Scottish Parliament, 4 March 2004

344 contributions from 70 members. The official report.

Introduction

Presiding Officer's Ruling

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. Yesterday I undertook to give my views on issues of legislative competence and admissibility of amendments, which Dennis Canavan and Allan Wilson raised. It should be clear from what I said yesterday that any dispute about the admissibility of an amendment is a matter for the committee convener at stage 2 and for me as Presiding Officer at stage 3.

Under our rules, the legislative competence of an amendment is not a criterion for admissibility and is therefore not an issue for a convener or for me in ruling on any dispute. That means that there is nothing to prevent Mr Canavan from lodging the same—or a similar—amendment at stage 3, when the issue of whether to select it becomes a matter for me. That decision will not take into account any issues of legislative competence.

Business Motion

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The first item of business is consideration of business motion S2M-993, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during the Stage 3 proceedings of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, debate on each part of those proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion by the time-limits indicated (each time-limit being calculated from when Stage 3 begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when the meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress)

Groups 1 and 2 - no later than 45 minutes Groups 3 and 4 - no later than 1 hour 10 minutes Group 5 - no later than 1 hour 30 minutes Groups 6 and 7 - no later than 1 hour 45 minutes Group 8 - no later than 2 hours Groups 9 to 11 - no later than 2 hours 30 minutes Motion to pass the Bill - no later than 3 hours 20 minutes—[Tavish Scott.]

Motion agreed to.

Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The next item of business is the first part of stage 3 proceedings on the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, for which members should have the bill—SP bill 5A, as amended at stage 2—the marshalled list, which contains all the amendments that have been selected for debate, and the list of groupings.

Each amendment is disposed of in turn but, when we reach a series of amendments that have already been debated and that are consecutive in the marshalled list, I shall invite the minister to move them en bloc and, unless any member objects, shall put a single question on them. I will employ that procedure only if members agree; I am quite prepared to put the question on amendments individually, where that is preferred by the Parliament.

Any amendment that has been moved may be withdrawn with the agreement of members who are present. It is, of course, possible for members not to move amendments, if they so wish. The electronic voting system will be used for all divisions. I will allow a voting period of two minutes for the first division and thereafter I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate on a group; all other divisions will last for 30 seconds. I hope that that is clear.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Group 1 is on the definition of vulnerable witnesses. Amendment 26, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 27, 1, 2, 4, 5, 50, 51, 20, 21 and 22.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

In speaking to amendments 26, 27, 50 and 51, I want first to recognise the huge change that will be brought about by the passing of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill. In future, substantial numbers of children and vulnerable witnesses will for the first time have access to special measures in courts. Those special measures will not only make the process less intimidating, but undoubtedly help children and vulnerable witnesses to give their best evidence. In seeking support for my amendments, I do not dismiss any of that; the desire is simply to extend the principle to a much wider group of people, to ensure that no one slips through the net.

In the Justice 2 Committee, there has been much discussion about adding further categories to the definition of a vulnerable witness. It would be fair to say that I support the Executive's desire to avoid listing a further set of categories because, by taking the route of simply providing lists, we may end up unwittingly excluding people. At the same time, the committee was much taken by the views of Enable and the Law Society of Scotland, which suggested that automatic entitlement to special measures should be available to people with a learning disability or a mental disorder.

In balancing those arguments, the committee was minded to accept the case that there should be automatic entitlement to be considered for a special measure rather than automatic entitlement to a special measure. That would have the effect of ensuring that no one fell through the net, but it would also acknowledge the Executive's concerns. The underlying thinking is that, because non-visible disabilities can sometimes be the most difficult to identify and assess, witnesses with a mental health disorder or a learning disability should have a more robust entitlement than is currently provided for in the bill.

The committee was also sympathetic to the concerns expressed by Rape Crisis Scotland and other organisations, which recognised that victims of alleged domestic abuse and alleged sexual offences could benefit in similar ways. I will leave that point to my colleague Maureen Macmillan to develop.

I am grateful to the Executive for the continuing dialogue over the past few months, which has allowed consideration of practical ways of giving effect to the relevant amendments. A range of other measures—which Hugh Henry helpfully set out in a letter to me and Maureen Macmillan on 29 January 2004—will ensure that vulnerable witnesses get the support that they need and deserve. I have discussed with the minister the need to review the legislation to ensure the efficacy of the definition and to establish whether it is being implemented consistently across the country.

There is also a need for those who are responsible for implementation to receive training, particularly on learning disability—we know that it can be difficult to identify whether someone has a learning disability, especially if it is mild to moderate. It is also the case that people who appear to have little or no capacity can often communicate their views clearly, so it is evident that the potential exists for capacity to be overestimated and underestimated. Training for the police, the Procurator Fiscal Service, the courts and others will assist and I would be grateful if the minister accepted that the training should be informed by people with learning disabilities and should be user led, as those people are best placed to explain how and why they need to be supported.

I hope that the Executive will involve voluntary sector organisations such as Enable, because it is recognised that, for the legislation to be truly effective, we need a multi-agency approach. The Executive should also consider the provision of accessible information at all stages of the process. That is particularly important in civil cases. The vulnerable witness officer could have a role in providing early support for vulnerable witnesses in civil cases in which it is unlikely that the police or procurators fiscal will have a role. I welcome the Executive's commitment to consider creating a field in a standard police report that would identify the much wider range of vulnerable witnesses. Taken together, those measures will perhaps have the same effect as the amendments under discussion would.

I welcome amendment 2, in the name of Hugh Henry. It responds to concerns that were expressed by the Disability Rights Commission at stage 1, which related to definitions and the lack of an explicit link between the bill and the definition in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I am pleased that agreement with the Disability Rights Commission appears to have been reached, because amendment 2—like my amendments—will help to ensure that everyone with a special need is included under the terms of the bill.

I move amendment 26.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I fully understand Jackie Baillie's view that some categories of witnesses should automatically be considered to be vulnerable. That view, which has been restated today, was also expressed by Maureen Macmillan at stage 2. I know that the issue was raised in the stage 1 report and during the stage 1 debate.

As Jackie Baillie has indicated, we have made some progress and have given certain commitments, which in many respects go in the direction in which Jackie Baillie and others wish to move. At stage 2, I gave an undertaking that the Executive would consider the matter again. Along with our colleagues in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, we take such matters very seriously. We have thought carefully about whether the bill should be amended or whether the commitments that we have given are the best way to go. Our conclusion is that the bill as it stands probably represents the right way forward.

We have given certain commitments. As Jackie Baillie indicated, I wrote her a letter in which I raised a number of issues. I want to put on record the fact that we fully stand by the commitments that we made in that letter. If the letter would be helpful to members, it will, with Jackie Baillie's permission, be available for public consideration. The Executive considers that the letter probably does as much as is required.

During the discussions, the Executive identified some significant practical measures that we consider will help to ensure that witnesses are given proper consideration for special measures and that vulnerable witnesses do not slip through the net. Jackie Baillie and Maureen Macmillan have been right to say that we need to sensitise the system so that it is better at identifying people who need additional help to give evidence, whether because of a mental disorder or for any other reason. Organisations throughout the justice service are already aware of the Executive's commitment to making the bill work and to ensuring that genuinely vulnerable witnesses do not fall through the net. We want to ensure that agencies and organisations work together to raise awareness so that such people are identified and their needs are recognised. However, we do not believe that it is right to do that by legal definitions in the bill or simply by labelling people as vulnerable.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service plays a pivotal role and I wish to put on record two commitments that it has made, which the Executive believes will go a long way towards ensuring that vulnerable witnesses are identified. First, the Lord Advocate has given a commitment to issuing instructions to the police on the identification and reporting of vulnerable witnesses. That will have the effect of building issues of vulnerability into the work of the police and will require the police to consider issues of vulnerability for each witness. Jackie Baillie mentioned the field in the standard police report. That will make a significant contribution, but it will be backed up by training and guidance, so that police officers are aware of what to look out for when considering issues of vulnerability.

Users should be able to influence the shape of training, not only of police but of other staff involved in the delivery of justice. We should consider the skills, experience and expertise in the voluntary sector that can be brought to bear. A number of organisations—Jackie Baillie has mentioned some, including Enable—have a valuable contribution to make in helping to shape and potentially to deliver training where that is appropriate, although that would be a decision for those directly involved. I would welcome their full participation in the training process.

Secondly, and complementary to the commitment on training, there is the Crown Office's guidance to procurators fiscal and other staff. The Crown Office will be updating its guidance to staff as a result of the bill and it has made a firm commitment to involving the interested organisations in the process of developing that guidance. It will consult a range of appropriate interest groups, such as Enable, the Scottish Association for Mental Health, the Scottish Rape Crisis Network, Scottish Women's Aid and others, so that their concerns are fully considered, their knowledge and expertise are utilised and they have the opportunity to influence the shape and the content of the guidance.

The Crown Office is anxious to enlist the invaluable experience of those groups in preparing the instructions and in equipping prosecutors with the skills and information that are required to identify or recognise different types of vulnerability, including latent non-visible disabilities. The Crown Office also intends to make publicly available as much of its internal guidance as it can, consistent with its public interest duties and the exemptions afforded under freedom of information legislation. That is likely to mean that the majority, if not all, of the guidance relating to vulnerable witnesses will come into the public domain in one form or another and will be open to scrutiny. The Executive hopes that that will be an additional way of increasing public confidence about the way in which the prosecution service deals with vulnerable people.

The Executive expects that, if support groups are aware of the contents of the guidance, having contributed to its drafting, they will be able to advise and refer the witnesses whom they support and will be in a position to draw the attention of the authorities to relevant information. I echo Jackie Baillie's point about the role of vulnerable witness officers in supporting those who need support, in helping with identification and in providing counselling support and advice.

The Executive wants to work at raising awareness on the civil side, so that parties and solicitors acting in those cases are aware of the need to make applications for special measures for vulnerable witnesses. In the sheriff court, any necessary changes to the rules of court will be a matter to be considered by the Sheriff Court Rules Council. The Executive expects that the council will be keen to consult relevant interest groups when it is preparing the information and guidance necessary to raise awareness and to ensure that the new procedures and rules operate effectively.

I hope that members can agree that those commitments demonstrate the Executive's determination to make a real difference. On the basis of the reassurance given, both today and in the letter that Jackie Baillie referred to, I hope that Jackie Baillie will consider not pressing her amendments.

Amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 20, 21 and 22 deal with definitions of disability. Proposed section 271(2), which the bill will insert into the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, lists the factors that the court can take into account in determining vulnerability in criminal proceedings and section 7(2) of the bill does the same for civil proceedings.

One of those factors is any physical disability that the person giving evidence has. The Disability Rights Commission requested that the reference to physical disability in the bill be amended to refer to disabilities and impairments. Executive and non-Executive amendments on the issue were lodged at stage 2, but were all withdrawn or not moved on the basis that the Executive would continue its dialogue with the DRC and lodge an amendment at stage 3. We have done that and propose to change the reference so that, rather than referring only to a physical disability, the bill also refers to any other physical impairment that a witness may have.

It should be noted that the Executive lodged an amendment at stage 2 that will ensure that any other factors that could be relevant to an individual witness's vulnerability can be taken into account. Although we have ensured that any such factors can be considered, we agree that it is useful for the bill to refer to both disability and impairment. I am grateful to the DRC for its help on that issue and to Jackie Baillie for raising the matter at stage 2.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I wish to speak to those parts of amendments 26 and 50 that deal with the victims of sexual offences and the victims of alleged offences involving abuse as defined in section 7 of the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001.

I appreciate what the minister has said and I thank him for it. It is important that the criminal justice system does all in its power to ensure that victims of sexual assault or abuse feel confident to report what has happened to them to the police, feel supported through the process of precognition taking and are recognised as vulnerable when they come to court. At the moment, the significant majority of rapes and sexual assaults are not reported to the police because of the perceived horror that awaits victims at the hands of the criminal justice system. Amendment 26 would mean that such victims would be automatically considered as vulnerable witnesses and be provided with appropriate support, although I recognise that such support can be given in other ways—for example, by the police and by the fiscals—if there is proper training. I thank the minister for what he has said on that.

It is important not only for the witness to have that support, but for the courts to ensure that the evidence from witnesses is not affected by fear engendered by the fact that the witness is face to face with the alleged abuser or rapist. The conviction rate for rape is low—about 10 per cent to 15 per cent—and I hope that the measures proposed by the minister will give witnesses the courage to come forward and the support to tell their story without fear or harassment.

I emphasise the necessity of providing support for vulnerable witnesses in civil courts, too, which are the subject of amendment 50. Victims of abuse may find themselves in the civil court seeking interdicts against their abuser. If the interdict is contested, the abused person might, without support, prefer to drop the case rather than face the abuser, so that the protection of the interdict falls. I thank the minister for his letter to me on those points, but I would like further reassurance about how solicitors will be trained to recognise that witnesses have that vulnerability. I understand why the minister does not wish to include victims of sexual offences or abuse into automatic entitlement. I thank him for the commitments that he has made on training, which is important, and particularly on involving in the training of the police and fiscals the organisations that support victims of rape and sexual offences or people who have been subjected to domestic abuse.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I am happy to give Maureen Macmillan the assurances that she seeks. She has raised a valid point. We would be concerned about any unintended consequences and we recognise that a failure to adopt and embrace what we are proposing could leave some people vulnerable. I am willing to place on record the fact that we are prepared to see through what I said in my letter to Maureen Macmillan. If anyone wishes to see a copy of that letter, we are happy, with her permission, to share it.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am significantly reassured by the package of measures that the minister, alongside the Crown Office, will be putting in place. That demonstrates that, although the Executive does not accept my amendments, its purpose remains identical to mine in relation to the support that it seeks to provide. In light of the minister's comments, I am sufficiently reassured, so I do not intend to press my amendments.

Amendment 26, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 27 not moved.

Amendments 1 and 2 moved—[Hugh Henry]—and agreed to.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Group 2 is on child witnesses and the expeditious taking of evidence. Amendment 28, in the name Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendment 52.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to amendments 28 and 52, which are both in my name and which are supported by Maureen Macmillan. The purpose of the two amendments is to remove delays in the court process where child witnesses are involved. Although I appreciate the often Herculean efforts of the courts in bringing cases to trial as expeditiously as possible, the Justice 2 Committee nevertheless received substantial evidence highlighting problems with delays. Delays in cases coming to trial clearly have an impact on vulnerable witnesses.

We heard about the experiences of a number of people. It was apparent from the questionnaires that had been submitted and from the interviews that we conducted with young vulnerable witnesses that it was common for cases to be postponed or delayed at the last minute. I will give a couple of examples. As a reporter to the committee, I interviewed a number of young vulnerable witnesses, with support from Children 1st—the committee will wish to acknowledge the assistance of Children 1st in arranging the interviews.

One case involved a 12-year-old girl with learning disabilities, who had been sexually abused by her family. The trial had already been delayed three times. I do not think that we can even begin to imagine the impact that such abuse would have on any child. So frustrating was the experience that the girl even opted to dispense with special measures, because to have been assessed by a psychologist as required would have delayed the trial even further. That is hardly conducive to a child giving their best evidence and it is something that the bill seeks to change.

Another case involved a 16-year-old girl. The case had been postponed three times, once on the day before the trial was due to start. Undoubtedly, that is mentally and emotionally very draining. The case began when she was 15 and so entitled to special measures and she opted to have screens in court. Because of all the delays, she turned 16 and lost her entitlement to those special measures, which she felt that she needed. Again, that was hardly conducive to a child giving their best evidence.

