in naming the crime, because only when we acknowledge the overwhelming statistic that 90 per cent of those who suffer domestic abuse are women do we begin to understand what causes the abuse and to challenge it. We should not be frightened about acknowledging that, as doing so can make a significant contribution to the safety of our communities.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Although I have never participated in a debate on domestic violence, I acknowledge and support the fact that the Parliament has given the issue rightful priority and attention. I also acknowledge the contribution that individual members, such as Maureen Macmillan, have made in helping many women and families throughout the Highlands.

The theme of my speech is the under-reporting of violent attacks. We should also be concerned about the inconsistent methods of recording domestic violence, as we cannot have a clear picture of the problem unless an accurate and consistent approach to recording is taken throughout Scotland. I draw members' attention to paragraph 5.2.5 on page 27 of the statistical bulletin on which the debate is based. Under the heading "Reporting Practice", the bulletin states:

"some forces have ruled that no crime or offence should be recorded if no further action is to be taken e.g. because the victim does not wish any action to be taken. Other forces may record a crime or offence. These differences clearly influence the proportion of incidents which lead to the recording of a crime or offence which ranged from 98 per cent in Grampian ... to 24 per cent in Central. These differences also influence the proportion of recorded crimes and offences which are referred to the procurator fiscal."

It therefore seems likely police forces, as well as women themselves, seriously under-report domestic violence.

I appreciate that the debate is about violence against women and further acknowledge that this is the start of 16 days of activism against gender- based violence, but, being contrary—as is my nature—I will raise two points that relate to men, and hope that, unlike the previous two members who did so, I will not get lambasted. First, I suggest that domestic violence against men is also very highly under-reported. In Scotland's macho culture, it probably would not go down well for a man to admit to his mates that his wife was beating him up.

My second point relates to an issue—male rape—that was raised by Glasgow's only Tory councillor, Alan Rodger, whose motion on the issue received unanimous backing from all the Glasgow councillors present when it was debated. There seems to be an assumption that violent or sexual attacks take place only between males and female victims, and figures state that 90 per cent of victims are female. Although I acknowledge the attention that has rightly been paid to violence against women, I suggest that we also need to give attention to male rape.

Recently, harrowing cases have been recorded in Glasgow involving the date-rape drug and gang rapes of men by men. Although around 400 sexual assaults on men are reported each year, there also seems to be a myth that male rapists—that is, men who rape men—are homosexual. However, according to an article by Catherine Deveney in Scotland on Sunday, a 1990 study found that, in 98 per cent of studies, the men who rape men are heterosexual.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Does Mary Scanlon accept that rape is not only a sexual crime but an issue of power?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I have absolutely no doubt about that. Power and control were at the forefront of the article that I just mentioned and the meeting that I had this week with a male who was the victim of such a crime.

Surely, in this age of equality and social inclusion, it is time for us to address the discrimination that exists in the current law on sexual offences. It is my understanding that the prosecution simply has to prove that a female victim has not consented to sexual intercourse with the man, but that, for a male victim, evidence is required that force was used against the victim. The need to prove that force was used will ensure that male victims are reluctant to come forward and that their attackers are not brought to justice. With few cases coming forward, it is unlikely that male rape will ever get the attention or recognition in law that it deserves, not to mention the fact that the advice, support and counselling services that are needed to allow men to cope with that trauma will also not be forthcoming.

The present situation is hardly in the spirit of promoting equality under the law. As the law stands, it is likely that many male victims suffer in silence and that their psychological distress is ignored. I put down this marker to say that, if male rape in Scotland cannot be included in any current legislative vehicles to bring the crime into line with the attention that is given—and rightly so—to women, I would consider proposing a member's bill. I hope that, like Alan Rodger's motion in Glasgow City Council, such a bill would get support from all parties.

I agree with Johann Lamont's point that male aggression is unacceptable. It is as unacceptable against men as it is against women.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I welcome the minister's announcement this morning of more than £1 million over the next two years for a violence against women fund. Funding is always key to any policy that is driven by any minister, and it is first class to see that amount of money going into the fund. The minister's announcement of a designated procurator fiscal is also to be warmly welcomed. I am sure that that will make a difference in the pilot of which she spoke.

The commitment of so many people throughout Scotland who have campaigned for so long to eradicate violence against women is inspirational. The work of some of my colleagues—Maureen Macmillan, the minister, Johann Lamont, Elaine Smith and other members—is also inspirational.

We all know that, despite everyone's best efforts, the continuing violence poses an immense challenge to every caring person in Scotland. The minister mentioned the contribution that celebrities do and can make to raising awareness of the fact that domestic violence takes place on such a scale. I want to nominate one song that encapsulates the experience of so many people who are subjected to violence, both physical and mental. I am referring to "Talkin 'Bout a Revolution", by Tracy Chapman. If anyone has heard it, they will know that it says exactly what happens when no one responds. The song always conjures up clearly in my mind images of what happens in that situation. In Scotland, at least, we know that many people care. The Scottish Parliament cares, as exemplified by the majority of speeches that members from all parties have made this morning.

The facts and statistics are still alarming. Statistics show that in 2001 the police returned details of 35,800 incidents of domestic abuse. That yields an average of 700 reported incidents of abuse per 100,000 people. In the Dunfermline area, 2,064 requests for information or support were made. However, if there was only one case of domestic abuse, rather than 35,800, for the person affected that would be one case too many.

Last week, I met in the Parliament one of my constituents, Juanita Berry from Dalgety Bay, whose case has already appeared in the tabloid newspapers. Her experience of being drugged and raped at a party in her house in Dalgety Bay does not make good listening. She put a number of questions to me and to the Parliament. Why were the leaflets for victims of rape handed out by the police out of date, with telephone helpline numbers that were unobtainable? Why did the helpline numbers put her through only to answering machines? Why was Juanita unable to get counselling and support without being put on a six-week waiting list? Why did a police officer tell her to produce a urine sample immediately, only for her to witness a police surgeon throw the sample away, saying that it was not needed? Juanita needed to be sure that blood and urine samples were tested for drugs, because she was date-raped. She has many questions that remain unanswered.

It is for ministers to ensure that we have a system that monitors and ensures the availability of a 24-hour helpline. They must also ensure that counselling and support are available on an urgent basis and that all leaflets have up-to-date telephone helpline numbers. That responsibility must be acknowledged by all the agencies involved—the police, social work and health professionals. Ministers need to ensure that victims such as Juanita Berry can turn to all the agencies with confidence that they will get the support that they need. The system has failed Juanita, but the Parliament must do everything possible to ensure that her experience is not repeated.

On a positive note, in Fife there are very committed individuals who for years have worked hard to establish support for women and children. As Marilyn Livingstone said, one of the products of their efforts will be the splendid new refuge, costing £395,000. We thank the Scottish Executive for that.

The social cost of violence to women and children is unacceptable. The emotional trauma and harm that it causes to individuals cannot be measured. Donald Gorrie spoke of the need to educate young people—I agree. Juanita Berry's teenage daughter highlighted that issue. She hopes that in schools special awareness will be raised of the issue of drugs being used with the motive of raping young women.

The minister's task is not easy—it is very complex. She must work to win support from education, the police, social work, housing and other agencies. However, as Marilyn Livingstone said, no one is better suited to that challenge.

Elaine Smith was right to say that Margaret Curran is tenacious and extremely committed. We are glad that we have her to do the work that she is doing.

Murdo Fraser and Mike Rumbles made the point that there is also violence against men. However, I have not seen a statistic relating to men that matches the fact that every week in the United Kingdom two women are murdered by current or former partners. Anyone who needs to be persuaded further need only attend any Women's Aid forum in Scotland or a conference such as that attended by Margaret Curran last March. The conference, which was attended by 180 individuals from Fife and beyond, afforded service providers and other committed individuals the opportunity to express their concerns about the very pragmatic issues that confront them. It is important always to acknowledge the contribution of Scottish Women's Aid and to thank it.

Our challenge is to recognise and acknowledge universally the very special need of women who have violent husbands or partners. This morning my colleagues have spoken about the power relationship between men and women. Translated, that means that the men of whom Mike Rumbles spoke can simply walk away from violence. More than a third of cases of domestic abuse involving young women start during pregnancy—a time when women are at their most vulnerable, emotionally, financially and physically. Where do such women go? That is the difference—that is what we mean when we speak about the power imbalance between men and women. I applaud everyone, everywhere, who works towards the eradication of violent abuse.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I take this opportunity to congratulate Margaret Curran on her plans for coping with the problem of domestic abuse, which in the past has been quietly swept under the carpet. I do not know whether the main cause of the problem is alcohol, poverty or lack of education. More probably, it is something that transcends all those issues, crosses all social barriers and applies across all classes.

Is any provision envisaged to ensure that perpetrators of domestic abuse are not only fined or imprisoned by the courts, but made to pay for the refuge accommodation of the wives and children whom they have abused? Probably the main reason why women fail to report abuse is fear of retribution from their partners. Refuges must be located in such a way that offenders have absolutely no chance of contacting those who have suffered at their hands, who fear stalking and further assaults by their partners.

Mention has been made of the high incidence of domestic abuse in the Dundee area. It is more likely that that is the result of the hands-on policy of the police in Tayside than of a concentration of abusive behaviour in the Dundee area. The problem could be addressed throughout the country if the attitude of the Tayside police were adopted elsewhere.

