Scottish Parliament, 16 December 2004

447 contributions from 84 members. The official report.

Official Report 16 December 2004

Defence Reviews

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2165, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on defence reviews from a Scottish perspective, and three amendments to the motion. I invite those members who wish to contribute to the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Later today, the Secretary of State for Defence Geoff Hoon will rise in the House of Commons to make a statement on the future of the Scottish regiments. If, as we expect, he announces that the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Royal Scots will be merged into one battalion and the remaining four existing single-battalion infantry regiments in Scotland will be amalgamated into one super-regiment, that will constitute an act of political vandalism against the Scottish armed forces. I hope that the Parliament will support my motion and send a clear message to Geoff Hoon and his colleagues at Westminster that the Scottish Parliament will not tolerate such behaviour and that it will speak up for our regiments that have served this country and the British Army so well over so many years.

My motion refers to the impact on Scotland of proposed defence cuts. This is not only about the army. The Ministry of Defence's command paper published in July, "Delivering Security in a Changing World: Future Capabilities", set out in general terms a number of areas that were heading for longer-term restructuring and re-equipping. The paper also outlined a series of cuts in services, including reductions in manpower: 7,500 for the Royal Air Force and 1,500 each in the Royal Navy and the Army.

As members are aware, there has been a great deal of uncertainty about the future of Scottish bases and regiments. There was a particular question mark over RAF Kinloss and an announcement was made yesterday about the loss of a squadron based there. Other bases, such as HMS Gannet—the Navy's base in Prestwick, Ayrshire—could face the axe. There will be serious economic implications for Scotland.

However, it is fair to say that the primary concern for many in Scotland surrounds the future of our six infantry regiments. The proposal is that the Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers be merged and that all five battalions then be amalgamated into a super-regiment of five battalions. That proposal has been vigorously opposed with an energetic campaign headed by the save the Scottish regiments group, backed up by support from across the political parties.

The arguments in favour of retaining the existing six Scottish infantry regiments have been well rehearsed, not least during the members' business debate on the subject that I led in the chamber on 23 September. In the short debate this morning, I do not intend to repeat all those arguments, with which I am sure members are familiar. I will say, however, that there has been an attempt in some quarters to portray the proposal for amalgamation as a military one. Certainly, General Sir Michael Jackson, who has been pushing the plans, has no sense of regimental loyalty, coming, as he does, from a Parachute regiment background. However, we need to be absolutely clear that any decision that will be taken will be political and not military. It is up to the Army board, stuffed full of Ministry of Defence mandarins, to take the final decision. If Geoff Hoon, Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown or Tony Blair wanted to stop the plans going through, it would be entirely within their power to do so. There should be no attempt to pass the blame to the military.

This is not just a Conservative issue, although I am proud of the role that my party has played at the forefront of the campaign to retain our regiments. I am pleased that I have had the support of colleagues from other parties. Indeed, during my members' business debate, politicians from across the chamber spoke with one voice in defence of our six infantry regiments. In that spirit, I am delighted to say that we can accept the amendments from the Scottish National Party and the Liberal Democrats this morning.

However, I am both surprised and disappointed by the terms of the Labour amendment. I had hoped that we would have the support of Labour members this morning. I remind John Home Robertson that when he spoke in my members' business debate, he said:

"I hope that my colleagues at Westminster will prevail against the military top brass, in this case General Jackson."—[Official Report, 23 September; c 10640.]

Similarly, Dr Elaine Murray MSP said:

"I express my unequivocal support for the retention of the identity of the King's Own Scottish Borderers"—[Official Report, 23 September; c 10648.]

It seems that John Home Robertson has made a U-turn of his own. No doubt he will clarify shortly the reason for his Damascene conversion. I refer him to remarks that were made by a spokeswoman for the First Minister, Jack McConnell MSP, and which were quoted in The Scotsman on 8 October:

"The First Minister has always made his views clear ... he recognises the need to modernise the army, to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

However he also thinks the identity of the six Scottish battalions is important, both to their local communities and to Scotland, and those identities should be protected within any new structure. He does not think that the suggestion to merge the Royal Scots with the KOSB serves that view."

I hope that those words mean that Mr McConnell will support my motion and that his Labour colleagues should feel no compunction in so doing.

We should be clear that retaining identity should not mean keeping cap badges as part of a super-regiment that will have one tartan and one regimental headquarters. We will settle for nothing less than the retention of six single-battalion Scottish regiments, and those who support our motion should be quite clear that that is what we mean.

What makes this issue particularly poignant is the fact that the Black Watch has just returned this week from Iraq, having served with distinction. The regiment has lost five of its men, whose funerals we have seen conducted. What a betrayal it would be of the service of those fine men for their regiment to be amalgamated—in effect, out of existence—by the Government. The sight of Geoff Hoon in Iraq last week with the Black Watch was sickening. One moment he was patting the brave troops on the back, and the very next, he was prepared to stab them in the back with the proposed amalgamations.

This Parliament can send a clear message today to Geoff Hoon and Tony Blair. We will defend our Scottish regiments; we will not have vandalism of our historic traditions; and we will not stomach a cut in our armed forces at this dangerous time.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the proposed cuts in manpower from the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and Army throughout the United Kingdom; further notes that this would mean the merger of the Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers into one battalion and the amalgamation of all five battalions into a super regiment of five battalions and a reduction in jobs and operations at RAF Lossiemouth and Kinloss; believes that this will have an adverse economic impact on the areas affected by the cuts; further believes that the Scottish regiments are an important part of the tradition and heritage of Scotland; notes that the recent war in Iraq was the latest conflict which showed Scotland's regiments to be a modern, effective fighting force; believes that, in a time of increased commitments across the globe, our armed forces must have the necessary resources and structure to protect our country, deter aggression and safeguard our vital interests in the wider world, and, accordingly, condemns any cuts and mergers and, in particular, believes that the six existing single battalion Scottish infantry regiments should be retained.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I will address some of the points that Murdo Fraser raised shortly, but before I go any further, I reiterate my support for the First Minister's position on the six battalions in the Scottish division.