I understand that the problem with delays may be dealt with in part by the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. I will have to rely on ministers and members of the Justice 1 Committee to clarify the matter, but it has been suggested that, rather than significantly reducing delays, the proposals will simply mean that witnesses are better informed that there will be delays. My colleague Karen Whitefield lodged a set of amendments at stage 2 to establish a simplified child witness notice procedure, which will significantly help with any prospect of delays.

I hope that I have, albeit briefly, illustrated the emotional and psychological impact of delays in the court process on vulnerable child witnesses. If we want to ensure that vulnerable witnesses give their best evidence, we must not only provide special measures, but reduce delays where possible.

I move amendment 28.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I support the two amendments in Jackie Baillie's name. Many aspects of giving evidence in court are intimidating for a child. The nature of the case is often a factor. A child witness will frequently be giving evidence against an individual who has abused him or her. The adversarial nature of proceedings are alien to children and to all their experience of life. Even the strange practices, dress and language of the main actors of the process can make giving evidence a frightening experience for a child witness.

Sometimes the most distressing factor is none of those things, but the length of time for which a child might wait to give evidence in a trial. They might have been built up on several occasions to expect to give evidence and they might have been prepared for that experience only for the trial to be adjourned or postponed at the last minute. I heard a mother talking on the radio this morning about her child, who had been waiting for 18 months to give evidence in an abuse trial. The mother described how, every week of that 18 months, she had had to prepare the child for the prospect of giving evidence. Every week, the child was told that the trial would perhaps be that week, only to have that expectation dashed.

The reality is that, while a child is waiting to give evidence in what in most cases will be an extremely distressing trial, their entire life is put on hold. They cannot get on with the normal, day-to-day activities of being a child because they have an enormous black cloud hanging over them. Anything that we can do through the bill, and even outwith it, to expedite the whole process of giving evidence and to make it more certain—it is the uncertainty as well as the sheer length of time involved that can be so distressing—would be welcome. The two amendments would go some way towards that, which is why I am happy to support them.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I share the concerns that Jackie Baillie has raised. She is absolutely right to highlight some of the horrific consequences that can be caused by delays. She refers to the trauma and distress that undue delay can cause and the Executive is entirely sympathetic to what she intends to achieve. However, I do not think that the amendments would necessarily achieve the desired effect.

I do not wish to run ahead to amendments that we will be considering in groups still to come. However, although I sympathise with Nicola Sturgeon's desire to eliminate delays, I should point out that a set of amendments that we will come to later—some of which Nicola Sturgeon lodged—would, I believe, lead to further delays in the system. I hope that she will be able to reflect on the sincere point that she is making about the avoidance of delay.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The minister's point is rather disingenuous. Does he agree that delays in trials are caused not by the due process of law, which is what my later amendments refer to, but by the repeated adjournments of trials due to a lack of preparation, usually on the part of the Crown? Trying to confuse the two is rather disingenuous and is perhaps an attempt to politicise the argument somewhat.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No, I am certainly not trying to politicise the argument. The repeated adjournments to which Nicola Sturgeon refers are also to some extent the consequence of the due process of law and we are considering that matter through a range of legislative measures. The question is how to minimise the unnecessary delays that are caused by the due process of law. Just because something is happening because of the due process of law does not necessarily make it right, nor does it mitigate the worst consequences for those who are affected.

We accept that there is a great deal of anxiety and uncertainty—Jackie Baillie is right to highlight the impact of delays on vulnerable witnesses. We have tried throughout the bill to minimise potential delays that could arise through the application for, or use of, special measures. For example, the bill as it is currently drafted has a streamlined procedure for child witness notices, which should help to reduce the possibility of delays, and it allows for hearings on child witness notices to take place only when the court is not satisfied with the notice. In addition, as Jackie Baillie indicated, we were happy to support Karen Whitefield's comprehensive amendments at stage 2, which will further streamline the procedure for many child witness notices where standard special measures are requested.

In passing, I remind members that the Executive is engaged in a range of work to tackle the issue of delays and constant adjournments. For example, the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill contains proposals to improve the efficiency with which justice is delivered through the High Court. That bill should ensure that High Court cases proceed to trial only when they are ready. It is also intended to remove the culture of adjournment in those proceedings. The McInnes summary justice review is due to report soon with recommendations for more efficient and effective delivery of summary justice.

In principle, we agree that, wherever possible, parties that call child witnesses should have proper regard to the need to progress matters expeditiously. I am aware that the Crown Office already seeks to do so, as far as is consistent with ensuring the fair and effective conduct of proceedings.

It is also worth noting existing policy in the sheriff courts, as documented in the Cox Nicholson report on court programming, which states:

"There are certain categories of business in which evidence is led which ... should be given priority in assigning a diet. These include criminal and civil cases involving children as witnesses or where children are the subject matter of the case in question ... Similarly ... such cases should be afforded priority on the day of the assigned diet, in the event that a number of cases are proceeding."

Again, that must be subject to certain caveats, but it demonstrates that the courts are alive to such issues.

However, we cannot support the amendments. We are grateful to Jackie Baillie for raising such an important issue and we understand and are sympathetic to her intentions, but we do not believe that the amendments would be workable in practice or that they would achieve the desired effects.

The amendments would place a duty on the court to ensure that child witnesses are dealt with quickly. Of course, we are keen to ensure that cases that involve children proceed with minimum delays—in the reforms that we are proposing for the High Court, the intention is that cases will be more effectively managed to ensure that time limits are met. However, the parties to a case and not the court decide which witnesses to call and when, depending on how they wish to present their cases. Therefore, although the amendments are well intentioned, their focus is misplaced.

Thankfully, the Crown and others are becoming increasingly aware of the need to manage cases with a sensitivity to the needs of child witnesses and I encourage all parties that call child witnesses to bear in mind the potential effects that long waits could have on them. That is one of the issues that is specifically covered in the guidance on questioning children in court that we published last year. That guidance, which we developed in partnership with the Crown Office, the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration, sets out best practice for all practitioners who are involved in calling child witnesses and should act as a benchmark against which practices are judged. Such quality standard setting, rather than changes to the law of evidence, is the best way forward to achieve improvements in practice.

It is also worth bearing in mind the fact that the amendments contain no sanctions for failing. Indeed, it is unclear what could be considered an appropriate sanction if the court fails in its duty to take a child witness's evidence expeditiously. The only effective sanction might be that the party would not be able to call the witness at all, but that would not be in the interests of anyone if it meant that the case had to be brought to an end and the child's evidence was never heard.

I hope that Jackie Baillie can be persuaded that changes that we are introducing and the change in culture and procedures that we are pursuing will have the same desired effect and that she will agree not to press the amendments.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I applaud the spirit of Jackie Baillie's amendment 28, but am confronted by a technical difficulty. I am not sure what the sanction would be if there were a default in compliance with the proposal. Mr Henry made a fair point. Everybody desires to see criminal cases proceed as expeditiously as possible, but control of witnesses rests with the parties to the criminal case, whether prosecution or defence. My concern is that the only sanction might be that the case could fall, which would clearly be regrettable and certainly not in the best interests of the parties concerned or justice as a whole. Therefore, although I applaud the spirit of the amendment, I cannot support it. I endorse the sentiments that Mr Henry expressed.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I say to Annabel Goldie and the minister that a possible sanction could be spending an afternoon with the Justice 2 Committee, convened by Annabel Goldie.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That might be regarded as a penal imposition by certain parties.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I could never agree with that, although others might.

The minister detailed the much wider range of work that is going on to modernise the justice system and I accept that that will ultimately address the issue of delays. Given his assurances and the quality standards that are being introduced as a mechanism to reduce delays in the system, I will not press amendment 28.

Amendment 28, by agreement, withdrawn.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Group 3 is on special measures and use of intermediaries. Amendment 34, in the Patrick Harvie, is grouped with amendments 45, 46, 48, 59, 64 and 65.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this group of amendments, which I lodged after discussion with Justice for Children. I am sure that many members are familiar with that organisation.

Unfortunately, I must mention up front that there are drafting errors in amendments 48 and 65, the effect of which would be to place a duty on intermediaries to relate a child's evidence back to the court and not merely to ask the child witness questions. The error is rather unfortunate and perhaps demonstrates the lack of understanding that exists about the issue. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue and I hope to explain clearly what the use of intermediaries is designed to achieve.

Intermediaries are not intended as a conduit for a witness's evidence; rather they are intended to protect from aggressive cross-examination child witnesses who may be traumatised or frightened in giving their evidence. Protection from such hostile cross-examination could prevent some of the most stressful and upsetting experiences that child witnesses have in court. Intermediaries would ensure that the substance of a question was preserved, but that inappropriate or aggressive language was removed. Questions would be put to a child witness in language that the child could understand and respond to so that they could give their best evidence.

I would like to read for the Official Report the experience of one young person, who said that a lawyer

"kept interrupting so I couldn't say what happened ... I could never finish my sentence ... I'd been big and brave enough to go to court, but I never got the opportunity to tell them what had happened. Child witnesses need to have the opportunity to tell their story to lawyers who can communicate with children. Children should be the priority."

Experience of the operation of an intermediary system comes from South Africa, where such a process has been in use for 10 years in an adversarial system of justice. Like Justice for Children, I believe that we should put such experience to use and make it available to the Scottish justice system. The Executive and all parties have accepted the principle of protection for child witnesses and other vulnerable witnesses and there are already examples in our system of people being questioned through, for example, an interpreter or a signer. The use of intermediaries for child witnesses would not contaminate evidence. Indeed, it would do quite the reverse; it would enable child witnesses to give their best evidence, which is one of the main reasons for the existence of the bill. The comparison that Justice for Children has made is that we would not send into an adult court a vulnerable child witness with a broken arm without getting medical treatment for the child. Emotional and mental trauma and fear should not be regarded as being any less significant.

I move amendment 34.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

The bill's aim is to ensure that evidence of the best quality is led in court and that extra resources are allocated for the introduction of special measures that will ensure that witnesses have the opportunity to give that evidence. The entire Justice 2 Committee supported that principle. However, although I support all the special measures that are set out in the bill, it goes without saying that they must not negate the right of a defendant to a fair trial, nor should they inhibit the likelihood of a sound verdict's being reached in the due process of law.

I note the answer that the Deputy Minister for Justice gave to the Justice 2 Committee in December on the issue of intermediaries, although I was in Australia studying the law on transportation. He said that the Executive would await the outcome of a pilot study in England and Wales before reaching a conclusion on the matter. However, I am mindful of the bill's provisions about supporters. It states that supporters

"must not prompt or otherwise seek to influence the vulnerable witness in the course of giving evidence."

My concern is that the bill should focus on assessing how evidence appears to jurors. There is clear evidence to show that an intermediary is nowhere near as effective as a witness in giving evidence, in terms of the impact on the jury, convictions and sentences.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will Colin Fox give way?

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I will finish in a second.

The challenge is to find a way to increase the likelihood that witnesses will give the best possible evidence without our undermining the right of defendants to a fair trial.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Although Patrick Harvie's amendments have some merit in allowing us to discuss the use of intermediaries, it is not appropriate for us to consider introducing intermediaries through the bill. The bill's fundamental principle is to ensure that witnesses are able to give evidence of the best quality, but some people in the legal profession would argue that the use of intermediaries could lead to a failure in the cross-examination of evidence, which is not what the bill seeks. Automatic entitlement to special measures will not prevent witnesses from giving evidence; rather, it will ensure that they are able to give good evidence.

Additionally, it is worth noting that a number of pilot schemes are running in England and Wales, so it would be premature for us to allow the use of intermediaries before we are able to judge how effective they have been there. I note that in Merseyside last month a pilot scheme began, which is specifically examining the difficulties that people with learning disabilities and communication problems have in expressing themselves in court. We could learn much from that. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for us to accept Patrick Harvie's amendments.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have a great deal of sympathy with the rationale that underlies Mr Harvie's amendments, but I am confronted by a technical concern. It is a cornerstone that the evidence in our criminal courts is given as directly as can be managed. That is critical to a fair trial and to a court's and jury's understanding of the evidence. I have a real concern that, if we depart from the purity of that structure—which is an important component of our criminal justice system—it may be possible for evidence to be diluted, albeit unintentionally and inadvertently. In that, I am confronted with a real problem and a significant concern, so for that reason I am unable to support Mr Harvie's amendments.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I understand fully the sentiment behind what Patrick Harvie says and a range of organisations in Scotland favour the use of intermediaries. However, if he had continued to read from the report that he quoted, he would have seen a page or two further on comments from the Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson, that suggest that she is sympathetic to the principle of what he proposes.

I gave an assurance to the committee at stage 2 that the Executive is not opposed in principle to the use of intermediaries. However, given the diversity of opinion on the use of intermediaries and the different ways in which they are used throughout the world, we believe that more work needs to be done before we can come up with a proposal that is suitable to the needs of witnesses in the Scottish context. Colin Fox highlighted some of the concerns that we need to address before we proceed with use of intermediaries. There is a great deal of sympathy for the idea, but we need to ensure that we get it right for the reasons that Annabel Goldie and Karen Whitefield outlined.

I said at stage 2 that we would consider the pilot schemes in England and Wales. My officials are in regular contact with the Home Office, and the Executive's new victims and witnesses unit will be informed of the progress of those pilot schemes. If Cathy Jamieson or I have the opportunity to do so, we will visit at least one of those—possibly the one on Merseyside—to see how well they are working and whether they could work here.

It is right that we should await the outcome of those pilot schemes before we decide whether to introduce intermediaries in Scotland. As Annabel Goldie said, it would be a major step to introduce a procedure that prevents the legal representative for a party from directly questioning a witness. Because of that, the subject requires detailed consideration. I can, however, give an explicit assurance to Patrick Harvie and Parliament that the issue will not be forgotten by the Executive.

We are not ruling out the possibility of introducing intermediaries as a special measure in the future; however, we want to wait and see how they work. We also need to be clear about the best way in which they could be used within the Scottish justice system, which is very different not just to the English system, but to other legal systems elsewhere in the world in which intermediaries are deployed. The exact role of an intermediary in Scotland would need to be clearly determined before legislation could be drafted. There is a power in the bill to add special measures by way of statutory instrument, so intermediaries or other measures could be added once further work on the matter has been undertaken. That would be done by an instrument that was subject to the affirmative procedure, which would require full parliamentary scrutiny and an opportunity for debate.

We think that it would be better to wait and learn from others' experience before rushing into the introduction of intermediaries. We should try to get it right at the start. I hope that Patrick Harvie can take some reassurance from my comments, and I ask him to consider seeking to withdraw amendment 34.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate, and I thank members for participating in it. I hope that this short discussion will help to raise awareness of the concept of intermediaries and that it will perhaps reassure some of the people to whom Karen Whitefield referred, who are not yet convinced about the idea. I hope that they will engage with the concept and try to resolve their concerns.

Some of the direct criticism that members have made of the concept of intermediaries relates to the drafting error that I described earlier, regarding witnesses giving their evidence via an intermediary. That is not the intention of the amendments that I lodged, and it highlights the misunderstanding that surrounds the issue.

I look forward to the Executive taking a position in the future, once it has evaluated the experiences in the English system. I thank the minister for the assurance that he has given, and I seek permission to withdraw amendment 34.