All forms of domestic abuse should be abhorred by all civilised society. Such abuse is far from being the norm, however. Despite some of the statistics that have been quoted today, the vast majority of people never resort to violence. I have been married for 50 years and I get only verbal abuse—but that is by the way.

The majority of people who perpetrate such offences must be eradicated completely from our society. I give 100 per cent support to the strategy that has been produced.

If members will excuse me for being mildly facetious, I will comment on the fact that Conservative members keep mentioning abuse of men. That is a legacy of the way in which Maggie Thatcher treated her Cabinet.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I thank the Executive for initiating this debate and for accepting the Green amendment. At the beginning of the debate, the minister spoke about the important work that has been done, which we applaud. It is encouraging that, despite some reservations, no members have criticised what is happening on the ground.

The minister recognised that a great deal of work remains to be done. One of the most important tasks is to improve services. Many members have cited statistics from different parts of the country, so I will do likewise. In the previous financial year, the Women's Aid group in Glasgow received from women 974 requests for refuge and was able to accommodate only 247 of those. The picture is equally stark nationally—it seems that barely a quarter of the required places exist.

The funding for Scottish Women's Aid that was announced yesterday is welcome, but we have been told that it will allow the organisation only to meet existing staff costs, including wage rises—it will not allow Scottish Women's Aid to increase capacity. There remain areas where greater clarity could be provided. I hope that we will hear more about those when the Deputy Minister for Communities sums up.

The minister's comments on training are particularly welcome. It is important for staff in social work, the justice system, the police and health services to have access to specific training on the issues that will face them when supporting victims of gender-based violence, domestic violence or rape and sexual abuse. That would be of enormous benefit.

There have been calls for changes to the legal system. Nicola Sturgeon's call for independent legal representation for complainers has real potential and I hope that it will be considered. The suggested pilot scheme on domestic abuse courts sounds innovative and positive, but could it not be extended to deal with rape and sexual assault cases in which the offence is not perpetrated by a partner or ex-partner? Mary Mulligan has said of the courts pilots:

"I am convinced that this will ensure a fairer and more accessible system of justice for the victims of domestic abuse."

Surely the courts could provide the same benefits for victims of rape and sexual abuse that is not domestic abuse. I understand that the domestic abuse strategy will not address the situation of the victim to whom Helen Eadie referred, who reported that she had been raped at a party; it will help only those people against whom the offence was committed by a partner or ex-partner.

Annabel Goldie called for tougher court sentences. That is okay, but we have to think about what it means.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I would like to expand on the point for a moment and then I will certainly give way. I would like to see innovative and creative sentencing, which is not only about longer prison sentences and more punitive justice, but about creative ways of challenging behaviour and getting people to accept that they are at fault and have to change their behaviour. I am glad that the strategy recognises that there are creative ways of dealing with men who are violent.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am grateful to the member for giving way. I just want to offer a minor point of information. I was careful in my phrasing; I talked about "tougher court sanctions", which are not the same as tougher sentences. I was referring to the fact that, with automatic early release, the sentence imposed is not the sentence served. The repeat pattern, which to me is the profoundly disturbing aspect of domestic abuse, would be addressed if the miscreants and perpetrators realised that the penalties that the courts could impose were real and offered a deterrent effect.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You have one more minute, Mr Harvie.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Thank you.

Before I finish, I will address the comments that have made been about male victims. I spent a good number of years working with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in Glasgow. I have direct experience of supporting young men who have suffered what I would define as domestic abuse at the hands of their male partners. I argue passionately for the experiences of such young men to be taken seriously and for services to be funded to support them. I do not expect that the Executive or anyone else would disagree with that. However, I would not argue for all those experiences and all those victims and perpetrators to be treated in the same way, because many of the causes are different.

We can take action that will benefit everyone. I hope that the sexual well-being and relationships strategy will address some of the underlying issues of how we deal with relationships in society. I look forward keenly to the Executive's endorsement of that strategy. We also support eliminating violence against children, whether it is intended as abuse or discipline. That might not relate directly to the underlying gender issue, which most of us accept is at the heart of the problem of domestic abuse, but it would remove the violence in children's lives.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

With hindsight, I think that the motion should have mentioned the fact that it was triggered off by the international day or period for the elimination of violence against women. That was the essence of the motion and, if that had been made clear, the fact that it addressed women would have followed.

Domestic abuse is obviously predominantly a women's issue, but the people who are quite rightly concerned about it as a women's issue would benefit and make progress if the Executive ensured that the various arrangements gave men who face the issue a fair chance. For any individual involved, whether a man or woman, domestic abuse is a 100 per cent issue. Even if fewer men are involved, including them would help the women's cause. However, as a keen supporter of proportional representation, I have to accept that if 91 per cent of the people involved are women, it is fair that they should get 91 per cent of the attention.

I also accept entirely that domestic abuse is an issue of power and control. It is regrettable that most of life is about issues of power and control. Political parties are obsessed with power and control, whether controlling members of a Parliament or council or behaviour at party conferences. Other organisations, such as multinationals, are also obsessed with power and control—so, naturally, are men individually and they have a lot of power, which we have to restrict.

History is all about combating people with too much power.

Many members have given good examples of local initiatives—Linda Fabiani talked about a good initiative that was blocked by the stupidity of the system—of particular problems and of good work by local women's refuges. That is always the strength of our debates.

A point that I had not considered before is that we are talking about repeat crime, which is to do with what goes on in people's minds. We have to treat the problem in the same way as we treat people who are addicted to alcohol or drugs. As well as punishment, there has to be organised and proper treatment of perpetrators of domestic abuse. That does not happen nearly enough at the moment. We have to challenge both female and male stereotypes. We must recognise, publicise and talk about the crime more fully and get good statistics on it.

In order to progress, I suggest humbly that Margaret Curran have a word with Jack McConnell. He is a very skilled publicist and, if the two of them really went a dinger on publicising the issue, that would help a lot. That is something constructive that we could do, because everyone supports the strategy; we just need to make real progress on it to build on what we have achieved.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The Scottish Parliament is second only to the Finnish Parliament in terms of female representation, so it is fitting that the harrowing subject of domestic violence, particularly violence against women, should be debated here. It was here that the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001 was passed. The act made history as the first committee-initiated legislation to come before the Parliament. I pay particular tribute to Maureen Macmillan for her contribution to that.

Today's debate continues that excellent work, not least because it serves to highlight and increase awareness of what is by any measure a complex issue. The lyrics of the 1973 Charlie Rich song, "Behind Closed Doors", sums up the nature of the problem:

"No one knows what goes on behind closed doors."

The song came out 30 years ago, but the problem is still with us today. To acknowledge that domestic violence takes many forms is not to undermine the issue. The most visible, tangible manifestation is violent behaviour resulting in physical abuse. However, other equally repugnant forms exist, including verbal abuse and financial or emotional manipulation and control.

The problem is no respecter of persons and cuts across social divides of age, class, background and gender. Some 10 per cent of victims in 2002 were male—that point was well made by Murdo Fraser and Mike Rumbles. However, one common factor exists: fear. At its most extreme form, that translates into a fear for life and limb, which can cause victims to feel powerless and trapped in abusive situations where their self-esteem has been eroded over the years and from which the fear of consequences prevents them from escaping. Frances Curran highlighted the repeat incidents of domestic abuse that that can give rise to and Annabel Goldie called for tougher sanctions to deal with the matter. Nicola Sturgeon and Mary Scanlon highlighted the fact that fear can also translate into under-reporting.

In 1999, a community safety initiative became the vehicle to launch a female and child domestic violence unit pilot in the North Lanarkshire Council area. The unit, which was aimed at creating a new confidence among abused women, was staffed by two women police constables, who provided support and—crucially—accurate information. The victims were assured that, if they summoned up the courage to report the abuse to the police, they would not put at risk either the right to look after their children or the roof over their heads. The unit has gone a considerable way towards raising awareness of the problem and has now developed into a family protection unit. It works and functions not simply as a policing initiative; it depends on a multi-agency approach and involves representatives from health, education and social services, as well as the Procurator Fiscal Service and the police, working together to address the problem.

As a result, reports of domestic abuse are on the increase. On average, eight such incidents have been reported every day this year. The fact that many of those reports concern repeat incidents provides further evidence of women being trapped in abusive situations. Official statistics suggest that 40 per cent of cases are drink related, but that is definitely an underestimate—the actual proportion is thought to be nearer 70 per cent. Donald Gorrie highlighted that point.

Legislation will help to combat domestic abuse to an extent, but to tackle the issue properly there must be a fundamental culture shift in how domestic violence is perceived. Raising awareness through radio, television, newspaper and poster campaigns that list helpline numbers is key to that process. I very much welcome the minister's announcement about the extension of the helpline to provide 24-hour coverage; that is particularly good news as we approach the festive season. Her announcements about the refuge development programme and research into refuge provision, such as cluster provision of flats, are also welcome. I hope that those measures will go a considerable way towards addressing domestic abuse.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Over the years, we have had a number of debates on domestic violence, to which I have contributed on several occasions. As ever, the Parliament has been united in its condemnation of domestic violence against women.

Like the Executive, the Parliament has a clear commitment to that agenda. As Maureen Macmillan highlighted, the first committee bill was the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill, which became the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001. The intention behind the legislation was to provide greater protection to women who are subject to domestic violence. Some interesting research on the effectiveness of the act demonstrates that it has been of value, but could be of more value if it were promoted more effectively.