I have strong personal feelings about the subject—first, as the son of a King's Own Scottish Borderer, and secondly, as a constituency MSP for the Royal Scots area. The Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers are two of the finest regiments in any army anywhere on the planet. No one should forget that the Royal Scots is the first regiment of foot in the British Army and is affectionately known as Pontius Pilate's bodyguard because of its long record.

I was involved in the campaign against the plan to amalgamate those two regiments under the Tory Government in 1991 and nothing has happened to change my mind since then. However, one would have to be especially gullible to support any motion on the subject that had been lodged by the Tory party in this Parliament. We have a party that professes undying commitment to the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament moving a motion in this devolved Parliament that challenges the authority of Westminster in relation to defence policy. This might be the season of good will, but I recognise humbug when I hear it.

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

rose—

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I am sorry—I have only a short time to speak.

It gets worse. Here in the Scottish Parliament, which has no responsibility for defence, the Tories swear total commitment to six infantry battalions, the RAF stations, the naval bases and everything else. Yet what did they do when they were in power at Westminster in the Parliament that is responsible for defence? I have a very long memory. I was a member of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee when a certain Malcolm Rifkind sold Rosyth naval dockyard down the river. Rosyth had the best bid for Trident refitting, but a Scottish Tory Secretary of State for Defence took that contract to Devonport for political reasons.

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

Will the member take an intervention?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I apologise to the member; time is short in this debate.

I was on the Defence Select Committee when Tom King was Secretary of State for Defence. Members might remember the "Options for Change" white paper that was presented by that Tory secretary of state in 1991. At that time, the Cheshire regiment was deployed on a difficult and dangerous operation in Bosnia and—can we believe it—was under threat of amalgamation.

Tom King proposed to amalgamate the Royal Scots and the KOSB, but we managed to beat the amalgamation threat in 1991 because of the excellent recruitment and retention record of most of the Scottish infantry battalions. I am afraid that that case cannot be made as effectively in 2004. We all know that the Scottish infantry division is heavily dependent on recruitment from Commonwealth countries. If we can learn one lesson from that, it is that we need to do more to make careers in the armed forces more attractive to recruits and their families throughout Scotland.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I am sorry, but I do not have time. If the Tory party had allowed more time for the debate I could have taken interventions, but it did not do so.

In 1991, the Tory Government forced through the amalgamation of the Queen's Own Highlanders and the Gordon Highlanders. That amalgamation disrupted centuries of military tradition in the Highlands and the north-east. With the greatest respect to Murdo Fraser, we do not need lectures about military traditions from the party that wound up the Gordons. No amount of opportunist rhetoric can conceal the fact that we cannot trust the Tories on defence. Members should remember what they did to Rosyth and what they did to the Gordon Highlanders.

I do not believe that proposals to amalgamate regiments are ever initiated by politicians. No politician in his right mind would deliberately challenge deeply held local loyalties anywhere. The plans to reorganise the armed forces come from the military. They are driven by professional soldiers, who are rightly determined to learn the lessons that Lord Raglan did not learn before the battle of Balaclava: we must keep our forces and our tactics at least two steps ahead of the potential enemy. That means that we must have modern structures, which is the underlying issue.

It would take a brave politician to face down the chief of the general staff, General Sir Mike Jackson. I have met him a number of times, and I will say simply that he is an extremely impressive officer and that it does not surprise me that he is affectionately known in the armed forces—and has been for a long time—as the "Prince of Darkness". I have no doubt that he has a clear strategy for more effective and flexible armed forces to deal with the new threats and risks of the 21st century, which he is driving forward in the Ministry of Defence.

Notwithstanding that, it should be possible to combine the best of our military traditions with the needs of 21st century military operations. The First Minister has expressed his strong support for the retention of the identities of the six Scottish infantry battalions in a modern British army. The Black Watch has demonstrated the very best of Scottish military commitment and professionalism in the peacemaking operation in Iraq. I sincerely hope that when Geoff Hoon makes his statement in the House of Commons this afternoon, he will announce a new structure for the army that will make it possible to continue the magnificent military traditions of all six infantry battalions in the Scottish infantry division in the army of the future.

I move amendment S2M-2165.4, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:

"acknowledges the importance of Scotland's substantial contribution to the armed forces of the United Kingdom; notes the social and economic value of the military to communities throughout Scotland; believes that Scotland is rightly proud of the historic and current contribution of Scottish service personnel to the defence of the United Kingdom and to peacekeeping operations worldwide; accepts the need for the military to drive decisions about the structure of efficient armed forces for the modern world, and believes that the traditions, community links and identities of Scotland's infantry battalions should be maintained in the armed forces of the United Kingdom."

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

John Home Robertson gave us five minutes of history lesson and 50 seconds of fatuous waffle, which is what we have come to expect from the Government. I am astonished that the duly elected, democratic Labour Government of this country is going to be told what to do by the military. I thought that that kind of thing happened only in third-world countries—apparently not.

I quote from Kipling:

"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!' But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot; An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool—you bet that Tommy sees!"

We can replace the word "Tommy" with "the Black Watch", "the KOSB", or any of the other regiments and we can bet that Scottish soldiers are not bloomin' fools and that they see through the Government.