Amendment 34, by agreement, withdrawn.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The amendments in group 4 relate to special provisions for child witnesses who are under 12. Amendment 3, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 10, 17 and 25.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The bill will give to all child witnesses an automatic right to special measures. Furthermore, in cases of sexual or violent crime, it will give extra protection to child witnesses under the age of 12. For those most vulnerable child witnesses, the bill creates a presumption that they should not have to attend court to give evidence. Moreover, as a result of amendments that were lodged by Karen Whitefield at stage 2 and supported by the Executive, there will now be a prohibition on an accused from conducting his or her own defence in cases of violence that would involve child witnesses under 12.

Amendments 3 and 10 seek to add to the list of cases where child witnesses under 12 receive extra protection the offences of plagium, which involves the theft of a child, and abduction. The amendments are based on helpful suggestions that were made by the Law Society of Scotland at stage 2 and I am grateful to the society for its input. If agreed to, the amendments will ensure that in such cases a child witness under 12 will not have to undergo face-to-face cross-examination by the accused, or have to attend the court to give his or her evidence.

On amendments 17 and 25, I have already said that Karen Whitefield lodged amendments at stage 2 that sought to create an automatic prohibition on the accused's conducting his own defence in cases of violent crime that involve child witnesses under 12. We supported that and said that we would lodge any necessary amendments to ensure that it would work in practice. One area that we have identified is that of precognition by the accused. Our view is that the new automatic ban could be undermined if the accused was allowed in person to precognosce a young child witness in such a case. As a result, amendment 17 seeks to ensure that the court may not grant a warrant for the citation for precognition by the accused in person of any child under 12 in the same cases as apply to the new automatic prohibition.

Amendment 25 is a consequential amendment to the bill's long title.

I move amendment 3.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We move on to group 5, which concerns the procedure for vulnerable witnesses other than child witnesses. I call Nicola Sturgeon to speak to and move amendment 37, which is grouped with amendments 38 to 42.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

This group of amendments relate specifically to criminal proceedings and vulnerable witnesses who are not child witnesses. All members agree that protection of vulnerable witnesses is important; however, we must also ensure that under our adversarial criminal justice system the rights of the accused are not undermined.

As the bill stands, when someone applies for the use of special measures, the court will order a hearing only when it is not satisfied that an order authorising the use of special measures should be made. However, when the court makes that initial decision, it will have only the views of the applicant and will not be aware of the views of the other party, who in most cases will be the accused. If it is decided initially that an order should be granted, the other party—the accused—will never have the opportunity to be heard. A hearing at which both parties will have the right to be heard will be ordered only if the court is not satisfied at that initial stage.

Such an approach departs from current procedure. For example, under the Act of Adjournal (Criminal Procedure Rules) 1996, the court will not determine an application for the use of a television link without first hearing from the parties to the case. That principle should also apply to this bill.

If the court is to possess all the relevant information in deciding whether to make an order for special measures, the parties to the case must have an opportunity to make either written or oral representations to the court to ensure that a balanced approach is taken. The amendments in this group offer two alternative methods of achieving that aim. Amendment 38 seeks to provide that when a vulnerable witness application is made, the court shall appoint a hearing at which it will determine whether special measures should be used. That hearing would provide an opportunity for all parties to address the court.

Amendment 41 seeks to ensure that hearings would proceed only where it is required that an issue be resolved. I understand and share members' reluctance to build delays into the system—indeed, I shall return to that point later. However, under amendment 41, if the other party has no objection to the vulnerable witness application, the court would have the power to dispense with the hearing. That said, if any objections were raised, the due process of law would demand that they be heard.

Amendments 37 and 39 set out the second method. They seek to allow the other party to lodge objections in writing to a vulnerable witness application, which would provide the court with both sides of the argument. If the court decided to grant the application and make an order, the other party could request a hearing, which would ensure that both parties had the right to be heard. Amendments 40 and 42 are consequential.

In concluding, I want briefly to address the minister's earlier point that the amendments would necessitate and inevitably result in delays in the system. I absolutely refute that contention. Neither approach that I have proposed would inevitably result in such delays; in fact, that was the view of witnesses from the Law Society of Scotland, Victim Support Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and many others who gave evidence to the Justice 2 Committee at stage 1.

The hearing that is proposed in both approaches could be easily combined with other existing diets. For example, the new preliminary diet that is envisaged for the High Court presents an ideal opportunity for matters such as applications for special measures to be considered. I therefore believe that the hearings can be accommodated within existing court procedure without additional delay and would result in a more balanced approach between protecting the rights of vulnerable witnesses, to which we are all absolutely committed, and ensuring that in an adversarial system of justice in which the accused is innocent until proven guilty, the rights of the accused are not unwittingly compromised in the process of protecting vulnerable witnesses.

With those remarks, I move amendment 37 and ask the minister to consider all the amendments in the group.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am sympathetic towards Nicola Sturgeon's argument. Indeed, I am minded to support amendment 37, because if it is not accepted the legislation will contain a potential Achilles' heel. This bill must not interfere with the fundamental requirement that a trial be fair, which is essential to the whole framework. However, it is technically possible that the concept of a fair trial could be prejudiced by measures that the court might adopt in relation to the provision of procedures for a vulnerable witness. It would be regrettable if the only facility for addressing that issue were to be either at trial or on appeal on conviction.

Amendment 37 sets out a sensible technical provision that seeks to allow any such concerns to be addressed before the case gets anywhere near trial. As a result, those concerns can be identified early and the court can make a proper determination about how to deal with them. Under the concept of natural justice, it is desirable that if one party seeks to do something in any court proceedings the other party should have the opportunity to comment.

I agree with Nicola Sturgeon that her amendments are not an attempt either to delay or to obstruct the expeditious process of proceedings—they represent a sensible safeguard that will avoid trouble further down the line. As a result, I support amendment 37.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I do not support amendment 37 because I am afraid that, despite its best intentions, it would cause delays. If the defence had the automatic right to object to a vulnerable witness application, they would exercise it every time. Indeed, we would not have a single case in which an objection was not raised, because the defence lawyer would feel that he had to do so on behalf of his client.

We must also realise that this bill seeks not to do down the accused but to allow people to give their best evidence.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I have said more or less all that I have to say. The member will probably return to my two points when she sums up.

In summary, if amendment 37 were agreed to objections would be raised automatically in every case. Moreover, we are seeking to secure best evidence, which would best be done through the structure that is set out in the bill.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The amendments would mean that hearings would have to be fixed in all applications for special measures unless they had been dispensed with by the court on the application of parties. Similar amendments were lodged by Nicola Sturgeon at stage 2, when I said that I would give the matter further consideration.

We have considered and reconsidered whether the bill strikes the right balance and whether the concerns that Nicola Sturgeon and Annabel Goldie have expressed are sufficient to warrant our changing direction and considering whether the party not calling the witness should be able to object to a vulnerable witness application. However, we still have concerns that the creation of such a right would strike at the very heart of the bill—it is not an incidental issue. The vulnerable witness application provision is about enabling our most vulnerable witnesses to get the help that they need in court, which is what is driving us. Therefore, I wonder whether we should send out the signal that that provision is something to which people can object.

I agree with Maureen Macmillan that a right to object could also lead to further delays in cases if more hearings were required and to greater uncertainty for vulnerable witnesses. Maureen Macmillan is right because what we might reasonably expect to be the exception in relation to an appeal would, I suggest, very quickly become the norm because lawyers would believe that by appealing in cases involving vulnerable witnesses, they would be doing the best for their clients. We have heard during the debate about the need for cases involving vulnerable witnesses to be heard as quickly as possible. Jackie Baillie and other members spoke about the terrible pressures and stresses that are associated with giving evidence.

I suggest that amendment 37 could, unfortunately, be a backward step in the drive to achieve our aim, although I accept that that is not Nicola Sturgeon's intention. A right to object would also add another layer of bureaucracy and could have an adverse impact on court programming because assigned hearings would have to be dispensed with at the last minute.

Amendment 39 appears to be a stand-alone amendment that would enable the party not calling the vulnerable witness to seek a review against the decision that had been taken by a court to allow the use of special measures. The bill already allows a hearing to be fixed—at which the parties would be heard—when a court is not satisfied about a witness's vulnerability.

As I said earlier, the bill's provisions are trying to ensure as far as possible that witnesses who are identified as being vulnerable receive the help that they need to give their evidence. If a culture change is to be brought about, parties should begin to view special measures as simply extra support that certain witnesses need in order to be able to speak up, which will not affect a trial's conduct or fairness. Even when the use of special measures is allowed, it will not affect a party's ability to question adequately or test the evidence of a vulnerable witness.

Therefore, all Nicola Sturgeon's amendments are unnecessary. They could unwittingly undermine the support that vulnerable witnesses should receive as a result of the bill. I recognise that Nicola Sturgeon has the best of intentions, but I ask her to consider seeking to withdraw amendment 37. If she does not do so, I hope that members will oppose amendment 37.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I listened carefully to the minister's comments, as I did at stage 2. I respect the fact that there is an honest difference of opinion on the matter and I am not sure that we will resolve that in the context of the debate. I will make three points to conclude my discussion on the amendments.

First, we should reflect, as members always should, on the fact that the Justice 2 Committee recommended in its stage 1 report that the bill be amended as amendment 37 seeks to amend it. The committee recommended that after hearing evidence from a range of witnesses, who were not just those whom we might expect, such as the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland. We also heard evidence from Victim Support Scotland, who thought that what amendment 37 seeks would be an important protection to add to the bill.

Secondly, I accept that if a procedure is available lawyers will tend to use it on behalf of their clients—they would probably take the view that it would be remiss of them not to do so. However, it is not a logical conclusion to draw from that that delays will be inevitable. After the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill is passed through, all criminal courts in Scotland will have intermediate diets that will be designed to deal with a range of procedural matters. I am not sure why such diets could not be used—they will be held anyway—to accommodate the kind of hearings to which amendment 37 refers.

Thirdly, in debating the bill we are, rightly and understandably, focusing almost exclusively on genuinely vulnerable witnesses. We all want to give them protection and to help them. However, just as it is human nature that lawyers will try to exploit court procedure, so is it human nature that there will be cases—I hope that they will be rare—in which witnesses will try to exploit the bill's provisions. Witnesses will apply to be treated as vulnerable witnesses when, in fact, that position will not be justified. My concern is that, as the bill stands, the accused in a criminal trial will have no right at all to question an application for special measures, even in cases in which it may be manifestly clear that the application is not justified. We could say that it will be for the judge and the court to decide on that, but if the court hears only one side of the story, can we be sure that a balanced judgment will be arrived at?

What I am trying to get at with amendment 37 would not be a diminution of the rights that we are trying to afford vulnerable witnesses; rather, it would ensure that, in trying to do the right thing by vulnerable witnesses, we do not unwittingly dilute the accused's rights in a criminal trial. Even after the bill goes through, we will still have an adversarial system of justice in this country in which the accused is innocent until proven guilty. I believe that with that right goes the right to challenge all aspects of what happens in a trial. I agree with Annabel Goldie that the danger is that there will be an Achilles' heel in an otherwise excellent bill that may, indeed, end up undergoing human rights challenges. It would be a shame to mar the bill by including such a flaw in it, which is why I will press amendment 37.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 33, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 37 disagreed to.

Amendments 38 to 42 not moved.

Amendments 4 and 5 moved—[Hugh Henry]—and agreed to.

Amendments 45 and 46 not moved.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 6 is on the taking of evidence by a commissioner and the presence of the accused. Amendment 47, in the name of Mike Pringle, is in a group on its own.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

There was considerable debate during—[ Interruption. ]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order, let us allow the member to speak without interruption.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Perhaps my voice is not loud enough. When we took evidence, there was considerable debate about whether one should allow the defendant to be in the room when a witness is giving evidence on commission, which is when a witness gives evidence away from the court under special circumstances. I and other committee members felt strongly that that should not be allowed and that the accused should not be allowed to be present at any time during the commission process.

The amendment was moved at stage 2 and then withdrawn with assurances from the minister that he would consider it. The minister had concerns that, in exceptional circumstances, it might be appropriate for the accused to be present, for example, when evidence was taken in a hospital or in some other situation. However, I still have concerns that courts might not view the matter as seriously as the committee did, which is why my amendment seeks to add the words "on special cause shown". The use of that legal term means that circumstances would have to be exceptional for the accused to be present when evidence was taken on commission.

I move amendment 47.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I support Mike Pringle's amendment. We are in a rather strange situation because we have just debated an area of the bill that did not provide for the proper protection of the rights of the accused. In the area currently under discussion, the balance goes too far in favour of the accused. We should try to pull the balance back.

The committee discussed the matter at some length. I support amendment 47 because it would make it more taxing for the accused to be given the right to be present when a vulnerable witness gives evidence on commission. Many witnesses give evidence on commission, not because they are vulnerable, but because they are incapacitated in some way—they might be in hospital or have a broken leg. But for that incapacity, giving evidence in open court would not be a problem. In those circumstances, there is no problem with the accused being present while the evidence is given because in other circumstances they would be present in open court anyway.

However, that logic does not apply to vulnerable witnesses, when the reason for giving evidence on commission is the vulnerability of the witness, because going into court in the presence of the accused would prevent the witness from giving his or her best evidence. The same must apply to giving evidence on commission: if the accused were present, the vulnerable witness might be just as unable to give their best evidence.

I cannot envisage any circumstances in which the accused would be allowed to be present when a vulnerable witness gave evidence on commission. I appreciate that that would not be the effect of amendment 47, but the amendment would build in an added safeguard that would, at the very least, make the accused show good cause for being present. It is worth injecting that safeguard into the bill.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am uneasy about amendment 47 because it seems that section 1 contains the necessary safeguard as drafted, in that there is a presumption that the accused will not be present. If the defence agent thought that there could be prejudice to the accused, the accused could apply to the court for permission to be present. No doubt the defence agent would then present the necessary arguments in support of that proposition. It is wrong to seek to interfere in the discretion of the court further by placing an additional directive. At the end of the day, we must respect the discretion of the court to make a decision on presentation of the arguments.

It is not for the bill to try to sway the discretion of the court one way or another, particularly when the bill expressly creates a presumption. I cannot support amendment 47.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I support the special measure of taking evidence on commission, but it is necessary to protect all parties and to ensure that they have the right to see and hear that evidence being led. That does not mean that they have to be present in the room, but they should be able to see it on live television or observe remotely.

I agree with Annabel Goldie about the discretion of the court in the application of the measure. I am sympathetic to the measure being made widely available to witnesses who need it, but I am acutely aware that no two cases are the same and that a certain amount of discretion is necessary.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

My point concerns parliamentary procedure. I listened to Colin Fox and Annabel Goldie opposing amendment 47 and I wonder why both of them agreed a Justice 2 Committee report that said that under no circumstances should an accused person be present when a vulnerable witness gives evidence on commission. There seems to be an inability to tie up what is said and signed up to in committee with what is said in the chamber.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I am happy to take advice from Nicola Sturgeon on parliamentary procedures; she has been here a lot longer than I have. I have a great deal of sympathy for Mike Pringle's argument and I am trying to make clear my position, which I hope will be clearer still when I have finished speaking.

As Nicola Sturgeon knows, the only evidence that was critical of the bill in its entirety was the submission from the Faculty of Advocates. As far as I recall, it questioned the need for the bill on the basis that many of the provisions for the courts are already in existence and the courts can use them at their discretion. The Law Society of Scotland made a similar case. I make it clear to Nicola Sturgeon that I rise not to oppose the amendment, but to make clear my position, and I will be happy to support amendment 47.