We have to pay particular tribute to organisations such as Scottish Women's Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland and Barnardo's Scotland, because they have kept domestic violence against women at the forefront of Scottish politics and our parliamentary debates, have maintained a profile in the debate and have stayed on politicians' backs to remind us that we must continue to address the issue.

Most of the issues that have been raised in the debate have been covered by the provisions in the national strategy to address domestic abuse in Scotland, which, as several members have mentioned, cover the three Ps—prevention, protection and provision.

A number of members have highlighted the context in which the debate on domestic abuse takes place. Nicola Sturgeon pointed out that, last year, 72,000 women approached Women's Aid to obtain some form of help. That represents a 10 per cent increase on the previous year. Annabel Goldie highlighted the fact that around 99 incidents a day were reported to the police in Scotland in 2002, which is also an increase on the 2001 figures. If we couple those figures with the research that was carried out in mid-1998 by the Zero Tolerance Trust, which showed that one in five young men and one in 10 young women think that abuse or violence against women is acceptable, we can see the context in which the debate takes place. The services that provide for and protect women who have been subject to violence face increasing demand, a growing number of cases are reported to the police and there is a prevalent attitude in society that some form of domestic violence or abuse is acceptable.

The target on the prevention of domestic violence will probably be one of the most difficult challenges that the strategy will face. The reason why I believe that the preventive aspect will be the most difficult of the three pillars in the national strategy to achieve is that it will involve addressing the structural inequality in our society. The fact that domestic violence is a manifestation of that structural inequality accounts for a key difference between domestic violence against men and domestic violence against women.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Donald Gorrie made the point that, in cases of domestic violence against an individual, in some regards the gender of the person involved does not matter—for that person, domestic violence is a 100 per cent issue. Does Michael Matheson agree?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I accept that no form of violence against anyone—regardless of their gender—should be tolerated. I am saying that domestic violence against women is a manifestation of the structural inequalities in society and that, if we do not address those inequalities, the violence will continue. That situation is different from that involving violence against men.

The reason why prevention is so important is that, as some members have mentioned, domestic violence is part of the culture that exists in our society. That is why prevention is the key aspect of the strategy and why it must be delivered on. I believe that we can deliver on it if we consistently demonstrate a zero-tolerance approach to domestic violence and ensure that there is adequate education of younger people on the issue.

The other two main areas that have been covered in the debate are protection and provision. Maureen Macmillan highlighted the lead role that Scottish Women's Aid often plays in protecting women who have been subject to domestic violence, particularly through its refuges. However, Linda Fabiani drew attention to the problem that is faced by the Women's Aid project in East Kilbride, which has had to turn away women. The national figures demonstrate that such problems are continuing. Scottish Women's Aid's annual report shows that, although the organisation was approached by some 5,873 women last year, it could accommodate only 1,661 of them and just over 2,000 children. That means that more than 3,000 women and 4,500 children had to be turned away because Scottish Women's Aid could not provide them with the protection that they required.

I acknowledge the fact that the Executive has established the refuge development fund and I welcome its extension. However, until we turn the tide and prevent people from committing acts of domestic violence, the Executive must ensure that expectations are met on the supply of and demand for protection, so that the people who turn to Scottish Women's Aid can obtain the help that they require. Politicians, the Parliament and the Executive must ensure that Scottish Women's Aid receives sufficient funding to enable it to provide that help.

It is important that we have a legal system that is sensitive and that reflects the needs of people who suffer from domestic violence. I welcome the establishment of a domestic violence court, although I would be more inclined to go down the route of a family court rather than of a court specifically for domestic violence. Nonetheless, such a court should go some way towards addressing the present problems in the legal system. As Annabel Goldie said, it is important that, when women turn to the legal system for assistance, that assistance should be delivered swiftly and efficiently. Although I believe that it is dangerous continually to go down the route of having specialist courts to deal with different types of violence, I think that a domestic violence court will go some way towards addressing domestic violence matters.

In my view, the Parliament is united in condemning domestic violence. I hope that the next time we debate the subject the statistics will show that we are turning the tide. I ask members to support Nicola Sturgeon's amendment.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

As we have heard throughout this morning's debate, violence against women is a serious matter and has a high cost in terms of women's ability to participate as full and equal members of society. The fear of violence undermines the confidence of women even if they have not experienced it personally.

There are many forms of violence, all of which are unacceptable, but domestic abuse, rape and sexual assault are the most obvious and pernicious. As Margaret Curran said, we are conscious of the need to do something now to help those who have experienced rape or sexual assault and adult survivors of child sex abuse who are experiencing commercial sexual exploitation. Her announcement of the establishment of the violence against women service development fund demonstrates that we recognise the nature of the problem that we face. That is why we will accept the Green party's amendment.

The progress that we have made demonstrates clearly what a difference our Parliament has made to our lives in Scotland. There is still much to do, but we have a solid base on which to build. We must continue to raise awareness through advertising, training and speaking out at every opportunity until there is not a man, woman, or child in Scotland who is not aware that abusive behaviour is not to be tolerated.

We can also raise awareness through education. Elaine Smith asked about the Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust's respect pilot project. I can tell her that we have committed £160,000 to ensure that Zero Tolerance can distribute its educational package throughout schools in Scotland. Peter Peacock, the Minister for Education and Young People, and I have written to all directors of education to ask them to look at the package and commend it to their schools. Given the figures that have been quoted several times during the debate on the response of boys and girls to violence, it is clear that education is an important means of raising awareness of the issue.

Until we have succeeded in our aims, we must ensure that women and their children who experience abuse should be able to get the protection and service provision that they need. Not all women who experience abuse wish to leave their partners, but those who do should be able to get a place in a refuge or access to other housing and that accommodation should be of a reasonable standard and should meet the diversity of needs of those who wish to use it.

As members have heard, we have committed considerable resources to improving and extending refuge provision. However, it is a sad fact that some of the projects have faced delay, often because of difficulties in obtaining planning permission—the not-in-my-back-yard syndrome. We have to make sure that people understand what is involved in providing a refuge and I hope that any opposition is due to misunderstanding rather than malice. Those vulnerable women and children deserve the support of all our communities.

We are slowly and doggedly making progress and I hope that all projects will be completed during 2005. Shona Robison asked about the situation in Dundee. Permission has been granted for Dundee City Council to access funding for further provision. However, Dundee and other places will have to keep the situation under review because we are aware that there are occasions when there are not enough places.

We have the Justice 2 Committee to thank for the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001, which provides for a power of arrest to be attached to any common-law interdict that has been granted for the purpose of protecting someone from abuse. The act was the result of the Scottish Parliament's first committee bill and it underlines the importance that the Parliament attaches to the necessity of tackling abuse.

Annabel Goldie talked about ensuring that people are aware of that positive piece of legislation. We are working with Scottish Women's Aid and Citizens Advice Scotland to ensure that the information is out there. We are using the local multi-agency partnerships on domestic abuse. We have ensured that the legal profession has been alerted to the 2001 act and that the courts have full information. We are also working with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland working group to ensure that police officers also receive the appropriate information about the act so that the law is delivered in the most appropriate way. The pilot domestic abuse court will ensure that perpetrators are dealt with quickly and appropriately and that women and children receive the support and consideration that they deserve.

I will respond to some of the points that have been raised in the many excellent contributions to the debate. Nicola Sturgeon made a telling speech and raised the issue of repeat offences, as did Annabel Goldie. We must consider that issue further. We must also ensure that women's faith in the system is built up so that they can get the access to the justice system that they need. I, too, am interested in the initiative in Austria, which I heard about this week at the Scottish Women's Aid conference. Under that scheme, male perpetrators rather than the woman victim are removed from the household. We have to examine the experiences of others and use what we learn in whatever context is appropriate in Scotland.

However, I will not accept the SNP's amendment. The figures to which it refers do not compare like with like and are misleading. Unfortunately, all countries in Europe are experiencing a reduction in the rate of prosecution and conviction. The SNP's amendment is therefore too simplistic in suggesting that only Scotland faces that difficulty.

Annabel Goldie spoke about a register of male perpetrators. I inform her that that is the subject of a proposal in England and Wales, which we will continue to keep under review. However, we want to know whether such a scheme will be of benefit before we make further progress on the idea.

Michael Matheson spoke about women who have been turned away by Scottish Women's Aid. As I have already said, we must continue to review the provision of refuge. However, we should also challenge our partners in the local authorities to accept their responsibility for funding local provision that is suitable for local needs. I ask our local authority partners to work with us to achieve that.

Linda Fabiani mentioned the purchase of properties on the open market. We will consider that idea further. Obviously, we will have to ensure that we get best value for money. Moreover, if there are local issues surrounding the purchase of property, those will have to be addressed.

We must also consider behaviour change, an issue that Frances Curran raised. A pilot project in north Edinburgh is looking at working with male perpetrators and it will be particularly important to examine the lessons that can be learned from that. The money for that project is not just coming from the Scottish Executive and, should that funding be ruled out in future, we will have to examine how the project is to be funded.

We have heard many thoughtful contributions this morning. We should ensure that the debate is carried on throughout the year so that we can consider the issues that have been raised. I conclude by making a commitment, personally and on behalf of the Executive, that we will maintain the momentum and continue to work on domestic abuse and other forms of violence against women until we can say that we have achieved the society that we want and deserve.