I brought with me a stack of blueys—letters from the field, which were sent to me from Iraq by soldiers who are serving in the Black Watch. The letters represent the views of soldiers, from privates to non-commissioned officers and senior officers. I will quote directly from some of the blueys so that the words of those soldiers are recorded in our Official Report:

"I have been sent here from (what was until now) a non-deployable post but, due to the lack of trained units Britain has to offer at short notice, there are no other units in a position to deploy rapidly." "We are serving out here ... with an Artillery Regiment that is serving in a role more normally filled by an infantry regiment ... In a period of 18 months they will have the opportunity to train on their artillery weapons for one 2-week period, because they are being deployed as infantry to fill a gap created by Options for Change." "The decision to reduce the armed forces ... can only add to the stress, strains and pressures already endured by us soldiers, wives and children. Some of us have been separated for 400 days in the last 2 years."

It makes me profoundly angry to read those messages and then to hear the managerial newspeak that emanates from a senior Government minister, who waffles away about how the emphasis is no longer on troop numbers but is on efficiencies and outcomes. Our soldiers deserve straight talking, not fatuous waffle, spin and deceit. They do not deserve the fatuous waffle that has spewed out of Westminster over the past few months and that we have just heard in the debate. The reality is that although money is no object when it comes to our weapons of mass destruction, the ordinary soldier is regarded as an expensive luxury.

I have heard it said that the United Kingdom has been involved in six wars in five years. I have not counted them, but if that is the case, we cannot expect our soldiers to be spread so thinly. Most people who join the army do so in the knowledge that at some time they might be expected to fight. Perhaps they do not anticipate that they will fight as often as they do—we have not anticipated that—or that they might occasionally be expected to fight in dubious circumstances.

In Scotland, most people who join up prefer to join a unit that has a strong and distinct identity. Young people go into the family regiment. In Perthshire, that regiment is the Black Watch, in which the ties are multigenerational and permeate the entire county and beyond. I believe that that is the case for all the other regiments. The experience of previous mergers, such as the one that led to the creation of the Highlanders in 1994, shows that it can take 10 years for recruitment to recover. Do we want that to happen to the whole of the Scottish division?

I will give the last word to a writer of one of the blueys:

"As a voter and a soldier I am writing to you for support, for you to question this decision and fight on our behalf to reverse the decision to reduce our armed services, as I am fighting for my life out here in Iraq in support of the politicians."

Shame on those politicians, and shame on Labour front-bench politicians in the Scottish Parliament, who display their contempt by their absence.

I move amendment S2M-2165.3, to insert at end:

"and condemns the fact that these proposals have been developed while Black Watch soldiers and other members of the armed forces are involved in a dangerous conflict in Iraq."

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Every defence review that has taken place post-1945 has had its critics, but the current review has far more than its fair share. It is obvious that the Government will be more than happy to accede to General Jackson's request that the remaining five regiments of the Scottish division be amalgamated into one super-sized regiment. As has been pointed out, General Jackson's background is in the Parachute regiment, which is a single regiment of three battalions that are drawn from throughout the country. General Jackson seems to think that that is a good model, which should be adopted by everyone else.

The general has failed to identify a believable rationale behind his argument. He wrote to me to explain that a multiple battalion is the modern way forward, because it would allow him to end the arms plot and it would allow trickle posting between battalions. Who is he trying to kid? Trickle postings between regiments already take place and do not depend on having a super-regiment. General Jackson says that the officers and men of the Scottish division are behind his plan, but people like him give consultation a bad name. The retention of single regiments was not even an option in his so-called consultation. The argument that a multi-battalion regiment is a necessary pre-condition for modern 21st century warfare is utter nonsense. The all-arms battle does not rely on large multibattalion regiments—quite the reverse. General Jackson does not help his argument when he tries to pull the wool over people's eyes in such a way.

I can put the case no better than did Brigadier Gary Barnett, a former colonel of the Black Watch, who said:

"We have seen no arguments that persuade us that battalions from large regiments are more operationally efficient or exhibit any advantage over single battalion regiments. It is clear to us that the advantages of a sense of belonging, continuity, regional connections, recruiting focus and esprit de corps far exceed the perceived disadvantages of the small regiment."

This is not the time to be proposing cuts in our armed forces. The Defence Committee of the House of Commons thinks that now is not the right time and the armed services think that it is not the right time. I believe that members of the Scottish Parliament should also send a message to the United Kingdom Government that it is not the right time. I say to John Home Robertson that we can speak for Scotland in this chamber.

How can a Government expect our armed forces to do more with less? When I left the Army some 10 years ago, I had served for two years in Northern Ireland and had also served in Gibraltar. In addition, I had done several tours in Germany—our garrisons are still there. In addition, we have troops in the Falklands, Belize and Cyprus and we have commitments in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and the middle east. When will those commitments stop? When will the Army's overstretch stop?

General John McColl, who is one of the most senior officers serving in Iraq, put it like this:

"You either work the Army harder or do less with them ... our capacity to conduct a number of these commitments is reduced with a reduction in the number of infantry battalions."

Yet Geoff Hoon, our distinguished Secretary of State for Defence, seriously proposes to cut some 6,500 men and women from the established strength of the Army, bringing it down to about the 100,000 mark. With that sort of strength, it will be impossible for the Army to carry out effectively the duties that we have placed upon it; the only other way it could do that would be if our commitments were cut. I am always an optimist, and I believe that serious terrorist operations in Northern Ireland are over, but we will need to station troops there for some time to come. Where does the Government expect to reduce our commitment? Are we signalling that we do not expect to be in Iraq for any length of time? Are going to cut and run from that unfortunate country?

The Liberal Democrats believe that it would be a mistake to cut our armed forces at this most difficult time in world affairs. We also believe that it would be foolish to deliver a self-inflicted wound by amalgamating our very effective Scottish infantry regiments into one over-large regiment for the whole country.

One of the reasons for amalgamating the Scottish infantry regiments is not based on sound military logic. If it were, surely the five Guards regiments—the Irish Guards, the Scots Guards, the Welsh Guards, the Coldstream Guards and the Grenadier Guards—should face amalgamation too. Why is that not the case? Because General Jackson would not dare: he knows that it is not a military argument to have one large regiment.