As good as the bill is, I fear that it is in danger of making little difference in the real world unless the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is properly resourced. As Nicola Sturgeon, Mike Pringle and other committee members know, the point was made that, above all, there is a great need for a culture change.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I do not know how to follow that contribution. I can understand members' concerns about an accused being present when evidence is taken on commission. In particular I thank Mike Pringle for his involvement in highlighting the matter.

We share those concerns, which is why we lodged an amendment at stage 2 to ensure that the court rather than the commissioner decides whether the accused should be present. The bill as drafted sets out the general rule that the accused should not be at a commission. It is our view that it would be only in exceptional cases that an accused would be allowed to be present for evidence on commission. There must be a very good reason for the accused to be allowed in before that would happen. For example, the witness could be a defence witness whose vulnerability has nothing to do with any relationship to the accused, and who might even prefer the accused to be there. Amendment 47 would be a useful addition to the bill because it would allow flexibility to have an exception, when needed, to allow the accused to be present during evidence on commission.

Mike Pringle's amendment would further strengthen the aim that there needs to be a very good reason for the accused to be present and I am happy to support it.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I am grateful to the minister. There was considerable concern about the issue, but it has been resolved well and I am delighted that, in future, when vulnerable witnesses give their evidence, the defence will allow the accused to be present only in the most exceptional circumstances.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 81, Against 10, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 47 agreed to.

Amendment 48 not moved.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 7 is on the application of vulnerable witness provisions to proceedings in the district court. Amendment 6, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 7, 9, 12 and 19.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

During the bill's progress, Mike Pringle and others asked whether its provisions should apply in the district court. There are good reasons why we think that that would not be appropriate at this time, not least of which is the fact that Sheriff Principal McInnes is undertaking a review of summary justice.

However, the bill gives ministers the power to extend special provisions to the district court, subject to the approval of the Scottish Parliament. It also contains provisions that allow for the prohibition of the accused from conducting his or her own defence, and we believe that we should provide for the possibility that those provisions could be included in the power to extend special provisions to the district court, in case it was appropriate to do so at some point in the future.

Amendment 6 will therefore delete the provision to extend special measures to the district court and amendment 19 will replace that power with a more comprehensive power, which will cover both special measures and the prohibition of an accused from conducting his or her own defence.

Amendments 7, 9 and 12 are minor, technical amendments which complement the extended power that is created by amendment 19 and are simply designed to clarify that the bill's provisions do not apply to the district court. Amendment 7 will ensure that the provisions in section 2 that relate to consideration before the trial of matters relating to vulnerable witnesses apply only to intermediate diets and to summary proceedings in the sheriff court and not to intermediate diets in the district court. Amendment 9 will ensure that new section 288ZE of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which prohibits an accused from conducting his or her own defence in certain cases involving child witnesses under 12, does not apply to proceedings in the district court. Similarly, amendment 12 will ensure that new section 288E, which gives the court the discretion to prohibit an accused from conducting their own defence in a case involving vulnerable witnesses, does not apply to proceedings in the district court.

I move amendment 6.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I call Annabel Goldie.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I might be speaking out of turn, Presiding Officer. I wanted to speak about amendment 19, which I thought was in the group to which the minister just spoke. If the amendment is not in that group, I will deal with it later.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Amendment 19 is in the group.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

As members will appreciate, amendment 19 is very technical. Indeed, it has all the lucidity of the ancient dialects of Chinese dynasties. I want the minister to reassure me that it is entirely technical in import and adjusted purely for other statutory provisions.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I am happy to give that assurance.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I raised the question of district courts very early in the discussions on the bill. I was concerned about the matter, as I had sat in the district court for a number of years—as I have probably said before—and I thought that it was quite important that the district court be brought into the bill, if not now, then in the future, should that become necessary. I am delighted that the minister has lodged the amendments on the matter.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Group 8 is on restrictions on evidence relating to the provision of therapy to children. Amendment 49, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is grouped with amendment 68.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Attentive members will remember that I used the example of a witness with a broken leg when I spoke to an earlier group of amendments. Truly observant members will have noticed that that image should have been included in my speaking notes for amendments 49 and 68, so I ask members to recall it now. The example relates, of course, to the comparison between the provision of medical treatment, which we would never deny to someone who had a broken leg or other physical injury and who had to go to court as a witness, and the provision of therapy, such as counselling, to address emotional or mental stress or trauma. Amendment 49 would ensure that such therapy could be made available.

I refer briefly to a statement that Cathy Jamieson made at a conference in November, just a few months ago. The minister said that the provision of therapy to child witnesses is

"a very complex area. Counselling may be beneficial and it is the responsibility of the child's carers to decide upon."

We are all aware of the need for therapists to avoid the risk of contaminating evidence and that brings us to the central issue. I believe, as does the justice for children group, to which I have referred, that the fear, distress and emotional trauma that child witnesses suffer risks contaminating evidence and endangering justice. Therapy such as counselling is intended to ensure that a child witness is treated compassionately, to enable them to participate fully in the legal process.

I am aware that ministers have been considering the issue further since November and have met interested organisations with a view to issuing further guidance. I hope that ministers will regard amendments 49 and 68 as a helpful prompt and will agree that they offer a constructive way forward. The amendments would ensure that children genuinely had a right to access the therapy that ministers have acknowledged as being important and that such therapy would not taint their evidence.

Further delays on the issue would have a negative impact on the many children who are currently in our courts system. If ministers cannot agree to the amendments, I hope that they will give us a concrete commitment to progress the issue at an early opportunity.

I move amendment 49.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I take the opportunity to ask the minister to endorse what he said in a letter to me about adults who receive therapy or are supported by organisations such as Rape Crisis Scotland or Scottish Women's Aid before they go to court. There is concern that the very fact that witnesses have been supported and helped by such organisations somehow contaminates their evidence. I would like the minister to put on the record what he said in his letter, which reassured me that the matter is being considered and that the victims and witnesses unit will give guidance on the matter in due course.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Like everything else in the bill, the matter is a question of balance. Although I have some sympathy with some of the views that Mr Harvie expressed, I am unhappy about the portent of amendment 49. As I understand it, he is attempting to ensure that when a child has undergone therapy after a fairly traumatic experience, evidence that the child underwent that therapy can be introduced during the trial. There is a real danger that such evidence could be contaminated. In many instances, for example in cases of sexual assault, the issue for the court to determine is whether or not the accused person—the person in the dock on that charge—carried out the assault. The question of whether the child has undergone therapy would certainly not be relevant to the identification of the accused. There are real dangers in that respect.

On a general point; when the minister addresses the matter, will he confirm that the expert evidence of psychologists or psychoanalysts in relation to an offence would attempt to inform the court about the normal or abnormal reactions of witnesses who experience such crimes? Would there be an indication of whether the complainer's reaction is the normal reaction expected when a person of that age and vulnerability has undergone such an experience, or is an exaggerated reaction?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I understand the sentiments behind Patrick Harvie's amendments and I know that a number of organisations have raised concerns that therapy is often discouraged before a child witness gives evidence. I realise that it is sometimes felt that inconsistent advice is given on whether therapy should be put on hold until after the child has given evidence. One of the main aims of the bill is to ensure that child witnesses get the help and support that they need to give their best evidence. It is equally important that they should get any help that they need before the trial. I assure Patrick Harvie that the Executive takes the matter very seriously.

As part of producing the child witness consultation document in 2002, we have already consulted on a draft code of practice on the provision of therapy to child witnesses in criminal trials and children's hearings court proceedings. As a result of that consultation, we have established a multi-agency steering group on the provision of therapy to child witnesses. The purpose of the group is to revise and finalise guidance on pre-trial therapy for all those involved with children and the law. It is intended that the guidance will clarify that therapy should not be discouraged and will establish guidelines on how therapy can be provided while avoiding the risk of contaminating evidence. I hope that that addresses some of Bill Aitken's points.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Yes.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The group has already had its first meeting, so progress is already being made on this important matter. The valuable work of the group should meet the concerns that lie behind amendment 49. It is far preferable that this issue be addressed in that way rather than in legislation.

In response to Maureen Macmillan's concerns, I am happy to put on record the commitment that was given to her in my letter of 7 January 2004. With Maureen Macmillan's permission, I am happy for the letter to be made a public document and to be made available to anyone who wishes to scrutinise it. I hope that she will accept that doing that will confirm our commitment on the points that she raised.

Based on my assurances, I hope that Patrick Harvie will feel able to withdraw amendment 49.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am grateful to the minister for some of the detail that he has given of the on-going work. However, we currently allow witnesses to give evidence in a state of fear, distress and trauma. That in itself contaminates evidence, and that issue has not been addressed. Therefore, I press amendment 49.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 26, Against 69, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 49 disagreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The ninth group of amendments is on proceedings in which personal conduct of the defence by the accused is prohibited. Amendment 8, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 11, 13, 14, 23 and 24.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill gives the court a discretionary power to prohibit the accused from conducting his or her own defence in cases involving vulnerable witnesses. Karen Whitefield lodged an amendment at stage 2 to prevent automatically an accused from conducting his or her own defence in violence cases involving child witnesses under 12 years of age. The Executive was happy to support that amendment.

However, we have identified that the bill as drafted does not extend either the automatic or the new discretionary ban to any proofs that are required as a result of victim statements. That could mean that, although an alleged victim has been given the extra protection of not being cross-examined by the accused in person at the trial, he or she could still have to face questioning by the accused at a proof relating to his or her making of a victim statement. Amendments 8, 11, 13 and 14 close off that possibility by ensuring that, when an accused is prohibited from conducting his or her own case as a result of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, he or she may not conduct his or her own case at any proof relating to victim statements either. That is the approach already adopted in sexual offences cases as regards victim statements.

Amendments 23 and 24 are consequential amendments to reflect those changes in the long title.

I move amendment 8.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I wish to support amendment 8 but to highlight a couple of things and put the amendment in context. On the withdrawal of the right of defendants to represent themselves in cases involving children under the age of 12 and in other cases involving vulnerable witnesses, will the minister confirm that it is exceedingly rare for somebody to represent themselves in a Scottish court? It happens in perhaps one in 1,000 cases. When it happens, it generally reduces the chances of an acquittal, given the complexities of the law and the way in which proceedings are conducted and the law is applied.

The withdrawal of this right for defendants comes against the background of the withdrawal of defendants' rights in sexual assault cases, which the minister mentioned, and the withdrawal of rights in preliminary hearings, which the minister mentioned last week during the debate on the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

I support amendment 8 but wish to highlight the fact that the reduction in defendants' right to represent themselves should be seen in the context of three or four other recent withdrawals of rights. I ask the minister to keep the complete picture, and the direction in which we are moving, in mind.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Colin Fox is right to highlight the fact that the measures in the amendments are not being taken in isolation. We want to ensure consistency in all matters relating to court proceedings. Too often, we have seen the tragic consequences of inconsistency.

It is right to give protection. In a number of cases, as has been highlighted, there have been very traumatic and distressing occurrences in court, which have led to distressing and tragic consequences. I am happy to put on record the fact that Colin Fox is right to highlight some of the other work that we are doing. The amendments are part of a package.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Amendments 9 to 14 moved—[Hugh Henry]—and agreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Group 10 is on pre-trial procedures for vulnerable witnesses and other issues. Amendment 15, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 16 and 18.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Amendment 16 amends sections 71, 71A and 72A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, as a consequence of new sections 288ZE and 288E of the 1995 act as inserted by the bill.

Section 288ZE makes it mandatory that an accused must not conduct his own defence in certain types of offences that involve a child witness under the age of 12 who is to give evidence in the trial. Section 288E gives the court a discretionary power to prohibit an accused from conducting his own defence in a case involving a vulnerable witness, where the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of the witness to do so.

Currently, section 71 of the 1995 act provides for the court at a first diet in the sheriff court to establish whether an accused who is prohibited from conducting his own defence has legal representation for the trial. That applies in all sexual offence cases.

Section 71A of the 1995 act provides in sexual offence cases for a further pre-trial diet to follow a first diet in the sheriff court where it is established at the first diet that the accused is legally represented, but his or her solicitor is subsequently dismissed or withdraws. Such a solicitor will be under a duty to notify the court of what has happened. The court will then fix a further pre-trial diet that the accused will be required to attend.

The effect of the amendments to sections 71 and 71A of the 1995 act is to extend the existing provisions so that they relate not only to sexual offence cases, but to cases involving vulnerable witnesses under new sections 288ZE and 288E of the 1995 act as inserted by the bill.

Currently, section 72A of the 1995 act makes it mandatory for the holding of a pre-trial diet in all sexual offences cases to be tried in the High Court, unless dispensed with by the court following an application by the accused's solicitor. The amendment to section 72A of the 1995 act will extend the existing provision so that pre-trial diets will also be mandatory in other High Court cases in which an accused is prohibited from conducting his own defence.

Section 2(4) of the bill, as it is currently drafted, provides that in summary proceedings the court must check at an intermediate diet whether there are any vulnerable witnesses in the case. It does that by inserting the relevant provisions into section 148 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. Intermediate diets are mandatory in summary proceedings in the sheriff court in most parts of the country, but not in some of the smaller outlying courts. We intend to plug that gap by providing that, if an intermediate diet is not held in summary proceedings, the court must consider those matters at the trial diet before the first witness is sworn. The bill already does something similar with regard to the High Court when there has been no preliminary diet. Amendment 18 creates an equivalent provision for summary proceedings in the sheriff court in which there has been no intermediate diet.

Amendment 15 is consequential to amendments 16 and 18.

I move amendment 15.

Amendment 15 agreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Group 11 concerns child witnesses and the training of court personnel. Amendment 66, in the name of Mike Pringle, is grouped with amendment 67.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Training is a hugely important factor in the bill. Clearly, children are different from adults and they have to be treated differently. My view is that, up to now, children have not been treated differently in court from adults. Advocates and others view children as witnesses just like adult witnesses, which is not right.

If a young child is asked a question, they will give an honest and straightforward answer. If the question is repeated several times thereafter, however, one finds that the child begins to think that they should not have given that answer. They begin to question whether it was the right answer and to wonder whether they should give a different one. The child starts to doubt the answer that they gave, which can bring their evidence into question.

It is important that we train all the people who are involved in dealing with young people in our courts. It is fundamental that young people are treated in a different way. Advocates and others need to realise that it is important that they too can learn; none of us is too old to learn new ways of doing things. That applies in particular to advocates and others. It is important that good training is put in place and that it is put in place as soon as possible.

I move amendment 66.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I understand the thrust behind what Mike Pringle said. I accept that an important point is involved, but I am concerned that the effect of amendment 66 would be to freeze implementation and, quite frankly, I would be very unhappy about that. The sooner that the act comes into force, the better it will be for all classes of vulnerable witnesses. I am unable to support amendment 66 for that reason.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I understand Mike Pringle's concerns on the issue. I am sure that all of us want to see that everyone who is involved in dealing with the provisions in the bill does so properly and is properly trained. As Annabel Goldie rightly pointed out, amendment 66 could lead to serious delays. Its effect would be to cause the bill not to be implemented as an act. The benefit and importance of the bill far outweigh the need for appropriate training, which it would be difficult to prescribe. I do not support amendments 66 and 67.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The issue of training has been raised a number of times during stages 1 and 2. The Executive is in no doubt that training and awareness raising are of vital importance to the successful implementation of the bill. That is why training and awareness raising will be a key priority for the victims and witnesses unit.