First Minister's Question Time

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-379)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I expect to meet the Prime Minister again next month. We will continue our discussions on a number of issues, but in particular I would imagine that we will discuss tackling crime, antisocial behaviour and drug abuse across the United Kingdom.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In February 2002, when the First Minister announced the switch from waiting lists to waiting times, he boasted that the average waiting time for patients had fallen to 33 days, but was still too high. After two years in office, can he tell us the figure today?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We do not calculate the average waiting time, as I have tried to explain to Mr Swinney on at least a couple of occasions. The median that we announce on a quarterly basis is not an average. A median is a midpoint of those who have to wait. One of the issues is that the vast majority of people who are treated in the health service are treated either immediately or immediately on referral. That important fact is not reflected in those statistics.

We have a continuing challenge to bring down waiting times in the health service. I said two years ago that the immediate priority was to reduce waiting times for heart and cancer operations and treatments in particular, and the waiting times are being driven down in those areas. We have also been working for two years to bring down the longest waiting times in the health service, and the news on that this morning is very good.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The press release of 28 February 2002 from the Scottish Executive, which I have in front of me, includes the remark:

"the average ... waiting time for in-patient and day case treatment was 33 days".

The chamber will not believe it, but the Government then went on to boast about the fact that that was

"a day fewer than a year ago."

The answer that the First Minister was so evidently finding it difficult to get out today is that the waiting time is not 33 days on average—it is 40 days, which is 10 days longer—[Interruption.] No, wait a minute. That is 10 days longer than in 1999, a week longer than when the First Minister made that boast, and the longest wait since records began.

With all the resources that he has had at his disposal, and with all the taxes that people have paid in Scotland, can the First Minister explain how the health service has deteriorated and why people are waiting so long for treatment in Scotland? [Applause.]

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am glad that they applauded at the right time on that occasion. Stage-managed applause does not always work.

We must be serious about this, because the health service in Scotland is a vital national service. It is a service that requires improvement year on year. It requires us to ensure that we are focused on immediate priorities and that we are planning and working for long-term improvements, which is exactly what we continue to do. That is why it has been absolutely right first of all to ensure that we target those long-term waiters.

The figures this morning show clearly that nobody with a guarantee is waiting for longer than 12 months, and we are well on course—subject, of course, to the possibility of flu and other issues—to achieving our target of nine months by the end of this year. It is also the case that the number of doctors, nurses and health professionals is up and the capacity of the system is being increased, which is what will lead in the longer term to bringing down waiting times overall.

A median is not an average. It is a middle point of those who have to wait at all. The immediate priority was, quite rightly, to bring down waiting times for heart disease and save lives; to bring down waiting times for cancer treatments and save lives; and to bring down waiting times for those who wait the longest. That is what we have done. I am proud of that achievement so far, but there is still a long way to go.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Here is the press release from February 2002, in which the First Minister makes the bold declaration:

"To make a real difference, we will bring down waiting times."

Waiting times have risen under this Labour Government.

The First Minister boasts again that he is on target to eliminate for people a wait of longer than nine months. Since he was re-elected to office in May, the number of people waiting more than nine months for treatment has gone up. I see that the First Minister is shaking his head, but the figure has gone up from 662 to 897. That figure is going the wrong way. Fewer out-patients, in-patients and day cases are being treated and more people are waiting longer than ever before. And now, to add to the problems, the Labour Government south of the border is pushing through foundation hospitals that will draw staff and resources from the NHS in Scotland. Is it not the case that, north and south of the border, the Labour party is a disaster for the health service?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I repeat that a median is not an average, it is a mid point. I stress the absolute importance of focusing on the things that matter most in the health service at the moment, which are the longest waiting times. That is why we have reduced them, giving an absolute guarantee of 12 months and, as of 31 December, nine months. The other critically important priority, which was identified three years ago and is now being implemented across the health service by expert professionals, who are working hard to deliver our commitment, is to bring down waiting times for heart disease operations and treatments and for cancer treatments. Those were the priorities that we identified and they have been met.

However, there is a longer-term issue, which is to bring down waiting times across the board. That will be done by increasing capacity. That is why, in the past two years, the number of nurses, doctors and consultants has gone up, as has the number of nurses, doctors, and dentists in training. All those figures are going up and that is how, in the long term, we will improve our national health service.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-378)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Cabinet will, as ever, discuss a number of issues that are important to the future of Scotland. With regard to the immediate future of local government in Scotland, we will discuss next year's local government financial settlement.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I am sure that the First Minister, his Cabinet and all the other members of the self-preservation society in the Scottish Parliament will be delighted that the Queen's speech included a bill to amend the Scotland Act 1998 and keep the number of MSPs at an overblown and wholly unnecessary 129. [ Interruption. ] Of course, most of the unnecessary MSPs are on the Government benches. At the election, the redundancies were handed out on benches other than ours.

As the First Minister knows, our view was that the Scotland Act should not be so amended, not least because of the problems that will arise from having differing constituencies for Westminster and the Scottish Parliament. However, I acknowledge that, at least, the proposal to amend the act had the consent of the Parliament.

Could the First Minister explain how he intends to deal with the problems caused by having differing boundaries? Does he accept that any proposed change to the method of electing members of this Parliament should equally require the consent of this Parliament?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

While the issue of any changes to the method of electing members of the Scottish Parliament might be the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament, I believe that such changes should have the consent of the Scottish Parliament. I have always believed that.

I believe that it is right and proper for the Secretary of State for Scotland to establish the commission that was announced by his predecessor to examine the implications of the differing boundaries that were implied by yesterday's announcement to retain 129 members of the Scottish Parliament. We will contribute to that commission when it is established.

However, I should say that it is more important for the Scottish Parliament to be discussing the extremely important issues of health, education, crime, transport and jobs rather than talking about ourselves and self preservation. Mr McLetchie has his priorities all wrong. What is important is that we deal with the issues that matter to the people of Scotland. When we do that, we will get the credibility that we sometimes demand, but do not always deserve.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

It was not I who spent the first four years of this Parliament discussing nonsense and wasting money on an unprecedented scale. The First Minister would do well to take a lesson from the book from which he has just quoted.

I was interested to hear the First Minister's answer about the importance of the principle of consent with regard to changing methods of election, because that does not seem to apply to the method by which we elect our councils.

This week, the Scottish Executive published its Local Governance (Scotland) Bill, which proposes the single transferable vote system of proportional representation for local elections. However, instead of listening to the views of councils and others, the First Minister is imposing a system that was opposed by the majority of respondents to the Executive's consultation; opposed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; opposed by the vast majority of his own party, including Labour councils in Fife, Dundee, Stirling and Glasgow; and, almost certainly, opposed by most of his back benchers. Are not our councils having to pay an extremely high price to keep the First Minister and his Cabinet in a job? Does the First Minister relish the prospect of having to rely on the votes of the Scottish National Party to force through this change?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Given how often SNP members change their policy positions, it would be hard to rely on them for anything. However, if they ever come in the right direction, we will be very grateful for that.

The consultations on the electoral system for local government, which have taken place on four occasions now, have shown a majority—I think in each of the consultations, and certainly in the two that have taken place since I became First Minister—in favour of a change in the electoral system to STV. It is right that this Parliament should respond to that clear demand. I look forward to the legislation that was introduced on Monday not only passing through the Parliament and its committees, but being enacted next year.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

At the next meeting of the Executive's Cabinet, does the First Minister intend to discuss the very welcome announcement by the Inland Revenue this week to bring 500 new jobs to West Lothian? Does he acknowledge that the Inland Revenue will have made that decision on the basis of the excellent and high-quality work force that is available in West Lothian? Does he acknowledge how well the West Lothian economy has bounced back from the problems in the electronics industry of a few years back?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We are all aware not only of the strength of the economy in West Lothian and the rest of the Lothians, but of the strength of the work force, which has faced challenges as a result of the international downturn in electrical engineering in recent times. West Lothian has maintained a level of economic activity and employment that is really quite remarkable. That exemplifies one of the underlying strengths of the Scottish economy at the moment. I welcome the decision this week to locate Government jobs in West Lothian, but I hope that other parts of Scotland will take up the same challenge. It is right and proper that the United Kingdom Government is redirecting jobs out of London and the south east. We in Scotland should be trying to capitalise on those opportunities.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

What representations will be made to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, regarding the implications for Scotland of his proposal to remove from their parents and place in care the children of so-called failed asylum seekers?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Mr Blunkett clarified this morning that that is a gross distortion of his position. We will continue to have discussions with the Home Office about these and other matters in the normal way.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

To ask the First Minister what contingency plans are in place in the event of terrorist attacks in Scotland. (S2F-388)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Although the level of risk to the UK from terrorist attacks remains substantial, there are no specific threats to Edinburgh or anywhere else in Scotland.