The Liberal Democrats will support the Conservative motion that is before us. That is the right thing for us to do. I am pleased that the Conservatives have accepted our amendment, as it expresses clearly the main reason that our six existing single-battalion regiments should be retained.

I move amendment S2M-2165.1, to insert at end:

"as the best way to maintain the operational effectiveness of the Scottish infantry."

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The open debate is tight, therefore I ask members to keep their speeches to four minutes.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is interesting that John Home Robertson, in his speech today, lost track of the notion of the new politics and took the opportunity to come forward with an argument that was aggressive but not based too much on the facts. The truth is that the Conservative party has shown genuine commitment on the issue; this is the second time that we have brought the matter to the chamber. Our record speaks for itself.

John Home Robertson was keen to raise the performance of past Conservative Governments. Indeed, the options for change review, which took place in the 1990s, made certain attempts to merge regiments, not least in my own area. As John Home Robertson rightly mentioned, the Gordons were subject to merger. I was an active part of the campaign against that merger. I take great pride in the fact that I spoke out against the merger then and I am proud to speak out against it again today. That merger served to give us a valuable lesson, which we need to ensure that we learn here and now.

The north-east area, which I represent, covers an area in the north, which recruits for the Gordons—or traditionally did—and an area in the south, which recruits for the Black Watch. It is easy to compare the amount of reaction in those two areas to the campaign against merger. I have taken great pride in going out on the streets of Montrose with my good friend Sid Mather to collect signatures in support of the Black Watch to try to head off this disastrous amalgamation. However, there has been hardly a peep from the area in the north that traditionally recruited to the Gordons. Above all else, that indicates that the sense of regimental loyalty, which has been retained by the Black Watch—and which is important to the commitment that our Army gives—has been lost in the area in the north as a result of the merger of the Gordons.

We must remember that what we are debating is not only the merger of the Scottish regiments. As our motion makes clear, we are experiencing an across-the-board cut in defence expenditure that will have a significant and serious economic impact throughout many areas of Scotland, not least in places such as Moray where two airbases could be threatened over time. Given that economic responsibilities are firmly in the Scottish Parliament's area of responsibility, it would be irresponsible of us not to address the issues.

We need only think back to the performance of the squadrons at RAF Kinloss and to the number of fishermen and seamen's lives that have been saved in the north Atlantic and North sea as a result of the efforts of the Nimrod crews that are based at Kinloss. One can only worry about how such safety measures will be implemented in the future. I am sure that all members share those concerns.

We are concerned that the proposals to merge the Scottish regiments are mirrored in other parts of the British Army, not least in the Royal Marines. In the constituency of Angus, which is represented by my colleague Andrew Welsh on the benches opposite, we also have RM Condor, which is an important base for 45 Commando squadron. From the reports that are being circulated today, it would appear that the Royal Marines are likely to be subjected to the same kind of merger that the Scottish regiments are experiencing, with all the potential impact on areas such as Arbroath if the base is closed or changed significantly.

The impact that Arbroath has had on the role of the Royal Marines over the years never ceases to amaze me. I remember being on holiday in Poole in Dorset and being surprised to find that all the young women who worked in the hotels there had Arbroath accents. Once I had spoken to them, however, that was not hard to understand. They told me that many of them had married marines and had, over time, been transferred to Dorset.

The Scottish Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that we address the issues that are before the chamber today. We have heard from members such as Mike Rumbles who have genuine experience in the Army. A number of members have also had experience in the Territorial Army. We need to listen to that wisdom and vote accordingly at decision time.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I make it clear from the start that, as I have only four minutes, I do not intend to take any interventions. Members can barrack as much as they like; I will not give way.

We need to face the fact that nothing that we say in the chamber this morning will make one iota of difference to the announcement that is due to be made by the Secretary of State for Defence later today. We had the opportunity to make our views known during the members' business debate that Murdo Fraser secured on 23 September. Indeed, some members who are in the chamber today took the opportunity to state their positions at that time.

Today's debate, on a reserved issue and in core parliamentary time, is all about the Conservative party making political capital out of whatever happens later today. I can understand the Conservatives doing that in the context of the probable general election in the next few months, especially given that they do not appear to be making much headway with the electorate. I speak in support of the amendment in the name of my colleague John Home Robertson. Whatever Roseanna Cunningham said about him, John Home Robertson has made his position clear: he made it clear on 23 September and he has done so again today.

I expect to be disappointed today, especially if we hear of the merger of the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Royal Scots. If that was not going to happen, I think that we would have heard more hints by now, unfortunately. As I said in my contribution to the members' business debate, I whole-heartedly support the retention of the identity of the KOSB, which recruits from Dumfries and Galloway, the Scottish Borders and Lanarkshire. I believe, as John Home Robertson's motion states, that the KOSB's traditions, community links and identity should be maintained. However, that may not happen. I make no bones about the fact that I will regret the merger deeply. If it happens, I believe that the KOSB will have been made the victim of recruitment and retention problems elsewhere. Nevertheless, no amount of posturing by the Conservatives or by any other party in the chamber will assist the KOSB.

Let me return to the facts. The debate is not about cuts in defence expenditure, even if it is portrayed as such. This year's UK spending review settlement will provide a 1.4 per cent increase in real terms per annum for the next four years in defence spending, which amounts to £3.7 billion. The settlement means that planned defence spending will have increased by 7 per cent between 1997 and 2008. On the other hand, planned defence spending fell under the last three years of the Tory Government by 15 per cent or £4.2 billion.