I am keen to ensure that all the professionals and volunteers who are involved in supporting vulnerable witnesses are given opportunities to improve and enhance their skills at identifying the needs of witnesses. That has to be done by ensuring that they give proper consideration to witnesses and that they provide witnesses with the right help to enable them to give their best evidence.

There is a great deal of expertise, knowledge and good will across Scotland and the unit will look to bringing that together so that people can share best practice. The unit will also want to ensure that every organisation is involved in training its staff. We will aim to ensure that there are clear training guidelines and that the relevant organisations are engaged in developing them.

I am aware of examples of good practice that are taking place already. For instance, Sheriff Principal Morrison, director of judicial studies, has said that the Judicial Studies Committee is developing training on child and vulnerable witnesses. The committee will use the guidance on questioning children in court, which we published last year, to help with that.

The Executive has been in discussion with the Faculty of Advocates, the Crown Office and others to ensure that significant attention is given to the provision of training for people who are engaged in the process. We believe that the collaborative approach is the best one and that it is not necessary to impose duties by statute.

In practice, it is not clear that amendment 66 would achieve the desired effect of ensuring that training takes place. I agree entirely with Annabel Goldie that, in the worst-case scenario, the amendment could even hold up the bill's implementation. From discussions with Mike Pringle, I know that that is not his intention. I hope that I have given him sufficient reassurance on the record to enable him to withdraw amendment 66.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I am grateful for the minister's comments. My intention was not to delay the bill, but to raise the important issue of training, which is vital for us all. I beg leave to withdraw amendment 66.

Amendment 66, by agreement, withdrawn.

Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-699, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill be passed.

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

I am delighted to speak in the debate. As members will be aware, the reforms that the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill will put in place were first proposed in the consultation document "Vital Voices: Helping Vulnerable Witnesses Give Evidence". That title sums up exactly what the bill is about: it is about enabling the voices of our most vulnerable witnesses to be heard, so that they can fulfil their vital role in the justice system.

Witnesses are an essential part of our justice system and we must ensure that they are treated with the sensitivity and respect that they deserve. The bill is another significant step forward in putting the needs of victims and witnesses at the heart of our justice system. Today, we will put into practice the Executive's commitment to reform by delivering on our promise to improve the way in which vulnerable witnesses are treated.

The interests of justice are, of course, best served by ensuring that individuals who need extra help to give their best evidence receive that help. The bill respects the needs of the most vulnerable people and children—each one is treated as an individual—and it will ensure that real people who face real situations receive the support that they need to give evidence when they have to appear in court. I believe that that is right. I have been heartened by the comments that I have heard today and I trust that Parliament will agree to give its full support to the bill.

Many people have contributed to the process that got us here today. A wide range of organisations and individuals have engaged with us on the bill, including voluntary sector organisations, professional agencies and many more. I place on record my thanks to each and every one of them. Those organisations contributed their time, energy and ideas and their participation was invaluable. Many of their views and concerns are reflected in the bill as it stands, and it is better for that.

I thank the Justice 2 Committee members and staff for their hard work in giving detailed consideration to the principles of the bill and for their scrutiny and input at stage 2. The committee produced a thorough and carefully considered stage 1 report, and the Executive was happy to support a number of amendments that committee members suggested at stage 2. I also thank the bill team for its hard work in preparing the bill and the accompanying material. A considerable amount of work was done between the bill team and the committee to ensure that views were taken on board.

We listened to and considered carefully concerns that the bill, as originally drafted, did not go far enough. We understood the need to support amendments such as those that were lodged by Karen Whitefield at stage 2 and by Mike Pringle today, which have strengthened the safeguards for child witnesses. We consider that the bill as it stands strikes the right balance: the fairness of judicial proceedings has been not weakened, but strengthened, by measures that will ensure that the court hears the best available evidence.

We should not underestimate the changes that the bill will bring about. When it is fully implemented, thousands of Scots will have access to extra support to help them speak up in court. In some cases, because of the abolition of the competence test, vulnerable witnesses will be heard for the first time. Without the bill, that would not be possible. From previous personal experience of supporting child witnesses and vulnerable adult witnesses, I know just how daunting court processes can be. That was described in the evidence sessions at stage 1 and as the bill made its way through the parliamentary process, including this morning. Over the years, many people have argued and campaigned for the real and practical measures that are in the bill.

It is important to recognise that the bill is part of a much wider programme of work on victims and witnesses that the new victims and witnesses unit in the Executive is undertaking. Victim statement schemes are being piloted; further guidance for the child witness guidance pack is being finalised; and proposals are being developed to pilot vulnerable witness officers to provide on-going support to agencies and to help ensure that the needs of all vulnerable witnesses are met.

Our radical court reforms will also help, and I was pleased that members recognised that this morning. Last week, Parliament agreed to the general principles of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, which, as I have said before, is a key part of our reforms to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system. As was graphically described this morning, constant adjournments and delays are not efficient. We know that they can be particularly stressful for victims and witnesses, which is why we are taking action to improve procedures and to eliminate practices that cause delays, so that cases proceed as smoothly as possible.

I understand fully Jackie Baillie's motivation in raising the issue of delays. I am glad that she was reassured on that point and I am sure that she agrees that it is particularly pleasing that the Parliament strongly supported the principles of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. During the debate on that bill, many members made the point that we must end unnecessary delays.

The rights of victims and witnesses are now firmly on the justice agenda; indeed, they are central to it. We continue to argue strongly that everyone in the system should make the culture changes that are needed. My deputy, Hugh Henry, recently addressed a seminar on child witnesses that was organised by the Faculty of Advocates and which was aimed at raising awareness of the issues among advocates. I am pleased that the Law Society of Scotland intends to have a vulnerable witness conference at the end of this month.

The Scottish Court Service is engaged in a wide range of work that will help vulnerable witnesses. On recent visits to courts, I saw two practical examples of the differences that can be made through a culture change; not necessarily by spending huge sums of money, but by demonstrating a will to be receptive to the needs of victims and witnesses.

Separate secure entrances are available for vulnerable witnesses at the High Court in Glasgow, for example. The witnesses are met by witness support staff and accompanied to separate waiting accommodation. Sofas and easy chairs are available and toys and games are given to younger children. When I visited the court in Aberdeen, I was pleased to note that there was a range of children's toys, books, magazines, televisions and videos in the witness rooms. I noticed that brightly coloured posters advertised a selection of video tapes. Such little touches make a difference to people who have to spend time in a place where they might prefer not to be. A customer care team regularly reviews the items that are available to ensure that they are up to date and in good order.

The fact that the treatment of vulnerable witnesses is being taken seriously by such organisations shows that the culture change that we have discussed for so long is taking place. Such approaches demonstrate that taking the time to think about what can be done to make things better for victims and witnesses will often produce ideas for relatively small, simple and easily achieved changes that can make a big difference to people's experience of the court system. One's personal experiences shape one's opinions of the justice system and determine whether one believes that justice has been delivered.

Where do we go from here? Today's consideration of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill is not the end of the matter, of course. It has been stressed time and again this morning that we are committed to ensuring that the bill is implemented successfully. Early identification, training and monitoring of the provisions will be vital in ensuring that the bill is as effective as we want it to be.

As Hugh Henry mentioned, the Lord Advocate has committed to issuing instructions to the police on the identification and reporting of vulnerable witnesses. That will be backed up by training and guidance, so that the police will know what to look for when considering issues of vulnerability. The Crown Office intends to update its guidance to staff as a result of the bill and will include interested organisations in that development process.

We are committed to implementing the bill in full. That will take time, so it will be done in phases. It makes sense to focus attention on the most serious cases first, to take time to ensure that implementation is effective and to learn lessons from one phase to the next. We want appropriate protection and support to be given to vulnerable witnesses in High Court and sheriff court criminal cases and in civil proceedings, including children's hearings referrals.

It is easy for public attention to focus on big, headline-grabbing High Court cases, but there can be vulnerable witnesses in other cases. Maureen Macmillan has referred in the past, and did so again today, to the problems of vulnerable witnesses in civil cases such as matrimonial interdicts or protection from abuse interdicts. She argued that the nature of the relationship between parties in such civil cases could lead to people being vulnerable in such circumstances. The bill extends special measures to civil proceedings for those precise reasons. We will not lose sight of such issues when the bill is being implemented.

I thank everyone who has been involved in bringing the bill through Parliament. I do not doubt that the bill will make a real difference to vulnerable witnesses' experience of the justice system. I am delighted to commend the bill to Parliament and I ask members to give it their full support.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I intend to be relatively brief, to allow other members to participate in the debate. The Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, which we are about to pass into law, is important. Like the minister, I thank those involved in the progress of the bill, particularly those behind the scenes, such as the bill team and the clerks of the Justice 2 Committee. I thank everyone who gave evidence, orally or in writing, to the Justice 2 Committee at the earlier stages of the bill. That essential evidence enabled the committee to produce a report which, although not all its recommendations were taken on board, has influenced the final shape of the bill in a positive manner.

The minister alluded to the fact that the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill is just one piece in the jigsaw of court reform. Other bills that we will consider later in this parliamentary session are equally important. It is important to stress, as the minister did, that legislation alone will not deliver all the reforms that are required in the courts system.

Our courts are steeped in centuries of tradition, much of which is worth protecting and retaining. Some aspects of the way things are done in the courts need to be brought into the modern age, to have a much greater public focus and to take account of the needs and wishes of the victims of crime and those giving evidence. The bill will help in that regard, but the minister is right to speak of the need for a culture change, which is already emerging. We should avoid complacency, however, because the culture change will have to continue if the bill's intentions are to be translated into practice.

The bill is important for the reasons that have been outlined at all stages of its progress. It is right that witnesses who are vulnerable because of their age or disability, or simply because of the nature of the case in which they are giving evidence, should be supported. Vulnerable witnesses can apply under this bill to avail themselves of a range of special measures, such as live television links or the right to give evidence from behind a screen or with a supporter sitting next to them. Such measures should help witnesses to give evidence in a way that is less stressful than the normal method of getting in the witness box and being examined and re-examined in the full glare of everyone else who is present. In criminal cases, a person accused of committing horrific violent or sexual crimes against a witness may be present when the witness gives evidence.

The experience of child witnesses will be significantly improved as a result of this bill. A number of the amendments that were proposed would have allowed the bill to go further, but nevertheless we should reflect on how far we have come.

Perhaps the important point that the bill serves the wider interests of justice has been lost. A witness who is terrified, for whatever reason, by the prospect of giving evidence in court is unlikely to be able to get into the witness box to tell their story in a clear and lucid manner. Courts in this country, particularly criminal courts, rely on the presentation of honest and accurate evidence. It is in the interests of everyone involved in court cases—the Crown and the accused in criminal cases and the pursuer and the defendant in civil cases—that witnesses are helped to give their best evidence.

Although this is an important bill that deserves support, we should ensure that it strikes a fine balance, especially in criminal cases. The balance between protecting vulnerable witnesses and ensuring the right to a fair trial of a person accused of crime has been discussed already this morning. Under this country's adversarial system of justice, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. As there is an onus on the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person is guilty, accused persons have the fundamental right to test to the full the evidence presented against them in court.

Throughout this legislative process, we have had to ask whether the necessary balance has been struck in the right place in the bill. I think that overall, in broad terms, that balance has been struck, although the amendments that I proposed today suggest that I have some residual concerns. I fear that we may not have heard the last of the debate about the right of the accused to be heard on vulnerable witness applications. I suppose that we will have to wait and see about that.

I would like to speak about the early identification of vulnerable witnesses and the related issue of resources. At its heart, the bill relates to court procedure. If it is to work properly, it must have the active co-operation of all the agencies involved in the justice system. The bill puts the onus on lawyers to apply for special measures on behalf of witnesses. This will involve the procurator fiscal in most cases, but it often happens that the procurator fiscal does not meet the witness until the first day of the trial. In practice, early identification will depend less on lawyers and much more on other agencies, precognition agents, the police and voluntary organisations such as Victim Support and Women's Aid. One theme that ran strongly through the Justice 2 Committee's consideration of the bill is that all those agencies must be trained—the minister made some comments about training—and adequately resourced, to enable them to identify and support vulnerable witnesses. If we do not do that, there is a danger that the bill will not make the difference that we all think, and hope, that it is capable of making.

With those comments, I am happy to support the passage of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I, too, shall be brief. My concept of brevity may be slightly different to the previous speaker's—I will do my best.

Unaccustomed as I am to supporting the Executive on justice matters in Scotland, I find myself in the slightly unusual position of welcoming the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, which has the support of Conservative members. There is no doubt that for witnesses who come forward and who are vulnerable and in need of support, the bill offers more structured and certainly more extensive measures than have previously been available. The bill is to be welcomed as a worthwhile contribution to improving the court environment for vulnerable witnesses.

I thank the minister for her remarks about the Justice 2 Committee. I think that I speak for all members of the committee when I say that we found it an interesting bill with which to be involved, and I am glad if our scrutiny and discussions assisted with the clarification and drafting of the bill.

There is an important issue in relation to resource, and I reiterate the concerns that were expressed at stage 1 by both the Finance Committee and the Justice 2 Committee, and indeed the admission of the Executive even at that stage that some of the costs might be higher than the estimates. It would be regrettable if the legislation ended up being either obsolete or unworkable because proper resourcing was not in place, and I urge the minister to be cautious and careful about ensuring that resource is there when the bill is enacted and its provisions are implemented.

In relation to the point that Nicola Sturgeon mentioned, evaluation will also be important. I would welcome a commitment from the minister if, for example, the Lord Advocate was prepared to assess the working model of the legislation as it proceeds, and if any difficulties are identified they should be quickly picked up on and noted. I hope that the absence of the right of the accused to question an application for a witness to be treated as a vulnerable witness will not impugn the integrity of the succeeding trial, but only time will tell—there are important issues lurking in that.

In conclusion, I make a plea about draftsmanship; I raised the point at previous stages of the bill. I have to say that, as a working tool for practitioners and judges in court, it is not user friendly. About 14 fingers and 10 pairs of eyes will be required to assimilate the provisions quickly, particularly where practitioners refer to the provisions in submissions to judges, and similarly where judges consider the submissions of practitioners. If I have a plea to the parliamentary draftsmen, it is that it is far better to be simple, even if that extends the length of legislation, because that makes bills simpler to read and more readily understood.

As Nicola Sturgeon indicated, the bill is part of the broader framework of the criminal justice system in Scotland. The legislation is predicated on witnesses being available. Of course, witnesses will not be available if the law-abiding public is in any way apprehensive about the efficacy of our criminal justice system and if, having witnessed an offence, they are concerned about whether it is worth while to come forward. Delays, lack of resource and—dare I say it—the prospect of automatic early release are all factors that influence the law-abiding public's willingness to be witnesses. I urge the minister to have regard to that broader picture.

The bill is welcome and I have pleasure in supporting it on behalf of the Conservatives.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

The Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill is the first big piece of legislation in the justice field that the Parliament has had to deal with in its second session. There is no doubt that the Executive has set its sights on improving the judicial system in Scotland, and several other important measures will follow this one.