The Scottish Executive, Scottish emergency services and public agencies work closely with one another, and with UK bodies, to ensure that we are as prepared as possible to deal with any terrorist threat to Scotland. Contingency plans are tested regularly at local level as part of an on-going national UK programme.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

I am grateful to the First Minister for that reassurance. Will he also reassure us that sufficient measures are in place, not only to protect all Scottish people from the immediate effects of terrorism, but to protect certain parts of the community who may be at risk from a backlash should an attack take place or the threat of an attack escalate?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

One indication in the past 12 months of how society in Scotland has changed and improved over recent years has been the way in which—in the spring, during what could have been a very difficult time, with real tension in communities as a result of the conflict in Iraq—the police forces, the local authorities, the churches and the faith groups generally, and local community leaders came together and ensured that action was taken in schools and communities to reduce tension or to ensure that tension did not arise in the first place. That is to the credit of everybody involved. Such work will continue to be a central part of our preparations for, and our response to, any such situations.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the First Minister tell us what role the armed services would play in the prevention of a terrorist attack and in the aftermath of such an attack? What concerns does he have about reports about a reduction in the armed services?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

On Mr Gallie's second point, we also heard this week clear denials of those rumours that are being put around—presumably by Opposition parties for the sake of grabbing headlines.

I want to put on record the strong support that I have consistently given—and I hope that everybody in the chamber will learn to give—to the armed forces that are based in Scotland and to those who serve in Scottish regiments. They would play a role if there were any serious incident or threat. That would be part of the normal liaison arrangements between our devolved services in Scotland but, more important, part of arrangements involving the Ministry of Defence and those responsible at a United Kingdom level.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

To ask the First Minister what representations will be made to Her Majesty's Government in order to rectify any error made by the Office for National Statistics resulting in the loss of objective 1 funding for the Highlands and Islands and whether the Scottish Executive will seek compensation for such loss. (S2F-385)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

What mattered in 1999 was the outcome for the Highlands and Islands. Because the statistics did not support objective 1 status, the Prime Minister secured, at the Berlin summit, the special transitional programme for the Highlands and Islands, which is broadly equivalent to objective 1 funding and has resulted in the investment in the area that has taken place since then. It will be important to take into account any new data—particularly data at a European rather than a British level—when considering proposals for the next round of structural funds. We will ensure that that happens.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Not for the first time today, the First Minister has indicated that he does not understand statistics, since he thinks that 40 is less than 33. The ONS has admitted that the wrong statistics were submitted and, as a result, objective 1 funding was lost. Transitional aid is automatic in those circumstances.

Does the First Minister recall saying, when he was in the Highlands and Islands during the election campaign—it was recorded in nearly every local journal, including The Press and Journal—that he would battle for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland? Will he put up a battle on this issue, and win some compensation for the area, or will we in the Highlands and Islands be socially excluded?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I want to make three points on that. First, the statistics that I think Mrs Ewing is referring to are not yet Europewide, and therefore the comparison with the situation in 1998 does not stand. However, if the statistics show that the position in the Highlands and Islands would merit a revision of the analysis back in 1998, we will ensure that that is part of the discussion on the next round of structural funds. We will stand up not just for the Highlands and Islands, but for the whole of Scotland in these decisions. I have recently represented not only Scotland, but the United Kingdom in Rome at a meeting on that very issue. The Deputy First Minister is, at this moment, in Brussels, making representations on these issues. We intend to ensure that our input into these discussions continues.

I have one further point, which is that it would be wrong for the chamber, through the production of these weekly sessions, to give the world the impression that the Highlands and Islands are in some way an economic basket case. There are parts of the Highlands and Islands that are economically strong. Inverness is still the fastest-growing city in the United Kingdom. We should ensure that we promote the positive side of the Highlands and Islands economy and that those severe pockets of economic difficulty in the north-western Highlands and in some of the islands are tackled and supported, not just at a European level but at a Scottish level. That is what this Government will do.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome what the First Minister has said so positively about the Highlands and Islands, but does he realise that there is still concern about the statistics? It would be helpful if those statistics could be considered carefully and quickly. Will he take particular note that important infrastructural projects are still needed for the more remote parts of the Highlands and Islands and will he consider how those can be implemented in the coming years?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Those are important points. Our objective is to influence the next round of European structural fund talks to ensure that, although the statistics—let us talk statistics again—might show that we would lose out in structural funds to the eastern European nations that have just joined the European Union and that are significantly poorer than ourselves, regional support is still available to Scotland as a whole, and in particular to areas that need it, such as the Highlands and Islands. We are fighting that case and will continue to do so.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the First Minister what outcome the Scottish Executive expects to be reached on quotas and days at sea for Scotland's fishermen in the forthcoming December negotiations in Brussels. (S2F-381)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Our aim on fisheries for the December council meeting will be to secure quotas that are realistic in commercial and conservation terms and to secure a more effective and equitable effort management, or days-at-sea regime.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Can I tempt the First Minister to be a little more explicit? Recent scientific evidence shows that many Scottish white-fish species are in their healthiest state for a generation and stocks of prawns are reported to be excellent. Will he assure us that instead of Ross Finnie being gutted, filleted and hung out to dry over one species—cod—as happened at last year's fisheries summit, the First Minister fully expects the negotiating team to return with significantly improved catching quotas? Will he guarantee that those who live in Scotland's fishing communities will be able to recognise his unique assessment that, despite all evidence to the contrary, they live in thriving and prosperous places?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I would be grateful if the Conservatives stopped distorting what was said about the fact that some parts of the fishing industry in Scotland are doing better than others. That is an important distinction to make, as it reinforces the member's point that parts of the industry should be better supported by the European management regime.

One of our key objectives for the December council, which will be difficult to achieve—we do not underestimate the scale of the challenge—but which we are working towards achieving, is the decoupling of the Commission's provisions on prawns, or nephrops, from those on haddock and cod. Measures will be needed for cod, but they should not unfairly disadvantage those who fish for haddock or nephrops.

When conservation is important, we want to ensure that conservation measures are applied equally throughout the European Union and that other fisheries that were not as heavily penalised as Scotland was last year take their share in ensuring that stocks are conserved in the seas around Europe. That is a key part of our objectives that we will continue to pursue.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the First Minister recall that, after last December's disastrous talks in Brussels, he announced a so-called aid package that would amount to £50 million for Scotland's fishing communities? It transpired this week that the Government has held back £13 million of that package because it miscalculated the amount of cash that would be required for decommissioning. Will he give the fishing industry and the chamber a commitment that that £13 million will be given to our fishing communities, which, although he might disagree, are not thriving but fighting for survival and require that cash?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Nobody ever said that the fishing communities of north-east Scotland—and in particular the white-fish fishing communities—were thriving. That is precisely why last year we agreed the biggest-ever aid package for Scottish fisheries. We are proud of that decision, which Mr Lochhead might still want to criticise, but it was the right decision at the time. It ensured that people got through this year while the amount of activity in the North sea decreased, which is important for conservation, and that those who had less activity and therefore less income could maintain their businesses through the year and into the future. That remains our position.

We always said that the amount of money would be up to £50 million. We have said not that a miscalculation was made, but that we will allocate money only when that is right and proper. We will not throw money at the problem; we will allocate it to ensure that those who are most in need receive it. We will put the overall long-term interests of Scotland's fishing industries first in any allocation of finance and in any longer-term solution.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Does the First Minister agree that what is vital for fishermen in the next few weeks is obtaining the best deal from the fisheries council, which, as he was right to say, should include the decoupling of nephrops from cod, which would mean so much to fishermen from Pittenweem in my constituency? All Scottish politicians should work together to achieve that, instead of engaging in political posturing and making the populist but unachievable claim that we can unilaterally withdraw from our international treaty obligations.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There are two things that the Opposition parties have suggested that would do us most damage in the negotiations. To some extent, there is evidence for that from last December. First, Scotland's fishing communities would be damaged by the constant diversion into the idea that Scotland can go it alone, support a fishing free-for-all and take no part in a Europewide conservation of stocks. Such an approach is unlikely to win us any friends or allies when there are votes at the European Council. The nationalists who make such suggestions might get a few cheers in certain small communities in north-east Scotland, but that will not win us any votes in the European Council. Mr Salmond, and others who make such proposals, do a disservice to the communities that they represent.

Secondly, it is important to reaffirm our commitment to stand by the law in the negotiations. People such as Jamie McGrigor, who last year tried to persuade fishing communities in Scotland to break the law—Conservatives proposed that people should break the law—do no service whatsoever to our fishing communities. People at a European level and in countries with which we must work—in Scandinavia and in the European Union—do not believe that we are serious about conservation when our parliamentarians talk in such a way. We need to get serious about the negotiations, have clear objectives, get involved, win friends and allies and stop posturing and damaging Scottish fishing communities.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive's support for the completion of the M74 accords with its sustainable transport policy. (S2F-383)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The M74 completion is only one element of our integrated and sustainable transport strategy. The motorway will bring economic and environmental benefits, which will include allowing a larger share of local road space to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. That is the sustainable approach.

By the end of 2006, our spending on transport will reach almost £1 billion per year, with 70 per cent of that spending targeted specifically on public transport. That is more than ever before. Such an effective transport system is central to a thriving economy and strong communities.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

Does the First Minister agree that the best way to encourage public transport use is to reduce congestion on local roads? As it is estimated that the M74 northern extension will reduce traffic on Rutherglen's main street, which is in my constituency, by up to 69 per cent, does he acknowledge that the completion of the road is an excellent example of strategic transport planning and that we should all work towards its being completed at the earliest opportunity?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I support the construction in question. We have committed ourselves to it, but it is clear that procedures must be followed through. Completion of the M74 will reduce pollution, result in environmental benefits for the south of Glasgow and even for Rutherglen. It is also important that Scotland has a transport network that can get goods to markets, move people around and allow our public transport service to function properly. The completion of the M74 will help us to achieve such objectives.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

This week, I had an opportunity to speak at a public meeting on the M74 in Janis Hughes' constituency. At the meeting, I met a woman who has just bought a flat.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The member must ask a question.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The woman has since discovered that the view from her window is about to change. In the light of her expectation that she will live on a building site for years, suffer air pollution caused by thousands of cars per hour passing her flat, that her property value will collapse and that there will be no prospect of compensation for at least a year after the road is open, how would the First Minister explain the concept of environmental justice to her?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

In the public inquiry that is taking place and in other decisions that will be required to be taken over the coming period, it is important to take into account the impact on individuals in the area. Doing so is important for those who would be affected by the construction of the new road and for those who are affected by the current traffic flows in the south of Glasgow. It is also important for people who live further west in Scotland, in Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and elsewhere, and whose local economies are threatened by a lack of access to markets and a proper transport system.