In 1994, as John Home Robertson said, the Queen's Own Highlanders were merged with the Gordon Highlanders. That was the second merger of regiments under a Tory Government in 35 years. In 1961, the Queen's Own Highlanders was formed by the merger of two other regiments. Defence reorganisation has occurred under Governments of both political persuasions. Oliver Letwin has made a commitment that all departments should have 0 per cent growth in budget over the first two years of the spending review period. That means that, under the Tories, the Ministry of Defence would have its budget reduced by £2.6 billion, which would put even more pressure on the Scottish regiments, rather than less. Peter Duncan, Murdo Fraser and anybody else who speaks today can posture all they like about reversing those decisions; the Tories' shadow secretary of state for defence does not think that that is possible.

I have no experience of the military. It may well be that the creation of one Scottish regiment, with battalions retaining an individual identity, will have some benefits to serving infantry soldiers. I do not know. Like John Home Robertson, I continue to support the retention of six distinct battalions at the very least. I will say one thing, though. I will not vote for a Tory motion that will achieve absolutely nothing for the Scottish regiments. The vote will be taken after the announcement has been made and it will make not one bit of difference.

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

I continue to be astonished by Elaine Murray. She argues that what we say in the chamber will not make a blind bit of difference. What she means is that the Labour Government at Westminster will pay absolutely no attention to Jack McConnell or the Labour Government here. That is a startling admission from Elaine Murray.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and to record the names of the young men from Fife who went to Camp Dogwood and did not come back: Kevin McHale; Stuart Grey; Paul Lowe; Scott McArdle; and their comrade Pita Tukatukawaqa from Fiji. In one week alone, Fife buried three young men, and the pain of the families goes on. As we welcome back the Black Watch, our thoughts naturally go to the families of those young men who have not come back. While those young men fought and died near Camp Dogwood, Geoff Hoon and Tony Blair were laying their own plans to get rid of those young men's regiment. Scotland's regiments are effective, professional and valued by everybody in Scotland and beyond. The recognition of that professionalism is why the Black Watch was sent to Camp Dogwood in the first place.

For all the strength of the American battalions, it was the Black Watch, with 850 men, which was sent to protect the backs of the United States troops. I have never believed that United Kingdom troops should have been sent to fight an illegal war, based on lies, but they followed the orders that they were given by the politicians—the same politicians who will take the decision today to disband and amalgamate the Scottish regiments. Those are not military decisions. They are not based on military imperatives. They are decisions that are taken by politicians at Westminster who, as Elaine Murray has said, feel free to ignore the democratic will of the Scottish people. Those politicians will now airbrush proud family and local regiments from history. There is a huge feeling of betrayal in Fife about the plans, but then Tony Blair, Geoff Hoon and Alistair Darling would know nothing of that, because they sent our young men to fight and die and did not bother to come to their funerals.

The plans to amalgamate and disband are opposed by soldiers, ex-soldiers and the wider Scottish community. [Interruption.] If Elaine Murray wishes to intervene, I would be happy to let her, but she should not sit there and hiss at me. Labour claims that it will retain the identity of the regiments by retaining the cap badges. That identity is rooted not in cap badges, but firmly in the communities that the soldiers come from. When that link is cut, there will no longer be a local identity. John Home Robertson commented about Rosyth and Devonport. It is true that the Tories awarded the contract to Devonport, but in 1997 the Labour Government had the opportunity to change the contract and it did not do so. The contract with Devonport continued.

This is a difficult debate for many people here, but there is great strength of feeling. A decision will be taken and, at 5 o'clock tonight, the Scottish National Party, like the Liberal Democrats, will support the Conservative motion because it is important—despite what Elaine Murray says—that the view of the Scottish Parliament is heard, and that that view is heard at Westminster.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As long as we spend more in the UK on the military than we do on transport, housing, and law and order, I will always argue for spending on militarism to be cut. However, the priorities for cutting defence spending should start with weapons of mass destruction. We must start with great white elephants such as Trident and the Eurofighter, which have turned into vast black holes of public expenditure, while the human defence resource barely stretches to a third of the MOD budget. Over the course of its entire lifetime, the Trident nuclear weapons system will cost a staggering £50,000 million—equivalent to the cost of 116 Scottish Parliament building projects. Trident is totally irrelevant in a world where the wielding of a craft knife on an aircraft does more to change global politics in one hour than nuclear weapons ever did over 40 years. Clearly, I am not the only one who believes so, because it was the mantra of Labour in opposition. Indeed, I even have a great photo of the First Minister sporting a lovely moustache at the Stirling Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament stall in the 1980s, proudly campaigning against the vast waste of public expenditure Trident was to become and still is today.

Scottish conventional troops have a role in the 21st century, but their primary role is peacekeeping, humanitarian work and disaster relief in a politically and environmentally turbulent world. I want to see the soldiers of the Black Watch on the telly, not involved in an illegal war in Iraq but performing humanitarian and peacekeeping duties, wearing the blue armband of the United Nations next to the red hackle. However, in designing a military that is fit for that purpose, I do not rule out that, at some future date, amalgamation, streamlining or efficiency savings in the Scottish regiments may be required. Indeed, flexibility in the Scottish force is needed to allow viable teams of specialists to get into areas to clear mines, while others restore drinking water supplies, for example. I do not know whether that flexibility can be delivered within the existing six regiments, but what I do know is that the current proposals have run roughshod over military personnel and civilians who share the deep sense of tradition, commitment to place and community, and intergenerational history of service. The attitude of the Executive and the MOD is that there is never a good time for reorganisation of the military, given its ongoing engagement in different theatres across the globe, but I could not think of a worse time to consider upheaval. Surely it is better to bring the British involvement in Iraq to a legal end, and then to work fully and meaningfully with all stakeholders on how the important elements of the regimental family can be twinned with the need for flexibility in the 21st century.

This situation is a mess. We should get illegal weapons of mass destruction out of the UK, we should refocus the military on a role that is fit for the purpose of a modern European democracy, and we should then discuss, with those who value the human resource of our services, how we can meet that role through reform.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Like John Home Robertson, I have family connections with the King's Own Scottish Borderers. My father joined the regiment at the start of the second world war, and proceeded most of the time with his friend and colleague Jock Hunter, who came from Hawick. Unfortunately, Jock did not return from Arnhem, where the KOSBs were parachuted down. I also have connections through having, for a long time, campaigned in the Scottish Borders and in part representing the KSOB, along with other constituents.