Like Nicola Sturgeon and others, I thank all those who worked extremely hard on the bill, including the bill team. I thank the members of the Justice 2 Committee, on which I sit. As members know, this is my first term and this is the first major piece of legislation that I have been involved in. I thank all the members of the committee for helping me through the process—I found their help extremely useful.

Improvements to the judicial system began in the previous session of Parliament. In early 2003, the then Minister for Justice, Jim Wallace, announced 62 audiovisual units for Scottish courts. The Executive has already given £850,000 for a new victims and witnesses unit to co-ordinate support from a range of professional agencies, including the police, fiscals, solicitors and social workers, and the Scottish Executive has earmarked £4 million for the witness support service, which is much to be welcomed.

The bill is a continuation of that work. It aims to improve how witnesses are treated by the justice system. It will provide better protection for children and vulnerable witnesses, many of whom are victims of crime. It will also allow vulnerable witnesses to give their best evidence in the best possible circumstances. There is a wide range of new measures—we all know what they are, and I welcome them.

The emphasis of the bill will change how criminal cases are dealt with. In the chamber last week, I said that we have to make things better for witnesses in general. There is no doubt that the experience of witnesses throughout the judicial system is not good. Many of us know of cases in which even the smallest trials have been delayed endlessly and people have had to give up huge amounts of their time to give evidence. We should do anything that we can to make that experience better for people. If people are prepared to give their time and go to court as witnesses, that helps the justice system and gives us all better justice. The bill will make things better for vulnerable witnesses in futures cases, and I welcome it.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I begin by thanking the clerks of the Justice 2 Committee for their hard work and diligence in supporting the committee during the passage of the bill. Their efforts often go unnoticed by members of the public, but I assure them that MSPs recognise the vital part that they play in the smooth running of the legislative process in the Parliament. I also thank the groups and organisations who gave evidence to the committee at stage 1. It is vital that legislation is shaped and influenced by the experience of those whom it will directly affect.

The Parliament is often criticised—unfairly, in my view—for not dealing with the priorities of the people of Scotland. There is no doubt that the bill will make a difference to people in Scotland. I can honestly say that the issue was not raised often by people on the doorstep in last year's election campaign. However, the most important issues are not always those that are most talked about, and the bill tackles exactly the kind of issues that the Parliament was established to deal with. In all likelihood, the bill would never have found legislative time at Westminster, yet it will make a real difference to ordinary men, women and children throughout Scotland. It will increase protection for the most vulnerable citizens in Scottish society and it will help to improve our criminal justice system.

For too many years, witnesses have faced the possibility of a continuation of their abuse in court. In the worst cases, victims have faced prolonged periods of interrogation by their alleged abuser. Along with other criminal justice measures, some of which have already been passed by the Parliament, the bill will help to redress the balance of our criminal justice system towards supporting the rights of victims and witnesses.

I am sure that all members agree that it is right to take every step to protect our most vulnerable witnesses, including children, people with learning disabilities and those who have been the victim of violent and sexual assaults. I am convinced that providing a more secure and less threatening environment for such witnesses to give evidence will help to ensure that they can give their best and most accurate evidence. That will allow the justice system to do its job and to secure convictions where appropriate. Of course, it is also important to protect the right of the accused to a fair trial. That issue has attracted considerable debate during the bill's passage through Parliament. However, the bill continues to protect that fundamental right.

I also welcome the Minister for Justice's announcement that the Executive has established a victims and witnesses unit. It makes perfect sense that support services for victims and witnesses should come under the auspices of a single agency. As the Deputy Minister for Justice said in his letter to the Justice 2 Committee's convener, the unit will play a vital part in the bill's implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

The Scottish Executive is committed to building a more efficient and effective justice system that is founded on the basic principles of fairness and equality. By providing greater protection for our most vulnerable witnesses, the bill contributes to that commitment. I welcome the passing of the bill, which represents a vital and significant step towards achieving our goal of a fairer and more just criminal justice system. I have great pleasure in supporting the bill.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The fact that we are making more rapid progress than the timetabling motion suggested is no reflection on the serious way in which the Justice 2 Committee and the Parliament have considered the bill. I congratulate all those who were involved in developing the bill, as it is a worthwhile addition to the improvements that are being made for victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system. Victims and witnesses have long been a neglected and largely forgotten part of the criminal justice system.

I recall being a witness when I was seven. Fortunately, I did not have to go to court. I witnessed a minor matter that involved a bus reversing into a car. Just being interviewed by a policewoman in quite a relaxed way was daunting for a seven-year-old. It would have been much more so if I had been older and had had to go to court, although those were circumstances of no particular pressure. The bill is a welcome development.

Excellent developments have been made to protect victims of sexual offences, on which I have commented. Mike Pringle properly focused on the need to give training a priority and the deputy minister gave us assurances about that. The amount of change in the criminal justice system and in the operation of courts presents the formidable challenge of bringing sheriffs and all who are involved in courts up to an appropriate level of behaviour and experience and of understanding of the legislation. We will watch that with considerable care.

The introduction of victim statements after verdicts and before sentencing was a useful change that was made in the previous parliamentary session, as was the requirement to notify victims when serious offenders are to be released and when they are to be considered by the Parole Board for Scotland. That is all good and adds to the list of worthwhile improvements that have been made.

Annabel Goldie referred to witnesses' concerns and fears in some circumstances. While considering the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, the Communities Committee has deliberated a range of issues that are associated with antisocial behaviour and crime in our communities. We will debate the bill next week. I will not tread on the toes of that too much, but one element that has emerged from those discussions and which is worth thinking about is the role of professional witnesses when repeated and serious intimidation occurs. The Executive might wish to consider developing further the role of professional witnesses in some circumstances and the Communities Committee will no doubt return to that subject next week.

As a layman rather than a lawyer, I have always found it slightly bizarre that in our criminal justice system, the Crown Office acts as a neutral arbiter of the balance between the victim and the accused. The situation is different in other countries, where the prosecutor represents the victim. That has further scope for consideration. Such a move would be part of supporting witnesses and victims.

The bill is welcome. I will take great pleasure in supporting it come decision time.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am pleased to support the bill. I declare an interest as a long-time member and a present director of Ross-shire Women's Aid; I have seen at first hand the traumatic effect of the criminal justice system on women who have suffered abuse. Fear of confronting an abuser in court has often made women refuse to be witnesses when their partner has assaulted them. Fear has caused them to refuse to give evidence against their abusers. Members should make no mistake—women in those circumstances find the whole process intimidating and terrifying, as do the Women's Aid workers who support them.

In its evidence to the Justice 2 Committee, Rape Crisis Scotland provided dreadful statistics about rape and sexual assault victims' engagement with our justice system. Of the women who contact rape crisis centres, 80 per cent do not report the incidents to the police. When incidents are reported, the conviction rate is low—it is between 10 and 15 per cent—yet only between 2 and 4 per cent of complaints are found to be false. Those dire statistics are a result of how the police, fiscals and lawyers have treated rape and sexual assault victims. I am glad that attitudes are changing, thanks in no small way to the Executive and the Parliament's engagement with the issues. That is also due in large part to the number of women in Parliament who have pressed the agenda.

The bill will make another step change in our justice system, which has for too long been the preserve of lawyers and the police. Our justice system is for the public, who need to feel comfortable and confident about giving evidence in court. We must remember that the bill is intended to support witnesses to give their best evidence—not to be soft on witnesses. The balance is right between witness support and the rights of the accused.

The quality of the training that is given to the police, fiscals, solicitors in private practice and advocates will be important in rolling out the legislation. I am content that the Executive will ensure that training is given to the police, fiscals and sheriffs, and that organisations such as Rape Crisis and Women's Aid will advise on that training. However, in civil cases, all will depend on the solicitor or advocate applying for special measures. I hope that the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates will meet their responsibilities through their continuing professional development courses.

I thank the clerks to the Justice 2 Committee for their hard work at all stages of the bill and I thank the many organisations that gave evidence to the committee and informed our discussions. I have great pleasure in supporting the bill.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Jackie Baillie can make a speech of a couple of minutes.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

In the short time that is left I will say that, like many in the chamber, I support the bill, which will make a substantial difference to the experience of children, young people and vulnerable adults in our courts. I am reassured and encouraged by the deputy minister's comments about people with non-visible disabilities and about dealing with delays in the system. I am convinced that the potential for realising the bill depends on the need to encourage the culture change to which the Minister for Justice referred, whether through training or guidance or by involving witnesses. What is important is monitoring the effectiveness of implementation.

The bill was introduced for the children and young people throughout Scotland who are likely to be vulnerable witnesses. It is a breath of fresh air in the justice system and ministers are to be commended for bringing it to the Parliament.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I bid a warm welcome to the Ceann Comhairle, Dr Rory O'Hanlon, and the rest of the delegation from the Irish Parliament. A Chinn Chomhairle, tha Parlamaid na h-Alba a' cur fàilte—ceud mìle fàilte—oirbh uile. [ Applause. ]

First Minister's Question Time

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Eight seconds early, we come to First Minister's question time.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss our progress towards implementing the partnership agreement.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In January 2003, the Executive started to study the financial impact that the introduction of top-up fees in England would have on Scottish universities. Shortly afterwards, a formal review was announced. In June last year, the review was set up. From that day to this, we have been told that the review would have all the answers. Solutions would be provided and policy would be announced. Today the report tells us that it is a starting point. After 14 months of review, what new policy will be announced today and how much in the way of new resources will be provided for the university sector in Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We have explained in the chamber on a large number of occasions that the review was designed to provide the background evidence for our decisions on higher education funding. The involvement in that review of universities, colleges, students and other interests has given us a document that will be published this afternoon by the committee that agreed it, simultaneously with the Deputy First Minister. We will use the document to make the right decisions for the future of higher education. As Mr Swinney knows, the review was never designed to determine the decisions of Government that will need to be made over the next six months. However, it will provide us with extremely useful information to help us to ensure that those decisions are the right ones.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will the First Minister do Parliament the decency of answering a couple of questions about the contents of the report that is to be published this afternoon but that the Deputy First Minister has been broadcasting for most of the morning? First, will the review endorse the Deputy First Minister's claim, made at last year's Universities Scotland conference, that the only way out of the funding crisis in Scotland's universities is for the universities to work a bit harder? Secondly, will it give a ringing endorsement of the First Minister's claim—often made—that Scottish universities enjoy a 20 per cent funding advantage over universities south of the border?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The document will be published this afternoon. We need to pay due respect to those who prepared and spent a lot of time on it—from universities, student organisations, colleges and other bodies. They have the right to publish the document this afternoon without my pre-empting that and quoting from it here.

Mr Swinney is aware that the level of funding of universities in Scotland is higher than that in England in the way that he described. We are extremely proud of the quality of the work that is being done in our universities—not just the teaching, studying and research but, increasingly, the commercialisation of that research and the contribution that it makes to the wider Scottish economy. The vital contribution that our universities make will drive us over the next few months to ensure that they have the right level of resources not just to compete in higher education but to help Scotland's economy compete at the same time.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The First Minister talks about paying due respect to the organisations that have produced the report—none of which has accepted that it endorses the policy positions set out in it—and will not give me a specific answer in Parliament. However, all morning the Deputy First Minister has been broadcasting the report to the world, showing no respect to the people who were involved in producing it and no respect to this parliamentary institution.

In addition, the First Minister has failed to give an answer to my question about a point that he has made often enough—that universities in Scotland are 20 per cent better funded than universities in England. I am reliably informed that that point is not endorsed by the report that it is to be published this afternoon. After 14 months, there is no clarification on money and no clarification on policy. The First Minister's claim about funding has been proved to be false and the review has so enthused its participants that they have just set up a website to publish the information that the Executive would not publish in the first place. After 14 months of stalling, why will the First Minister not accept that it is time for the Executive to put its money where its mouth is and to support our universities as the engine of Scotland's economy?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Mr Swinney should not misrepresent the Deputy First Minister's position in that way. He misrepresents both what was said in November and what is being said today.

There is a wider issue to consider. Our approach to the proper consideration of important financial issues is different from Mr Swinney's. If he thinks that it would be right and proper to say today that we should take more than £100 million—in fact, some £400 million, if I take what I believe are the figures in the report—away from budgets that could be allocated to schools, hospitals, housing, the environment and tackling enterprise in this country and allocate it today, without due consideration, to Scotland's universities, he is not living in the real world.

Scotland's universities rightly have a competitive advantage over their counterparts in England and they compete with the best universities in the world. Our universities need to have further resources and we have committed to providing them with such resources at the end of the current spending review—something that we would never normally do in relation to a spending review. We will review spending properly; over the next few months, we will consider the different priorities of all the many organisations that make submissions to us for funding, not just Universities Scotland. When we make those decisions, we will make decisions that are right for the long-term future of Scotland, not those that are right for short-term headlines.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Briefly.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The impact of top-up fees will be felt in the next two years. The First Minister has had 14 months to come up with a starting point for the Government's consideration of the issue. Does he not understand the frustration that is felt throughout Scotland at his Government's prevarication? Why will it not take action to support a critical sector in Scotland's economy?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Because when we take action, we will take the right action. We will have considered the situation properly, we will have considered the implications for the other parts of public services in Scotland that deserve proper financial investment at the same time and we will ensure that all the implications are taken into account. It is precisely because of all those implications that we established the review in the first place.

The review is not just about one organisation—Universities Scotland—demanding £400 million for the university sector alone; it is also about the implications for Scottish students who might want to go and study in England and for English students who might want to come and study in Scotland. The review is about all the implications for the future of our higher education service. That is why the review was important and that is why it will be considered properly and timeously by ministers. We will make the right decisions for the long term and will ensure that our universities remain world class and can compete not just in the United Kingdom, but on the world stage.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-691)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I met the Prime Minister last weekend. Mr McLetchie will not be surprised to hear that we held a number of discussions, which were very productive. I have no immediate plans to meet him in the next few weeks.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

When the First Minister and the Prime Minister next meet, they might again discuss enterprise. I notice that in his speech to the Scottish Labour Party conference at the weekend, the First Minister claimed that he wanted his party to be the party of enterprise and economic growth throughout Scotland. Words are cheap. Is it not about time that the First Minister learned that talking a good game is not the same as doing the business on the pitch, which is what the business community in Scotland is crying out for? As he well knows, the litmus test for the business community is the issue of business rates in Scotland, and the litmus paper is still Labour red. Why is the business rate poundage in Scotland for next year going up to 48.8p in the pound when it is already significantly higher than the business rate poundage in England and Wales?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Mr McLetchie is aware that the decisions that we have taken both last year and this year have reduced the real-terms take of business rates in Scotland to below the take in England, on the basis of the revaluation that was carried out in the Parliament's early years.