I believe that certain road networks in Scotland need to be completed and that the M74 is one of them; however, I also believe that we need to improve public transport. Public transport use in Scotland, which reached its lowest-ever level in 1998-99—the year before the Parliament came into existence—has been increasing every year since then and the level has now topped 445 million journeys a year. That is an excellent record for the Parliament and this Government. We are very proud of it and will build on it in years to come.

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

Given that the report by the Standing Advisory Committee for Trunk Road Assessment, which was commissioned in the mid-1990s, found that increased motorway construction creates increased traffic, does the First Minister agree that the £500 million that has been set aside for the northern extension of the M74 would be better spent on public transport and indeed on cleaning up the toxic waste along the proposed route of the extension?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The fact that we are already spending significantly more on public transport than we are on roads in Scotland is a welcome change from the long-term trend in transport budgets and Government expenditure in Scotland. I am personally committed to such change, which was initially driven forward by Sarah Boyack as Minister for Transport and the Environment and has since been driven forward by every minister with responsibility for transport. It is now being driven forward by Nicol Stephen.

Our consistent direction is towards improving public transport in Scotland as well as upgrading or completing the road networks that are vital both to our economy and to reducing the pollution and environmental damage that are caused by overuse of the existing roads. We are taking a good, balanced approach and I look forward to the work being carried out.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what targets it has set for its commitment in "A Partnership for a Better Scotland" to ensure that new homes and public buildings increasingly incorporate solar power or other renewable energy sources and what progress it has made towards achieving those targets. (S2O-853)

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

We intend to introduce requirements for renewable sources of energy in buildings as part of the first amendment to the reformed building regulations. That will follow the introduction of the new Scottish building standards system.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Does the Executive intend to make regulatory or financial provision for the use of solar and other renewable energy sources for supplying affordable housing, where there is likely to be pressure on capital costs, thereby underpinning its commitment to tackling fuel poverty, addressing climate change and promoting social justice?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The Executive will consider all the implications. As I said in reply to a recent question, we recognise that the technology and information around solar energy in particular has vastly improved in recent years, and we need to take that into account when considering proposals in this area. The Executive has made available £5 million of grants to encourage the involvement of communities and individuals in renewable energy projects, and we will keep that under review.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take in light of the sentence of John Walsh at Stranraer sheriff court. (S2O-862)

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

Sentencing is a matter for the court. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on individual cases.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

As someone who shares my concerns on animal cruelty, will the minister ensure that steps are taken throughout the Executive to protect animals that are cruelly treated? Will that extend to those who use the current planning legislation—which ignores the views of animal welfare organisations, local authorities and local communities—to pave the way for puppy farms such as those at Waterside in my constituency?

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

It is worth remembering that dog-breeding establishments are licensed by local authorities, which have the power to issue licences after inspection; to conduct regular inspections to ensure that the licence conditions are being met; to revoke licences if those conditions are not being met; and to report cases of animals being ill treated to the procurator fiscal.

The Scottish Executive will introduce an animal welfare bill, which will aim to update existing animal welfare legislation and ensure that cruel practices are prohibited.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I hear what the minister says about the animal welfare bill. It is my understanding that my bill, the proposal for which I have lodged, will still be required because its provisions could not be dealt with under the Executive's proposed legislation. As I have obtained cross-party co-sponsorship for my proposed bill, which has obtained 30 signatures since it was lodged yesterday, as well as the active support of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other canine welfare organisations, will the minister confirm that the Executive will give my bill fair wind to end this miserable trade in an accelerated manner?

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

As with any member's bill, the Executive will look very closely at the proposals in the bill, together with what we intend to do on the matter. I reassure the member that we take the issue of animal welfare very seriously. We will consider including a section in our future bill on animal welfare to close the gap left by the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 by legislating on aspects of the sale of dogs from non-breeding establishments, such as the age at which puppies can be sold.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the consultation on widening the right of appeal in the planning system will commence. (S2O-835)

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

We intend to publish our consultation paper early in the new year.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Does the minister agree that the planning process is currently stacked in favour of the developer? Will she confirm that the central purpose of the consultation is to find an appropriate balance between the rights of developers to appeal decisions and the rights of those who are directly affected by planning applications to lodge appeals?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The Executive's intention in reviewing planning is to ensure that we have a level playing field, so I agree with Mike Rumbles about the need to ensure that the views of communities and individuals are heard and acted upon. However, we must balance that against any delays in the system and costs to the economy. That is why the consultation will be wide-ranging and seek as many views as possible to improve the planning system.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Will the consultation cover the criteria for selecting the situations in which a wider right of appeal will apply?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Yes, it will cover those. We want as wide-ranging a consultation as possible, but we recognise that there may be issues around the application of the third-party right of appeal. In some situations it might be acceptable and in some it might not. We need to consider that issue in the consultation.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Does the minister accept that there are genuine concerns, in particular among the business community, about the complexity of the present planning system and about some of the consequences that would be associated with introducing an unfettered right of appeal? Does she accept that the objective of the consultation should be to ensure that decisions are made properly in the first place and that it should not focus purely on the right of appeal?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I can only repeat that, although we have received many representations from community groups and individuals who feel that their views have not been listened to, we also need to recognise the views of the business community and local authorities, who feel that introducing a third-party right of appeal could place further burdens on them. We need to establish a balance between those competing agendas.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The minister will be aware that I have proposed a member's bill on third-party rights of appeal. As the proposal has already been out to consultation, I would be happy to provide the minister with what I received back from that.

Does the minister agree that there is concern in communities that the people there do not get a fair share when planning decisions are made? Will she give a commitment that a third-party right of appeal will be considered seriously in the forthcoming planning bill?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The Executive is taking forward the issue of a third-party right of appeal as part of a general review of the planning process. Those who are involved in planning tell us that that is the right way to go about it. We should not pick out one particular aspect, such as a third-party right of appeal. That is why the Executive will come up with the answer that will achieve the balance that is needed and to which I referred.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its strategy is for the provision of barrier-free transport in urban areas for those with mobility problems. (S2O-857)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Executive strongly supports a range of initiatives to improve access to bus, rail and dial-a-ride services throughout Scotland. We support a wide range of initiatives that, for example, provide £0.5 million per year to support urban dial-a-ride services.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

The minister will be aware of the work of the National federation of Shopmobility UK, which provides access for people with mobility problems to our shopping centres and towns throughout Scotland. Shopmobility Highland was able to access the rural transport initiative fund to run a minibus to bring people in from the rural areas to the shopping centres but, apparently, there is no equivalent urban fund. Does the minister feel that the disabled in urban areas are catered for in the provision of access to our shopping centres?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

As I said, we are investing £0.5 million per year for the next three years in similar urban initiatives, so that is happening. We have had discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers and the first pilot projects are due to commence early in 2004.

We realise that the need applies in urban areas as well as in rural areas. Our first priority was rural Scotland, but we are now trying to extend similar schemes to the urban areas. I am also aware that, in some urban locations, local authorities are moving forward with similar schemes.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Does the minister share my view that it is unacceptable that, when my disabled constituents from Shotts travel by train from Glasgow, they must continue to west Lothian because the station at Shotts does not have an exit that is disabled accessible? Will he confirm what action the Scottish Executive will take to ensure that all public transport facilities are fully accessible for people with disabilities?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I agree that that is a major issue. Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 says that, from October next year, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to remove, alter, or provide means of avoiding physical features that make it

"impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons"

to use a service or a facility.

The provision will not apply to vehicles such as buses or taxis, which are covered by separate legislation, but it will apply to bus and rail stations. Indeed, the provision will apply to access to timetables; it does not only involve access to a physical building.

The implementation of the DDA has huge implications for rail and bus operators. The Scottish Executive is not funded to take action in this area, but we are very willing to take part in the negotiations that will be required in relation to this important piece of reserved legislation.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it is supporting the provision of dermatology services. (S2O-832)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I look to NHS boards to assess local needs for dermatology services and to provide appropriate services to meet those needs. However, the Health Department's centre for change and innovation is working closely with boards, clinicians and patient representatives on the Scottish Council for Dermatology to support service redesign and improvement.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Is the minister aware of the difficulties that have been experienced in recruiting a consultant to fill a vacancy in the dermatology department at NHS Grampian, which already has fewer consultants and departments than other parts of NHS Scotland that cover similarly sized areas? Is the minister aware that a peer-group review of the department highlighted the urgent need for extra investment? Finally, is he aware of the wider concern across Scotland that dermatology is often seen as a poor relation when it comes to investment in health services?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am aware of the issue in Aberdeen. I should point out that there has been an increase in dermatology consultants and, even more significantly, an increase in specialist registrars who will become tomorrow's consultants. The national waiting times unit has made a specific allocation of £100,000 to dermatology in Grampian.