There is no doubt that there are issues here to do with lack of morale. Morale is not some tenuous thing. Morale is at the heart of a soldier's ability to relate to other troops when they are in the most difficult situations. It cannot always be measured in statistics. Morale is based on having a connection with the regiment that sometimes goes back for generations, and a connection with the area from which the regiment comes. It is essential in dangerous, frontline situations in which soldiers must act almost immediately and as one with the other men and women who are around them. It is embarrassing to say the least—in fact, it is disgraceful—to put at risk the jobs of troops who are in such situations at this moment and to undermine their regiments. The timing could not be worse, but when did Geoff Hoon ever know anything about timing? He turned up earlier this month to flaunt himself in front of the same troops that he is going to cut.

Operational difficulties will also arise from the cuts. I am interested in Lord Guthrie's views, which were dismissed by Geoff Hoon. Unlike Elaine Murray, who admits that she knows nothing about military matters, Geoff Hoon seems to know about them, despite what those with experience tell him. Lord Guthrie says that cutbacks have left the Army

"dangerously small and over-committed".

We know that the nature of military action now is very different to what it was. I support much of what Mark Ruskell said. It is strange for a member who is a pacifist to talk about troops, but, like Mark Ruskell, I envisage the troops performing a humanitarian role, intervening and helping people to get to democracy. I hope that one day we will have no more wars. I support Mark Ruskell's view about getting rid of Trident and other real weapons of mass destruction, which eat into our economy and which we hope that we will never use against people who are vulnerable, as we are.

There has also been huge public opposition to cutting and getting rid of our regiments. That is no wonder, because the people know better than Geoff Hoon.

I will conclude with the submission that has been made on behalf of the King's Own Scottish Borderers to Geoff Hoon, who is featuring large in the debate. It is called "The KOSB Alternative Proposal" and was submitted on 19 November 2004. It submits

"that the regimental system can be retained, Scottish Regiments preserved, the problems of the arms plot eliminated, recruiting and retention put on a sound basis for the future and public expenditure on defence reduced."

I suggest that Elaine Murray reads the document.

Being a soldier is not just a job like any other job. To cut a regiment—to take it off the face of the earth and leave it with a cap badge—is a disgrace for which some of our troops might pay in other ways than simply losing their regiments.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

It is often said that Government is difficult, but I find myself thinking that it must be difficult to be an Opposition MSP. Having nothing to offer the people of Scotland on the issues on which this Parliament was set up to legislate, the Opposition continually resorts to holding debates on issues over which we have no authority. The Scottish National Party has a group at Westminster but does not want a British Army. The Scottish Socialist Party and the Greens have no one in London and therefore cannot debate the issue there, so, to an extent, I can understand why those parties concentrate their efforts here. However, I find it difficult to have any sympathy for the Tories. They are the main Opposition at Westminster and have ample opportunity to raise defence issues there. They have the shadow Scottish secretary to raise specific Scottish issues for them with the support of the rest of the Tory group at Westminster behind him. On second thoughts, if that is the extent of their party's ability in London, perhaps we can understand why the Tories would rather have Murdo Fraser front the subject for them here.

I have always taken great pleasure in representing Hamilton, where the regimental museum of the Cameronians is housed. That regiment was suspended, but not disbanded, in 1968—the museum assures me that the regiment awaits any renewed call to arms—and the Cameronians' recruiting area of Lanarkshire was thereafter taken over by the King's Own Scottish Borderers, which already recruited in the area. Indeed, my father spent his national service in the KOSB during the Malayan emergency in the mid-1950s.

Elaine Murray has already outlined the importance of the KOSB, so I will not dwell on it, except to note that it boasts proudly of being the only regiment that fought for the Government in all three decisive engagements in the Jacobite wars: at Killiekrankie, Sheriffmuir and Culloden. That is a good enough reason, some might say, for preserving the regiment in perpetuity. Unfortunately, it also spent much of the 18th and 19th centuries suppressing the Irish, so it might have fought against my ancestors at some stage, but I will forgive the regiment for that and take pleasure in defending its right to continue to exist.

I was also interested that the regiment notes on its web pages that, after all the battle honours that it achieved in the service of Britain over 300 years and following its operations in the first gulf war in 1991, it added to its list a vigorous campaign at home called operation Borderer. That was the fight against the Tory options for change proposals, which would have led to the regiment's amalgamation. The Tories were forced to reverse that decision, and the three centuries of history continued with an unbroken lineage.

I doubt that the Cameronians will be reformed to join the latest fight, but their successor in Lanarkshire, the KOSB, must be given a future. The Tories tried to destroy the KOSB themselves once. The nationalists might be scared in case the regiment comes back to haunt them, à la Culloden. The nationalists, like the Greens and the SSP, would have no need of any British Army regiment, so we will take no lecture from them.

Hypocrisy reigns in the Parliament this morning. We have to ignore the sanctimonious hyperbole that is emanating from various parties: those who want to turn the Army into an ambulance service or a military brass band and those who do not want a British Army at all. We need to ensure that Scotland's present needs are put first, and Scotland needs the King's Own Scottish Borderers.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I join members from all parties in welcoming the Black Watch home and expressing condolences to the families of those brave five who lost their lives in the deserts of Iraq.

"I ... believe that a super-regiment would submerge and eventually extinguish all the individual loyalties, traditions and histories of the Scottish regiments as we know them. That might not matter to the MOD or to General Jackson, but it has created a profound reaction in Dundee, which has traditionally supplied the industrial muscle to balance the rural brawn that recruits from areas such as north Tayside and Perthshire have brought to the regiment."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 17 November 2004; Vol 426, c 413WH.]