Mr McLetchie mentioned the general issue of enterprise. The direct improvements that have taken place in Scotland since 1997 and, indeed, since 1999 are one reason why the parties in the coalition partnership now have a much better record on enterprise than Mr McLetchie's party has. We have the lowest unemployment and the highest levels of employment that have been seen in my adult life. Our universities are now doing a proper job of commercialising their research and turning it into products that can be sold at home and worldwide. We have a totally different economy than that over which Mr McLetchie's party presided and in which his leader was employment secretary. If Mr McLetchie wants to debate enterprise, I am happy to do so anywhere, anytime, so let us start here.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I am happy to accept the First Minister's challenge. He will of course reflect on the fact that, on the issue of business rates, we established a common rate poundage throughout the United Kingdom, which his Administration has destroyed. He talks about revenues from business rates. Will he confirm that the Scottish Executive has underestimated consistently the revenues that it derives from business rates? Last year, which was typical, the Scottish Executive set a rate poundage of 47.8p and based its budget on predicted revenues of £1,570 million. In fact, business rates last year brought in £1,710 million—an extra £140 million, which is equivalent to 4p in the pound. Given that, year on year, the Executive already raises more revenue from business rates than it budgets for, why do we need further to penalise our businesses by increasing the rate poundage yet again?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There is a very clear reason why. The income from business rates was higher than was predicted. Mr McLetchie will remember the many statements that he made over the past few years about what a miserable state the Scottish economy was in, what a disaster that was for business, how low growth was and how many problems there were. The take from business rates in Scotland was higher than predicted precisely because of the buoyancy and success of the Scottish economy over those years and because the Scottish economy had recovered from the Tory years, employment was at its highest level ever, unemployment was at its lowest level ever, new business was being created and we were having success. Mr McLetchie might not like that, but it is good news for Scotland that it happens.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The patterns of last year and the year before are exactly the same. The Executive is using business in Scotland as a milch-cow for its extravagant spending plans. Is it not the case that the surpluses over budget predictions would have been enough to reduce business rates in Scotland to the same level that our competitors in England and Wales have had over the past two years and that there is no need whatever to increase the rate poundage for the forthcoming year?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Mr McLetchie makes bold statements about taxation reduction, but of course he does not admit in his speeches that the way that he would finance that would be to reduce our enterprise budgets and all the other budgets that contribute to the success of the Scottish economy and to the quality of life in Scotland, which is helping us to ensure that the economy remains a success. The reality is that corporation tax and all other business taxes in the United Kingdom are lower than they were in all those Tory years—Michael Howard might want to bring them back, but we are going to try to ensure that he does not have that chance. There are now incentives for Scottish companies and universities to invest in research and development in a way that never existed in those Tory years. We now have a business climate in Scotland in which Scottish businesses can grow, supported by a tax system that gives them incentives to do so. That is something that we are all proud of and we are going to march on with it in the years to come. I am happy to debate that with Mr McLetchie on any occasion.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

There are two urgent questions. I call Trish Godman.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Yesterday was both a good and a bad day for me. In the morning, Ferguson Shipbuilders was awarded an order for a Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency vessel. Two hours later, I was informed of the closure of the Automobile Association office in Erskine, with the possible loss of 230 jobs. As a local member, I know that the sudden decision of the AA to close the office comes as very bad news for its loyal and hardworking employees and is a serious blow to the local economy. I ask the First Minister and the Scottish Executive to support that fine work force by engaging in discussion with the company to persuade it to stay in Scotland and particularly in Erskine.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Trish Godman raises two issues. The Deputy First Minister and the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department will of course engage with the AA, both before the decision is implemented—in the hope that the company might perhaps review its decision—and, if it is implemented, in the same positive way in which we have been able to assist people in the same situation into new employment and training in many other parts of Scotland.

With Trish Godman, I welcome the decision to allocate the work on the new fisheries protection vessel to the Ferguson yard in her constituency. I hope that not only will that vessel, when it is built, sail the seas with pride for Scotland, but that the yard will have a successful future in years to come.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

What assessment has been made of the capacity of Scotland's already overcrowded jails to deal with the transfer of disruptive prisoners from Northern Ireland? Although it may be the case that Scotland should strive to accommodate such prisoners as a contribution to the peace process, does the First Minister agree that such a decision should be taken in this Parliament after very full consideration, rather than being railroaded through under the Sewel convention, which denies this Parliament the opportunity for proper scrutiny of what is a devolved matter?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Use of the Sewel convention is an entirely appropriate way to make the decision. The outcome of the measure—if the Parliament supports it—will be to institute a system whereby no prisoner will be transferred to a Scottish jail without the express permission of the Scottish Executive's Minister for Justice and her agreement to the decision.

I normally have more respect for Ms Sturgeon than I have for some members of her party, but I found yesterday's incitement on the issue absolutely despicable. The peace process in Northern Ireland is at a delicate stage, dealing with difficult issues including those relating to prisoners. If we in Scotland can help with those issues and play our part, we should do so, and do so willingly. For Ms Sturgeon to state that

"Scottish prisons are already heavily overcrowded"

and that ministers

"want the power to import some of the UK's worst terrorists into Scottish jails"

incites a reaction that I think makes her remarks so wrong from a democratic politician that she should withdraw them. She should take them back and take part in the Northern Ireland peace process. What she said was shocking.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what the top three priorities will be for the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-697)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The agenda for the next meeting of the Cabinet will be finalised tomorrow.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Can I respectfully suggest that the issue of low pay and women workers is shifted to the top of the agenda for the next Cabinet meeting? Thousands of women workers—nursery nurses—have been compelled this week to withdraw their labour in pursuit of a reasonable national pay agreement. Those women workers, who have not had their pay reviewed for 16 years, have been trying to negotiate with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for the past two years, and are now compelled to take all-out strike action. Will the First Minister come off the fence on the issue? Will he back those essential workers, who deliver a national education and child care strategy and who therefore deserve a national pay agreement?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I want to make it clear, as I have done in the chamber on many previous occasions, that I believe that nursery nurses do not just a fabulous job, but a very important job throughout Scotland, whether they work in the private sector, the voluntary sector or the public sector. They assist with the delivery of services to the youngest children in our society, who need the best possible start before entering primary school.

The negotiations over wages between the employers and the nursery nurses are a matter for the local authorities and trade unions, which should be involved in negotiations. I do not seek to allocate blame to either side, but they should get round the table locally and, if necessary, nationally, to discuss the way out of the current situation. It is not satisfactory in the modern world for parents and young children to be disadvantaged by situations such as the present one. I strongly urge both COSLA and Unison to get round the table, to get the dispute resolved and to get our children back to enjoying once again the service that nurseries provide.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The First Minister has once again avoided the question. There is no need for and no point in nursery nurses getting back round the table with COSLA if COSLA rejects the very principle of a national pay agreement.

I have asked the First Minister several times—and ask him again today—whether he believes that a nursery nurse in one part of Scotland deserves the same salary as a nursery nurse in another part of Scotland. In other words, does he agree that there should be a national pay agreement? Some 81 per cent of the nursery nurses who were balloted voted for all-out strike action. I say to the First Minister that they voted with regret and with heavy hearts, but they were left with no alternative. The nursery nurses of Scotland and Unison believe in a national pay agreement. Will he say today that he agrees that there should be a national pay agreement?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I want the dispute to be resolved and nursery nurses to be properly rewarded for the job that they do, but whether there is a national agreement or a series of local agreements is a matter for the nursery nurses' employers and their trade union. I understand that the trade union at a local level reaching local agreements in a number of areas but not in others is a difficult situation for the union and the employers, but they have a duty and a responsibility to get round the table and to resolve the dispute. Again, I urge them to do so. It is right that they take that responsibility seriously and act on it.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the First Minister whether the interception of personal communication in Scotland is limited and appropriate. (S2F-704)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Yes and yes. The authorisation of interception by Scottish ministers is strictly controlled and limited by law to the prevention or detection of serious crime. Independent oversight is provided by the interception of communications commissioner. The commissioner's most recent report makes it clear that Scottish ministers have issued warrants only where their use is absolutely justified and in accordance with the law.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The First Minister will be aware that there is concern about the increase in the number of requests to grant or modify warrants to intercept communications and the implications for the civil right to privacy. Does he agree that as much information about his decisions as possible should be in the public domain, without compromising the original reason for the warrant? More important, will he assure the Parliament that he will grant warrants only in accordance with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and that, critically, there will be no repeat of the decisions that were taken in the 1980s, when the communications of trade union leaders such as Joan Ruddock and Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament campaigners were intercepted simply because of their campaigns against the Government of the day?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have the responsibility and the legal right to sign warrants for interception only if those warrants are associated with serious crime. Neither the First Minister nor any other Executive minister signs warrants on the ground of national security, which is a matter for ministers at Westminster, or for any matter other than one that relates to serious crime.

However, where we have an opportunity through signing an interception warrant to assist the police in tracking, catching or monitoring the activities of those who are involved in serious organised crime, I assure members that we sign such warrants, and will continue to do so, under the strictest conditions and in the interests of the population of Scotland, their safety and security and in the interests of tackling serious organised crime. Each time I sign such a warrant, I think of those who are affected by the crime, drugs, violence, threats and intimidation that happen in too many communities throughout Scotland. When we sign such warrants, we do so with the duty to look after the population that we represent uppermost in our minds.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Will the First Minister discuss with the Home Office and the Home Secretary the advantages and potential disadvantages that can result from the use of phone-tapping evidence in court, including protecting the sources of the conversations from exposure?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The position that has been adopted is that the information that is secured through interception warrants is not admissible as evidence. We will keep that position under review over the years. I am sure that members will understand that it is partly for that reason that we do not go into detail on individual cases or on the general use to which the warrants are put. I assure the Parliament that the information that is obtained through interception warrants is vital to the police forces in Scotland in the execution of their duties. It is used carefully but deliberately to ensure that we tackle serious organised crime.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I am sure that the First Minister will join me in welcoming to the public gallery a group from the Royal National Institute of the Blind from across Edinburgh.

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has any specific plans to introduce a law on corporate killing. (S2F-695)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Ministers are currently considering the recent appeal court judgment in the Transco case, which decided that the charge of culpable homicide against Transco was irrelevant in law. If we conclude that the law in relation to corporate homicide needs to be changed, we will not hesitate to change it.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I welcome the positive approach that is being taken to this area of law. However, although traders can be prosecuted for selling contaminated meat, companies are rarely held to account for accidents that are entirely their responsibility. Will the Executive ensure that any proposed legislation will make clear the responsibilities that managers and directors have—that they will be found guilty of corporate killing if a tragedy occurs? Will the Executive also ensure that such legislation will allow for the prosecution of individual directors when they are genuinely at fault, that it will not simply lead to a bureaucratic paper-chase to find out who did, or did not, do what, and that lessons will be learned from such tragedies?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We have said before, in response to questions from Karen Gillon on the Transco case, that this is a complex area of law. We are considering exactly those kinds of issue to ensure that any new provisions that we might require are effective and properly targeted at those who are at fault.

In response to Mike Pringle's second point, I can say that we do not want to add to the bureaucracy. An important factor in dealing with any tragedy is trying to prevent it from happening again, and that will be uppermost in our minds when we make decisions on the matter.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Notwithstanding the complexities of the legal case, does the First Minister accept that there is a real desire in my constituency for there to be a change in the law because people do not believe that the current law adequately allows the Crown to hold companies accountable for their actions, or inactions, that result in the deaths of individuals? Will he undertake to ensure that ministers and law officers conclude their discussions as quickly as possible to ensure that this loophole in the law is closed, so that other families who—God forbid—find themselves in the same situation as the Findlay family are not left feeling that the deaths of their loved ones were in vain and that the legal system is not able adequately to address their concerns?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am happy to give Karen Gillon that assurance. We are studying the matter and will reach conclusions on it as quickly as we can. We will do so in a responsible and reasonable way, taking account of all the implications of any decisions that we might reach. As soon as we have reached our conclusions, the Parliament will be the first to know.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Executive is making on the national waste plan in respect of reducing the amount of waste being produced and landfilled. (S2F-698)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Scotland produces too much waste, and Scottish local authorities send too much waste to landfill. It is a challenge for businesses and individuals alike not only to reduce the amount of waste that is landfilled, but—importantly—to minimise the amount of waste that we produce. The strategic waste fund is helping to fund waste minimisation initiatives, and levels of both recycling and composting are now increasing.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I recognise that there has been a welcome increase in recycling and composting. Nevertheless, the Executive has abandoned its 1999 target of a 1 per cent annual reduction in waste production. As well as having a major environmental impact, the ever-increasing amount of waste being produced and landfilled has a major social impact. The villages of Greengairs and Wattston in North Lanarkshire are home to Europe's biggest landfill site. The First Minister is well aware of the dire situation that the residents of those villages face, because he promised them environmental justice when he visited them in February 2002. It is not justice to give these villages another landfill site.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question!

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

When will the First Minister recognise the need for an annual reduction in the amount of waste that is being produced in Scotland? Moreover, when will he return to Greengairs to explain to the people there why the Scottish Executive is minded—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Come on, Mr Ballard.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

—to approve another landfill site?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is precisely because of our concern for the community of Greengairs that we did not allow North Lanarkshire Council to agree the planning application in question when it wished to do so. Indeed, we called in the application to ensure that appropriate conditions were being imposed on any such application.

Mr Ballard will understand that, given the legal constraints that are on me, it is difficult for me to comment on the application. However, I will address the two issues that he has raised, the first of which is waste. We must first stabilise the level of waste that is being created in Scotland. Moreover, we have to realise that individuals and businesses throughout Scotland must play their part in achieving that aim, because it is not something that Government alone can do. We have to change the culture in Scotland with regard to the creation of waste. Furthermore, we must secure better ways of dealing with that waste not just through recycling and composting but by reducing landfill and other damaging ways in which waste leaves a bad legacy across our countryside.

We must also ensure that we learn lessons from past mistakes. It is precisely because of the conversations that I had with people in Greengairs two years ago that we now have a commitment to improve environmental information, to reform planning laws and to ensure that the national waste fund has more money and makes a bigger contribution than ever before. This Executive is committed to improving the environment and environmental justice for Scotland's communities over a range of issues.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

That concludes First Minister's question time.

Point of Order

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This point of order is further to the one that I raised with you a fortnight ago. I promised then that I would revisit the matter.

With reference to the relevant parts of the Parliament's standing orders, will you rule on whether it is competent for an MSP to lodge a parliamentary question to the Executive on a decision that was taken by MSPs following a debate in which this Parliament might have been misled about the legality of the action that was proposed by the Executive and subsequently supported by the majority of MSPs?

The parliamentary question that I had ruled out by the chamber desk this week did not imply that the First Minister had responsibility or should be accountable for a reserved policy area. However, in light of the doubt that eminent lawyers in the UK are now casting on the legality of the war with Iraq, is the First Minister not enabled by this Parliament's principles of accountability and transparency to confirm or correct his assurance to MSPs in the debate on Iraq last March that, even without a specific United Nations resolution, war with Iraq was legal? Surely the First Minister has a general responsibility under rule 13.3.3 of the standing orders to ensure that statements that he makes and that Parliament votes on are founded on legality and, if doubt is cast on that, to investigate the matter so that it might be corrected if necessary.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I was intending to give you a quick rule 13.3.3(b) answer. However, because your point of order was so long, I would like to read and reflect on it and, as usual—[ Interruption. ]

Order. I shall come back to the member on her point of order this afternoon.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Rates of pay for all NHS Scotland staff, regardless of origin, are set nationally by the appropriate functional Whitley council.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Will the minister investigate the recent Sunday Mail reports about a recruitment agency called Bankvale Associates Ltd, which charges Filipino nurses £400 for job interviews? The agency gets £800 from the NHS for every nurse recruited, but the nurses are left with only £8 per day, after deductions for loan repayments and rental charges that are up to three times the norm. Will the minister take urgent action to stop such gang masters exploiting overseas workers, which is making a mockery of the Scottish Executive's fresh talent initiative?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

There is an issue for the NHS, and in particular for South Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust, about which agency, if any, it uses for recruitment purposes overseas. That apart, however, all the other issues to which Dennis Canavan referred are not the responsibility of the health service. I know that there is an issue about how much rent was charged and I understand that a tribunal is forthcoming about that, but the rent levels were not set by the NHS. Equally, any loans that the nurses took out in the Philippines are nothing to do with the NHS. However, as I said, I accept that there is an issue for the NHS about which agency, if any, is used. I know that this afternoon South Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust is meeting the agency that Dennis Canavan referred to. I have asked the trust to present me with a report promptly after that meeting, so I will look further into the particular issues that are the concern of the NHS.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Is the minister aware that, according to the Royal College of Nursing, the number of nurses who are joining the NHS from abroad may be starting to decline, yet the number of nurses who are leaving Scotland is very much on the increase, which, together, means fewer nurses for the Scottish NHS? Does he accept that in a global nursing market we will continue to lose experienced staff to other countries if we do not give them appropriate terms and conditions to retain them here in Scotland?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

First, nurses from overseas get exactly the same terms and conditions as any other nurses, as I indicated in my first answer. Secondly, Shona Robison's arithmetic hardly reflects the record increase in the number of qualified nurses in the work force. As last week's statistics showed, there were more than 1,000 extra qualified nurses in the work force last year. I have looked back to 1984 and can tell the member that that was the biggest increase by far in all that time.