The most important aspect is the work that is taking place on the redesign of dermatology services, which is being spearheaded by the centre for change and innovation. The redesign of dermatology out-patient services is the most radical programme for redesigning out-patient services that has ever been seen in Scotland. Indeed, dermatology is one of the first services to be redesigned. A group of clinicians is leading that work, about which I will attend a national event in February. I expect to see big improvements in the quality of care and in waiting times.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps are being taken to measure the impact of the decline in Scotland's population. (S2O-843)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The Executive is considering the challenges that population decline poses for Scottish society and we are analysing the impact of the long-term demographic trends on public service delivery and the economy. That means that we are looking at the projections that the General Register Office for Scotland has made and their implications for service delivery to different age groups, the spatial impact of population change and what will happen to the skills base of the economy.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am delighted to hear that the minister has read the explosive and worrying document that the Registrar General for Scotland issued earlier this year. The document states:

"Scotland, unlike other countries in the European Union, is currently experiencing overall population decline."

Does the minister agree with the Registrar General that population decline is

"often regarded as being symptomatic of poor economic performance".

Will the minister tell the chamber and Scotland why, in a devolved Scotland, young people and young families continue to emigrate overseas?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

As per normal, the facts and the statistics are all astray. Most advanced economies in Europe suffer from population decline. The First Minister launched the fresh talent initiative, which welcomes and attracts to Scotland people of talent who come here to study or people of talent who want to relocate their families and businesses to Scotland. The fresh talent initiative is supported by the business community and by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and many other organisations.

In addition, the European Commission's director general for justice and home affairs, who is perhaps a more astute observer of these matters, said:

"The Fresh Talent initiative announced earlier this year by the First Minister, Jack McConnell, is a good example of the kind of initiative which will help to attract and retain the new talent we need."

We should recognise the problem, but the report is not explosive. The problem will take 20-odd years to impact. The SNP's planning horizons may be different from everyone else's, but we have time to plan and to assess the impact on our economy and our communities. The spatial dimension of the issue means that we should include communities in the Highlands and more remote communities. The Executive knows about the issue and it will act to deal with the problem.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Given all the international evidence that points to a clear link between a low-tax, lightly regulated economy and a growing population—witness the examples of the United States of America, New Zealand and Singapore—will the minister outline what steps the Scottish Executive is taking to create a more business-friendly environment in Scotland?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

In the environment that the Tories want to create, people who came to Scotland could not access health services because the Tories would have shut them all down; they could not access nursery places because the Tories would have closed them down; and they could not access proper education because the Tories would have closed that down. The £20 billion of cuts that the Tories said they would introduce as a result of their taxation policies would have no attraction for families who come to locate in Scotland or for students who come to study in Scotland. They would look around the horizon and see a Tory environment in which there were no public services for them and their families. That is not the way to attract new talent to Scotland.

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Rather than dwell on the doom and gloom comments that Richard Lochhead makes on behalf of the SNP, about people flooding out of Scotland, I ask the minister to turn his attention to something rather more positive.

Given that a turnaround in the birth rate—even if we could achieve that—is a long-term objective that will take a few years to have effect, we should focus on short-term action. The minister mentioned the fresh talent initiative. Can he say where that initiative is going? Has he had any talks about it with the Home Office or other agencies? Given that the initiative will mean not only keeping Scots but bringing in people with skills and talents from other countries, how will he manage to decouple it from the hysteria that surrounds the issue of asylum seekers and refugees, which we have seen today?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

That is absolutely the point. The fresh talent initiative seeks to ensure that there is a one- stop shop for people who wish to come with their families to live in Scotland and for those who study in Scotland and wish to stay on in Scotland. That one-stop shop approach will operate throughout the public services and across devolved and reserved issues, such as visas and immigration. That will provide a benchmark for other nations to consider. They will see how Scotland is doing its job to ensure that we attract people from overseas.

In addition, I welcome the initiatives in the health service. For example, Glasgow Caledonian University has a Glasgow overseas professional in practice project, which will secure 50 people for the health service here in Scotland, who otherwise may not have chosen to settle in Scotland. That makes a real difference in enabling us to provide the first-class public services that we seek to provide.

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

The minister will realise that in remote areas in Scotland—including my constituency—we have huge problems getting health service professionals. He will also understand that the role played by immigrants from other countries has underpinned the health service in the past. Does he agree that targeting those people to work in rural areas would not only help to arrest the population decline, but would bring professionals to where they are needed in remote parts of Scotland?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

First, I highlight the Executive's rural initiative policy and strategy, which reflects some of the population problems that Mr Stone mentions. Those problems clearly have an effect on sustainability issues within our communities.

On the member's second point, about attracting professionals, it is clear that the work of the fresh talent initiative and the Grampian NHS trusts is vital. The trusts are out there in the marketplace encouraging people from overseas to come to work in Scotland and people who are studying in Scotland to stay and rear their families in Scotland. We must make Scotland a welcoming place for those people and their families to ensure that they stay with us and provide much-needed public services.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question 7 has been withdrawn.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take to ensure that there is continued provision of acute health services in the west Highland area. (S2O-849)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Highland NHS Board and Argyll and Clyde NHS Board are co-operating on a review of health services in the west Highlands. When they have proposals for me to consider, I shall be happy to do so. In the meantime, it is a matter for the boards.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The minister will be aware that more than 2,500 people in Fort William and more than 1,000 in Oban turned out at public meetings recently to make clear their opposition to the idea that the west Highlands might become a consultant-free zone, which would result in patients having to travel hundreds of miles to either Glasgow or Inverness for emergency treatment. I ask the minister to make it clear to both health boards that such a proposal is unacceptable to him and to this Parliament. I also ask him to impress upon the boards the need for both hospitals to work together closely to come up with a joint solution to the clinical hurdles that face them.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

As I said last week in the debate on maternity services in Glasgow, I have to wait for proposals to come in before I give a view on them. I understand the strong concerns in Oban, Fort William and the surrounding areas. However, at the same time, the vast majority of people accept that things cannot stay the same. I have spoken to the chairs of both NHS boards this week and they have assured me that they will take time to work with the communities on finding solutions. As is the case with changes in many parts of Scotland, we must have clinically safe services of the highest possible quality, but they must be locally accessible wherever possible. We must follow those two principles in dealing with the issue.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I commend George Lyon on the points that he made. What specific steps will the minister take to ensure that the Scottish Executive and the NHS boards understand the strength in depth of the local opposition to the proposals to downgrade west Highland hospitals? That opposition is based on a keen and pervasive awareness that downgrading the hospitals would be disastrous for the local economy.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

As I said, this week I have spoken to the chairs of both boards, who are conscious of local decisions. They have assured me that no decisions will be made in the immediate future and that they will take time to work with communities on the issues. For example, the chair of Highland NHS Board assured me that an option that was proposed at the meeting in Fort William a couple of weeks ago will be evaluated fully.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The west Highland health project seems to be bent on downgrading the hospital services in Oban and Fort William. Does not the minister think that the people who live in those areas deserve an upgrade in hospital services rather than a downgrade?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

As I said in my original answer, the purpose of the changes is, of course, to improve the quality and, crucially, the safety of care. The west Highland project did not come from either of the NHS boards involved, but from the remote and rural areas resource initiative, which commissioned work on the issue, based on the widespread recognition that the status quo was not an option. Some work has been done, but the boards accept that much more needs to be done.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Given that the problems that George Lyon and other members have outlined have a resonance beyond the Argyll and Clyde NHS Board area, will the minister send a strong signal to NHS boards that they must look beyond artificial boundaries that bear no relation to communities and that they must work together so that patients have access to high-quality consultant-led services without having to travel enormous distances?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The west Highland project, which was the main issue in the original question, is a good example of health boards working across boundaries. In last week's debate on maternity services in Glasgow, I talked about the regional dimension of maternity services. The thrust and direction of health policy is towards more regional planning. The National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Bill, which the Health Committee is considering, will place a duty on boards to co-operate. That is a new feature of health policy.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will extend the December deadline for horse owners applying for an equine passport. (S2O-821)

The publication of that question has already prompted a response, but I would still like to ask it.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

As Alex Fergusson knows, I announced on 21 November that the deadline for owners of horses and other equines to obtain passports for their animals has been extended from 31 December 2003 until 30 June 2004.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

It is good to have an answer straight from the horse's mouth. [ Laughter. ] Sorry, but that opportunity was too good to miss.

Seriously, is the minister aware of the considerable confusion that exists among the horse-owning population? There is confusion because different passport-issuing organisations will charge different amounts; because many people who own horses have no idea that the rule is about to be implemented; and because the directive involved, which is designed to prevent veterinary medicines from getting into the food chain, seems to be extraordinary given that we do not eat horse meat in Scotland. Will the minister give an assurance that his department will use the extra six months that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has led him into granting to dispel some of the confusion, by informing the public better on the issue, rather than simply passing the buck to horse and pony breed societies, as is happening at present?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Given that Alex Fergusson has had six days to prepare those opening lines, we might have hoped for better.

A degree of confusion exists, but we should be clear that, because horses are slaughtered in this country and exported for food consumption, it is wrong to suggest that the legislation is not needed and should not apply. As the member is well aware, the purpose of the legislation is to create a record of when veterinary medicines that are not suitable for human consumption are given to animals. That important safeguard should be in place.