Those eloquent words are not mine, but those of the Labour member for Dundee East, Mr Iain Luke, in Westminster Hall on 17 November. Apart from Dundee itself, the region that I and many other members in the Parliament represent in whole or in part covers the Black Watch's entire recruiting area, and the reaction to the proposed change within Mid Scotland and Fife has indeed been profound. The issue is highly charged; it unites members of all parties and none. I was present with members from the four main parties—sadly, there were none from the Greens or the Scottish Socialist Party—at the parade, drumhead service and rally in Dundee on 23 October that was organised by the lord provost of Dundee, the provost of Perth and Kinross Council, the provost of Angus Council and the convener of Fife Council.

I will make two principal points. In the words of my colleague, Sir Menzies Campbell, this is not a time for reduction in our armed forces,

"against the pattern of present commitments, not to mention continuing uncertainties in an increasingly volatile world."

It is worth listing our commitments: active service in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Northern Ireland; and garrisons in Germany, Gibraltar, Cyprus, Belize and the Falklands. The House of Commons Defence Select Committee, which is chaired by that distinguished Labour member, Bruce George, concluded in its fifth report of the session 2003-04 that the Army is already overstretched. Indeed, the strategic defence review argued for an increase in the armed forces of 3,300, not for the secretary of state's proposed cut of 6,500.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will Keith Raffan give way?

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No.

My second main point is to counter the argument that the move to larger regiments will increase recruitment and retention. I will give the 2003-04 recruitment target and actual recruitment figure for the Black Watch: the annual target was 112 and the actual recruitment was 122, so 109 per cent was achieved. The links with the community are not only a matter of sentiment, tradition and history or of the honour to parade—bayonets fixed, colours flying and drums beating—through the cities whose freedom the Black Watch has. The links, the real and genuine roots in Perthshire, Kinrosshire, Fife, Angus and Dee, are the key to recruitment and vital to the esprit de corps—the spirit of the regiment.

It has been said on Mr Hoon's behalf that the proposed changes are for the Army to decide. The buck cannot be passed so easily. Even in Turkey, generals now defer to ministers, rather than the other way round. As Sir Menzies Campbell has said,

"it is Ministers and not Generals who must answer to the House of Commons. The proposals ... represent a major policy change, which Ministers have either to accept or reject."

It is ministers who make policy. Those ministers alone will be held accountable by the House of Commons, the electorate and the brave men of the Black Watch.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

It is my pleasure to close the debate for the Scottish National Party. This is not the first time that the Parliament has debated the issue, which was the subject of a members' business debate in September.

My colleagues in the House of Commons—particularly my counterpart Pete Wishart, and also Annabelle Ewing—have raised the issue numerous times in the House of Commons and in Westminster Hall debates. The essential point is that we must use every opportunity to express our opinion and our opposition to the proposals that Her Majesty's Government is likely to announce later today. My colleagues have taken every parliamentary opportunity at Westminster and we have the right to take the opportunity here.

Members will know that I have the privilege to represent the North Tayside constituency, which recruits formidably for the Black Watch regiment. In the past few months, I have visited the families of constituents who have been injured in Iraq and listened to the anguish of parents back here about their injured sons in Iraq and their worries about what faces their sons in a dangerous situation. We cannot disregard the attitudes and points in the letters that my colleague Roseanna Cunningham read out, because they represent the genuine fears and anxieties of very brave individuals who confront a danger that none of us will ever have to confront.

Our amendment focuses on the Government's disgraceful approach of questioning the Black Watch's future while that regiment was serving in Iraq. It is disgraceful that the debate has taken place at that time. The same situation will face the Royal Scots regiment, which is likely to be deployed in Iraq in January. Those soldiers will go there with enormous uncertainty about their regiment's future and it was right to raise that concern.

A big debate is taking place about the role and purpose of infantry personnel in our armed forces. I do not subscribe to the view that we need fewer infantry personnel. The Royal Scots are to return to Iraq more quickly than they should under Army protocols and the Black Watch has returned to Iraq earlier than Army protocols suggest because we have insufficient infantry to manage all the trouble spots, whether they are in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan or Bosnia. Mr Rumbles made that point well.

Much of the debate has highlighted the regiments' identities, which the Labour amendment concerns. To say that if all the regiments keep their cap badges, that somehow makes the situation all right is to put up a smokescreen. The First Minister has articulated that despicably dishonest position at question time.

I will make a substantial point about identity that I think John Home Robertson made in our debate in September, in which he said that once the link between the regiment and its geographical recruiting area is broken, it is only a matter of time before the individual identity of the regiment is lost. That is absolutely right, but the Labour amendment tries to brush aside that substantial point.

We have heard many pleas in the debate for people to establish a consistent position. Mr McMahon made a fantastic contribution by saying that hypocrisy reigns in the chamber. I will quote to him what his Westminster colleague the right hon Dr John Reid said in the House of Commons in 1993 about the Conservatives' plans to cut regiments. He said:

"It is a disgrace and a disservice to our soldiers that we are spending £3,000 million on a new nuclear weapon which is not needed—while we are putting them on the dole, giving them compulsory redundancy and disbanding infantry regiments which are needed to deal with the very threats that we now face."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 24 February 1993; Vol 219, c 908.]

If that was not hypocrisy, I do not know what is.

The Labour Party should have the decency to reflect on its roots and to recognise that the waste of money on weapons of mass destruction is an error that it should put right. It should ensure that we have a military operation that is much more focused on preserving peace than on advancing the interests of war.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I find it strange to speak in the debate, because it is a Tory-inspired debate on a subject that is wholly reserved to Westminster and because I have no experience of involvement in the armed forces. However, I will speak because of the considerable constituency interest that the proposals have evoked.