There are issues, of course. Because we are expanding the work force and improving the health service, we want still more nurses. International recruitment is part of that, but it has to be done within an ethical framework, so that we attract people only from countries that can afford to lose nurses. We in Scotland have been observing that practice pretty strictly. However, within those parameters, I accept that it is legitimate and important to recruit from overseas.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

What packages is the minister offering to health boards to attract people such as foreign-registered dentists to come to Scotland and serve an introductory period for registration to work in the health service?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

David Davidson asked that question of Tom McCabe and my answer will be no different. We are looking at the whole issue in relation to the current consultation on the dental work force. David Davidson knows that there are no special packages at the moment, but the matter will be considered within the broader picture.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in seeking to address "unintended consequences" of the December European Union fisheries negotiations. (S2O-1414)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

We expect the Commission to propose significant improvements to the haddock special permit arrangements this month.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

There has been no timescale for some time now, so will the minister say exactly when the decisions will be made? Does he appreciate that this is a difficult time for Scotland's fishing communities, whose livelihoods depend on substantial changes being made to the discriminatory and draconian deal that was signed in Brussels? Is he seeking to scrap the haddock permit system and to take the traditional haddock grounds out of the cod protection area? Is he seeking to take more days-at-sea per month for the fleet and, if not, given that the fleet will be in a worse position than it was last year, will he introduce an aid package?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The fleet is not in a worse position than it was last year, because we secured a 49 per cent increase in its haddock quota. I cannot tell Richard Lochhead precisely when the Commission will announce its proposals, because that is a matter for the Commission, not for me. The regime is not draconian or discriminatory. We are trying, with some success to date, to secure necessary amendments to the cod protection area boundaries; significant adjustments to the ratio of United Kingdom haddock quota that can be taken inside and outside the cod protection area; a mid-year review of the special management arrangements, in conjunction with the Norwegians; pragmatic accounting arrangements to deal with all haddock catches; and a pragmatic approach with national discretion to take into account small bycatches of haddock taken in other fisheries, especially the nephrops fishery.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What progress has been made in resolving the absurd anomaly that I raised in the chamber nearly two months ago whereby 30 skippers from the Fife Fish Producers Organisation had already exhausted their haddock quota from the cod protection zone? They are mainly prawn fishermen but, without permits, whatever haddock they take as bycatch anywhere in the North sea are judged automatically to be from the protection zone. Will the minister tell us how long those fishermen will be denied unrestricted access to fish for prawns in their traditional grounds? Will he further tell us what contribution to conservation is made by allowing the prawners access to the protection zone only if they dump any haddock that they take as a bycatch, given that the whole point of the zone is to protect cod stocks?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

One of the reasons why we might amend the boundaries of the cod protection zone is to take into account the fact that fishermen such as the ones to which Ted Brocklebank referred can catch haddock more easily in other areas and could, of course, apply for haddock permits to fish in those areas. As the member knows, part of what we are doing is about redirecting the effort of our fishermen away from areas where cod will be taken as a bycatch, whether by nephrops fishermen or white-fish fishermen. That effort redirection regime was vital to securing the increased haddock quota to which I referred.

Without that redirection of effort, there would be no decoupling and the North sea would have been closed.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Because of the way in which questions run, I call Ted Brocklebank again to ask question 3.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions have taken place between it and the Office of Communications regarding broadcasting content and regulation under the new communications regime. (S2O-1426)

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Ofcom has initiated a series of discussions and consultation meetings, which have included discussions with Scottish Executive officials. Ofcom has been made aware of the issues relating to broadcasting in Scotland and wishes to establish a good, practical working relationship with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive within the bounds of the constitutional settlement.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the minister believe that the Parliament should have a clear view on the content of television and radio programmes that are broadcast in Scotland, particularly in relation to regionality and originality? Is the Executive happy that Scottish Television and Grampian Television could be taken over by an international media conglomerate with its own agenda on increasing audience share and the kind of programming required to do so? Does the minister share my view that, despite the fact that broadcasting is a reserved matter, it is of the utmost importance that the Parliament gets into a dialogue with the new Scottish office of Ofcom, which is to be based in Glasgow, to make its views crystal clear on the importance of broadcasters maintaining quality, plurality, diversity and regionality in relation to Scottish broadcasting, no matter who their ultimate owners happen to be?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thought that that was a broadcast to the nation, but I thank Ted Brocklebank for it. I assure him that, when I meet the chief executive of Ofcom shortly, along with political representatives from the United Kingdom Parliament, including Anne McGuire, many of the issues that he raised in his lengthy and detailed but important question will be reflected on.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will contribute to addressing projected shortages in rail capacity between Scotland and London by 2015. (S2O-1398)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Scottish Executive is always prepared to engage with the Strategic Rail Authority, Network Rail and the Department for Transport to contribute to improvements to the rail network between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am sure that the minister is aware of the Commission for Integrated Transport's February report that predicted that the inter-rail capacity between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Scotland will be full by 2015. Does he agree that that will have a considerable impact on the Scottish economy in terms of the fares for passengers and freight? Does he also agree that rail speeds approaching those in Europe and Japan, which would cut journey times between Scotland and London to around three hours, would have a major impact in reducing air traffic between Scotland and London? In that context, will he have discussions with the UK Government on the possibility of advancing high-speed rail links between Scotland and London?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I will discuss that matter with Alistair Darling when I next meet him. I can see considerable benefits for Scotland if a high-speed rail link were developed. Clearly, however, that is a long-term project, as the delivery of such a line would involve the investment of tens of billions of pounds. In the meantime, my priority is to deliver the package of rail projects that the Scottish Executive is committed to. Over the next 10 years or so, we will continue to contribute significant amounts of money to new rail projects.

The projections on which the Commission for Integrated Transport has based its analysis relate to an expansion of the rail network with more passengers than ever before wanting to make use of the rail services between Scotland and London. It is vital that, in order to achieve that goal, we continue to improve and upgrade the quality of the service over the next 10 to 15 years.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

What impact would capacity constraints on the east coast main line have on the modest financial requirement for the upgrade that is required between Aberdeen and Edinburgh to allow full freight facilities to be used on that part of the line?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

That question falls into the category of issues that are currently being considered and are part of the Scottish Executive's priorities for the next few years. I am confident that we can find a solution to the problem that presents itself. The funding partners for the project have yet to be agreed but, because of its scale, the project can achieve a great deal for a few million pounds of investment. I am determined to ensure that funding partners are found in the coming months. It might take a little longer to get to the construction phase, of course, but confirming the project and the funding and giving confidence to people in the north-east that we can move ahead are vital.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

How will the constraints that have been mentioned affect the sleeper services between London and Scotland, particularly the service to Fort William? Is the minister aware of that service's ticketing problems and, if so, has he spoken to ScotRail about them?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I am concerned that, too often, politicians wake up in the morning and hear the reports on "Good Morning Scotland" that the sleeper service is once more an hour or two late. That quality of service is simply not good enough if we want to expand the number of passengers making use of the sleeper. I am committed to retaining the sleeper service and to finding ways of improving its quality. Obviously, those efforts include work on the ticketing problems and the integrated ticketing that can be made available for services into the Highlands.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support it is giving to the City of Edinburgh Council to co-ordinate future transport planning with neighbouring local authorities. (S2O-1407)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Scottish Executive supports all Scotland's regional transport co-operatives to better plan and co-ordinate transport issues between neighbouring authorities. Along with nine other local authorities, the City of Edinburgh Council is a member of the south-east Scotland transport partnership. At the SESTRAN conference at the end of last year, I announced the investment of £4.5 million to enable local authorities jointly to fund activities in a co-ordinated way in the SESTRAN area.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Given that the recently announced proposal for a park-and-ride site at Straiton had to go to the Scottish Executive on appeal before it was approved, will the minister confirm that future proposals for park-and-ride sites that are vital to relieving traffic congestion in south Edinburgh will be dealt with speedily? Will he encourage neighbouring authorities to work with Edinburgh in relieving traffic congestion, which would help all commuters from Lothian, the Borders and Fife?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

It is fair to say that problems such as those that Mike Pringle has identified have been part of the reason for developing proposals for stronger regional transport partnerships. We hope to produce a white paper in the next few weeks that will set out our proposals in more detail.

In and around Edinburgh, there are ambitious plans for park-and-ride developments at Newcraighall, Ferry Toll, Straiton, Todhills and Hermiston. However, they have not been progressing as quickly as I would like. We need to ensure that the considerable resources that the Scottish Executive has committed to those projects are spent on them as soon as possible so that those facilities are available for the travelling public.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made under the small units initiative in identifying units within the Executive that are suitable for relocation from Edinburgh to rural Scotland. (S2O-1402)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

In March 2003, the Executive identified approximately 80 posts for relocation from Edinburgh to rural Scotland under the small units initiative. Since then, progress has been made in identifying locations for those posts.

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

I am sure that the minister would agree that the small units review offers two benefits—the economic benefit to the area that is gaining the jobs and better government. For example, would it not be better if the Parliament's Gaelic service was based in an area that contains many Gaelic speakers? To that end, I request that the minister considers moving that unit to Skye, which will soon be readily accessible across a toll-free bridge.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Presiding Officer, the Parliament's Gaelic service might be a matter for you, rather than for me, but I am sure that you heard Mr Farquhar Munro's comments on the subject.

I agree with the member's initial point about the benefits that the small units initiative can bring to rural, island and peripheral areas of Scotland and their local economies. Three, four or five jobs in such localities can make a significant difference.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

What steps is the Executive taking to update relocation strategies, such as the small units initiative, by increasing the targets for the number of relocated jobs in the light of the enabling new technologies and the experience that points to increased levels of staff retention in rural areas?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Mr Mather will know that the Scottish Executive has recently announced further work on refining and proceeding with the relocation policy. The Finance Committee on which the member serves is also conducting an inquiry, so there is a considerable focus on this area of policy. The enabling technology that the member mentioned is one of the central and considerable benefits that can be brought to bear, as it can assist in the process of the relocations that we want to happen.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The minister will be aware of the bid for the crofter housing grants administration unit to be relocated to Tiree, which is one of the most fragile island environments on the west coast of Scotland. Given that the grant scheme applies only to the Highlands and Islands, surely it makes sense to locate the unit in the area. Will the minister assure me that he understands how important the decision is to the island community of Tiree? Will he guarantee that a final decision will be taken as quickly as possible? I would prefer it if he did not reply by saying, "Shortly".

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

We will take the decision as quickly as we can, consistent with good decision making. I am sure that my colleague Allan Wilson will have considered carefully Mr Lyon's points about Tiree.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made on the reopening of the Airdrie to Bathgate rail link. (S2O-1384)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The first stages of public consultation have now started and an engineering feasibility study will be completed this month. The project steering group will then consider the next stages of the design and consultation work that is needed to keep the project on track for completion in 2008.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Does the minister agree that the reopening of the Airdrie to Bathgate railway line must benefit the communities of Plains and Caldercruix in my constituency and those of Armadale and Blackridge in the constituency of my colleague Mary Mulligan? Does he agree that that necessitates the construction of new railway stations in those villages to ensure that local residents will have full access to this additional public transport route?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Yes. Karen Whitefield has raised concerns about the breadth of the public consultation exercise that is under way and about the location of some of its public meetings. As the Scottish Executive is likely to be a significant funder of the Airdrie to Bathgate line, I assure her that I will use all my efforts to encourage further public consultation meetings. We have only just started the consultation process, which is likely to take place over 12 to 18 months, but the sooner that we can hold meetings in Caldercruix, Plains and the other towns that she identified, the better. It is important that we get the support of all local residents and communities for this important new rail line, which we all want to see delivered.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Bristow Muldoon's question will be on the Bathgate to Airdrie rail link.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I am encouraged by the minister's commitment to try to achieve the timetable to reopen the line for 2008. Given that the Bathgate to Airdrie rail link was identified as the most significant public transport project in the central Scotland corridor study, does he recognise that the link is essential to the Executive's aim of reducing congestion across the central belt? With that in mind, will he give a firm commitment that he will try to ensure that, unlike the Highland sleepers, the Bathgate to Airdrie trains will arrive ahead of timetable?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I am happy to give a commitment that I will do everything in my power to achieve that. In the context of the central Scotland corridor study, it is important that we ensure that we invest in the major public transport projects and try, if at all possible, to deliver them quicker than is currently timetabled.

It is easy to invest in established road improvement schemes because we have a department that is geared up to doing that and has been doing that for a number of years. However, many of our public transport schemes are of a type that we have not seen for a long time. For example, as I mentioned at last week's question time, we have just started work on the Larkhall to Milngavie line, which is the first branch line to be reopened for 25 years. Many of the skills that are required to deliver such projects are no longer easily available in Scotland. Part of the challenge both for politicians and for the engineers and operational people in the rail industry will be to ensure that, as a team, we can deliver these projects on time and on budget.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The minister will be aware that the specification to the consultants from Babtie Group Ltd is based on a state-of-the-art scheme that includes full electrification. Although that is laudable, such a specification is likely to make the scheme substantially more expensive than it would be if it were of a more basic and utilitarian nature. Will he ensure that the decision on the scheme is based not simply on the costings of the state-of-the-art scheme but on alternative costings for a more utilitarian scheme, which might in fact be more deliverable?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I welcome Kenny MacAskill's call for frugality—the first time that he has called for that in the Parliament. When Kenny MacAskill encourages me to take a more utilitarian and less expensive approach, I am delighted to take him up on the offer. However, we want high-quality rail projects with, if possible, higher speeds and better times. If we are to succeed in getting people to transfer out of their cars and on to the rail network, we need to be as ambitious as we can be for public transport in Scotland.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what implications the rate of retirement of teachers will have for its ability to ensure that there are sufficient teacher numbers to meet its targets. (S2O-1399)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Teacher age profiles are taken into account in calculating the estimated numbers of teachers required to meet our targets.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The minister will be aware that, for some time now, the SNP has highlighted the need to double or even triple the number of new recruits into teacher training colleges. Bearing in mind the facts that there was an 11 per cent increase last year in the number of teachers retiring, that that trend is likely to continue, and that we will need 1,500 teachers on average each year just to replace those who are retiring, what measures will the minister take to try to bring more people into the teaching profession?