We have already gone far down the road that the member suggested by authorising certain passport organisations. I accept that existing equine organisations issue what they unfortunately call passports; however, those documents do not include the necessary veterinary certificates. Simple production of a vaccine certificate will not be enough.

We have taken steps to publish on our website the names of all the authorised bodies, and I understand that the organisations are making it clear where equine owners can obtain the information. I very much hope that now that owners have time to obtain the necessary certificates, organisations will help them to understand why it is important that a valid passport contains such certificates and to be aware of the purposes for which the passport is intended.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it supports the establishment of a fully devolved Scottish opportunities fund accountable to the Parliament. (S2O-827)

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Scottish ministers have a partnership commitment to establish a Scottish opportunities fund. We are presently in discussions with the United Kingdom Department for Culture, Media and Sport on how to ensure that we fulfil that commitment as part of the current review of the National Lottery.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Does the minister agree that a devolved fund would provide the opportunity for a more strategic use of those resources to meet Scottish priorities? Moreover, will he make a commitment today to push for a fully devolved fund that is accountable to the Parliament and not to accept anything less from the DCMS?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Yes.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I am very encouraged by the minister's reply. Will he also use his talents—

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Well, I want something. [ Laughter. ]

Will the minister ensure that lottery grants in general are better co-ordinated with Executive grants? Although that already happens to some extent, quite often we find duplication or gaps. Will he ensure that there is the best possible co-ordination in that respect while maintaining the various bodies' independence?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

What Mr Gorrie has done requires the experience of a former Westminster parliamentarian. I can confirm that flattery will get him everywhere.

One of the key challenges for the new body that is being set up to administer the New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund will be to address the central concern expressed by many groups throughout Scotland that people are sometimes moved between different funding agencies. I hope that through the merger and the dialogue that we will continue to have with DCMS officials and ministers, we will reflect the aspirations in the partnership deal that Donald Gorrie and I have conclusively signed up to.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has for introducing transport accessibility audits. (S2O-854)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Executive is fully committed to improving access to transport. We have set up the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, which is already active in urban and rural areas. We will carefully consider the UK social exclusion unit's proposals for transport accessibility audits when we develop our own accessible transport strategy.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

Will the minister also consider setting up a working group to share best practice with the central local working group on accessibility planning in England and to promote full accessibility audits, including resource audits, action plans and monitoring for all future transport proposals?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I am pleased to confirm that we will closely co-operate with other parts of the UK and I also hope that we can learn from examples of good practice in other parts of Europe and the world. We want to do more in that area. Setting up the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland was an important initial step and it has been active in making representations to transport operators, bus and rail companies and local user groups that represent disabled people and others. The committee has also made representations on planning issues and on issues arising from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 such as those that were mentioned earlier.

We all recognise the need to do more in this area. Local authorities have a key role to play in community planning and making transport plans. I will certainly take on board the comments that Chris Ballance has made this afternoon.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to tackle the issue of domestic abuse. (S2O-833)

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

As the debate earlier demonstrated, the Executive is delivering a programme of prevention, protection and provision to address domestic abuse in Scotland, as recommended by the national strategy and national group.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

The minister will be aware of figures released this week that highlight the particularly stark situation in Glasgow. They show that reported cases of domestic abuse rose by 10 per cent last year. Does she agree that serious consideration should be given to the implications of establishing a domestic abuse register?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

This morning, we had a thorough and wide-ranging debate in which such a register was discussed. As we made clear, we will examine any proposal that we think will further tackle domestic abuse in Scotland. I am sure that Parliament is aware that there is a proposal in England and Wales to consider a register and we will examine it with great interest to see about its applicability in Scotland.

Janis Hughes raised the alarming figures and the rise in domestic abuse. Scottish Women's Aid has welcomed that rise because it indicates that we are encouraging women to come forward and receive the services that they need. I think that I speak on behalf of the Executive and the Parliament when I say that we share Janis Hughes's concern about the scale of domestic abuse in Scotland and I give voice to the Parliament's determination that we should tackle fundamentally the serious problem in Scotland.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures, in addition to postal ballots, it is considering to increase turnout at elections. (S2O-859)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The partnership agreement commits us to the reform of voting arrangements in order to increase participation, including investigation of electronic voting. The Local Governance (Scotland) Bill also includes a number of measures to renew local democracy. The recent Electoral Commission report on the May elections made a number of interesting recommendations about increasing turnout. Many of those are aimed at political parties, but we will deal with those that are aimed at the Executive.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Does the minister agree that, for people who have never voted, going to the polling station can be inhibiting, because they are not sure what to expect and what the process is? Is he prepared to explore ways of demystifying what goes on in polling stations, perhaps by taking senior pupils on a dry run, by using television to show exactly what lies behind the door marked polling place and by explaining exactly what people have to do in the simple but important process of casting their vote?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I agree strongly with that point. In modern studies and citizenship classes up and down Scotland, some of those lessons are being learned through young people's engagement in voting. I also share the member's view that, if someone has not had experience of voting, later on in life they could feel inhibited from voting. I am more than happy to raise that point when considering any campaigns that the Executive seeks to support and in any work with the Electoral Commission. The member has commented on an interesting dimension of the subject.

Scotland is not unique when it comes to voter turnout. Worldwide and in Europe, many mature democracies and, surprisingly, some new democracies have pretty poor voting records, too. We can learn lessons across boundaries to ensure that as many people as possible turn out to vote.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I associate myself with Nora Radcliffe's remarks, but I take the minister back to the subject of e- voting. Is he aware that research by the Electoral Reform Society into the e-pilots that were conducted earlier this year in England concluded that e-voting—whether by telephone, internet, text or digital TV—does not significantly raise turnout? Will the minister give an assurance that, if Scotland is to be a pilot for the European elections, only postal voting will be offered and not a combination of postal and e-voting?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The recommendations from the Electoral Reform Society concern a situation elsewhere. We seek to support how people vote and to ensure accessibility to voting with a package of measures. The member may rest assured that we would seek to support measures that work. We should not be exclusive about our approaches and we should try to find whatever approach suits individuals. If we can make voting work for them, that is all well and good.

Postal voting works; a number of pilots in Scotland have shown a substantial increase in turnout—average turnout per council ward by postal vote is 60 per cent. The potential is there for us to increase voter turnout and to increase awareness of voting as part of that process.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in tackling the shortage of NHS dentists. (S2O-842)

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

On 20 November, I announced a wide-ranging consultation on the future of NHS dental services in Scotland. In addition, the Scottish Advisory Committee on the Dental Workforce is currently undertaking an assessment of the dental work force and will report its findings in spring 2004. That builds on the dental work force plans of 2000, which put in place an expansion of the dental work force.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

I thank the minister for that answer and for the measures that he outlined last week. As he will be aware, some dentists in the Stirling constituency and in other parts of Scotland have withdrawn NHS treatment, in effect forcing patients to switch to private provision or—more worryingly, I think—not to be registered at all. Does the minister see an opportunity within the review of acute and other health care strategies for additional NHS dentistry provision in new or expanding primary care facilities, especially in rural and disadvantaged areas?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

When I spoke about dentistry last week, I mentioned the fact that various aspects of the dental service—particularly the community dental service—are under pressure. We hope that, as a result of the consultation that we are undertaking, there will be an uplift both in professional satisfaction among dental professionals and, critically, in the satisfaction levels experienced by patients themselves. As we redesign and modernise the health service, it is important that there is not only an improvement in the conditions for professionals, but a marked improvement in conditions for the people who use the service.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether funding to local authorities for roads is adequate to maintain road infrastructure. (S2O-845)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Funding for local roads and bridges forms part of the general local government finance settlement. Across Scotland, councils are guaranteed a real-terms increase in revenue grant each year through to 2005-06. It is up to each council to decide its own spending priorities within that.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In 1994-95, when Jamie Stone was a Highland councillor, John Farquhar Munro was convener for roads and transport and Peter Peacock was convener of Highland Council, they all complained about the inadequacy of Conservative funding for roads at £34 million.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Now those three ex-Highland councillors are influential players and partners in the coalition agreement, so why has road and bridge maintenance funding now halved from £34 million under the Tories to £17 million under the Liberals and Labour?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Far be it from me to speak on behalf of such influential players and partners, but I can assure Mary Scanlon that the funding available to Highland Council, and indeed to all councils across Scotland, has never been higher. We are injecting more funding beyond current inflation levels. The average across Scotland is at least 8.5 per cent extra this year, at least 4.8 per cent extra next year and at least 3.9 per cent more in 2005-06.

According to the answer that Peter Peacock gave to a question from Mary Scanlon on the—what is the date of the question?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

On 18 September 2003, Peter Peacock's reply stated:

"Highland Council will receive above inflation increases in revenue support of 8.0% this year, and of 5.1% and 3.6% over the next two years."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 18 September 2003.]

Significant additional funds are going into local government, and it is for Highland Council to decide its priorities for the expenditure of those funds.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-3812 by Lewis Macdonald on 17 November 2003, on what basis it set the target that 18 per cent of electricity generated in Scotland will be from renewable sources by 2010. (S2O-841)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We have set ambitious targets on the basis of consultation with the industry and of our determination to tackle climate change and at the same time to capture for Scotland the economic benefits of renewable energy.