Whatever people's personal views of our involvement in Iraq, I am immensely proud of the role that the Black Watch has played in the conflict. It has undertaken two tours of duty. When the second was announced, I wrote to thank the battalion for its contribution and to wish it a safe return. After the review was announced, I replied to every serving soldier who wrote to me—many of them are my constituents.

Roseanna Cunningham and others said that the Black Watch recruits extensively from Mid Scotland and Fife. It recruits extensively from west Fife and it was Fifers and others who paid the ultimate sacrifice in the past months in the conflict in Iraq.

As I said, I have no personal experience of the armed forces but, like other members, I have family who fought for their country. Members of my mother's family served in the Black Watch and I had relatives who were killed when fighting for Britain in that battalion.

Murdo Fraser said that the ultimate decision will be taken today in another place. He also issued a rallying cry to maintain the six existing Scottish regiments. As John Home Robertson ably showed, Murdo Fraser made no defence of his party's previous decision to reduce the number of Scottish regiments. As Labour politicians know only too well through many years out of power, opposition is easy; government is much more difficult.

I wish the identities of all six Scottish regiments to be maintained. The clear geographical identities of those regiments are important for recruitment, although it must be acknowledged that recruitment is much more robust in some areas than in others.

Some members have claimed that Labour politicians have not spoken out on the issue, which is untrue. My Westminster colleague Rachel Squire, who is the MP for Dunfermline West, has been assiduous on the matter. She is also a member of the House of Commons Defence Committee. Other Labour MPs have made their views abundantly clear.

Whatever decision is announced later today, it is clear that all Scottish regiments' identities should be maintained.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am pleased to conclude the debate, but I am afraid that I have had to tear up my consensual speech, or at least the parts about the Labour Party. I wanted to deliver such a speech because my experience is that soldiers and former servicemen throughout Scotland are not really interested in party politics or in individual politicians saying that they have done more than others. Members of the King's Own Scottish Borderers Association were delighted when Sir Archy Kirkwood arranged a meeting for them with Geoff Hoon and I applaud that positive gesture.

I was deeply saddened by the Labour contribution to the debate. John Home Robertson may well have a long political memory, but his speech showed us why he did not have a long ministerial career—it was utter claptrap. Although he was involved in the campaign to establish the Scottish Parliament and in Scottish Constitutional Convention events, John Home Robertson seems to have forgotten that a clear purpose that was set out for the Parliament and from a unionist perspective was to lobby Westminster on issues of importance to Scotland, so discussing the regiments causes no difficulty. I predict that the people who criticise the debate today will be the very ones who raise such issues when we have another Conservative Government at Westminster, as we surely will.

I was particularly saddened by Elaine Murray's speech. I hope that she will go away and reflect on it. A clear difference has emerged between the conduct of Government MPs at Westminster when the previous proposal was made—which I accept was under a Conservative Government—and now. Previously, the then member of Parliament for Dumfries—Hector Monro—did not try to sell what the Government had done when he disagreed with the merger of the Royal Scots and the KOSB. Even though the Conservative party was in Government, he fought the merger. He said that he disagreed with it and he got things changed. That is the difference. Members have come to the Parliament today to try to sell not only the fact that regiments are being downgraded to battalions, but the double whammy of a merger in the case of the Royal Scots and the KOSB. Elaine Murray and her colleague Russell Brown would do themselves far more credit by standing up and saying, "This is wrong." I would certainly respect them if they did so, and I am sure that their constituents would respect them too.

Mr McMahon made an interesting speech. Last week, he and Mr Muldoon made a difference by not going along with the Executive on an issue on which they did not agree. As Major William Turner of the Kings Own Scottish Borderers Association pointed out to me this morning on the telephone, if all the Labour MPs who are affected by the military changes joined the Conservative, the Liberal Democrat and SNP members at Westminster, they could defeat the proposals. I agree with Roseanna Cunningham that they do not have the courage to do so. That is the reality. There is no point in trying to sell identity, as people understand that if regimental structures go, the identity will ultimately go.

The proposals are flawed, but they are political proposals. I was saddened when I read in the Dumfries and Galloway Standard that Tony Blair—who was, unfortunately, unable to come to Dumfries to answer for himself—said that he was doing what he was doing because the military told him that he had to do so. He did not accept personal responsibility. Our serving soldiers and ex-servicemen would have much more respect for Mr Blair and his Labour colleagues if they were willing to say that they think that the proposals are a good thing and if they argued the case for them rather than trying to pretend that things are being forced on them.

A lot has been said by Mike Rumbles and other members about Mike Jackson. However, Mike Jackson has made his position clear. He has been quoted as saying:

"I would much prefer increasing the size of the Army, but that's simply not on offer. I can either accept what's on offer—a reduced size of the Army—or go."

Major Jackson accepts that the decision is a political decision. There is still time to change that political decision.

I am sad that no minister has bothered to turn up to the debate. At least there was ministerial presence at Murdo Fraser's members' business debate.

During the afternoon, Labour MSPs can reflect on the position that they have taken today and perhaps still join us at this final hour so that there is a single voice from Scotland that says that we want our six regiments to be retained. Whatever the outcome of today's vote in the Scottish Parliament and whatever Geoff Hoon says in the Westminster Parliament, the one thing that Labour MSPs should be sure about is that the fight to retain our regiments will go on and the people who have the courage to fight will ultimately be victorious.

Reoffending

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2158, in the name of Annabel Goldie, on justice issues with specific relevance to reoffending, and three amendments to the motion.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am pleased to bring this debate to the Parliament and to speak to the motion in my name. The debate will enable the Executive's justice proposals to be examined. One might have thought that the Executive would have offered such an opportunity itself, but, of course, the Executive is—regrettably—no stranger to disrespect for the stature of the Parliament. It should come as no surprise at all that on 6 December the Minister for Justice launched Scotland's new criminal justice plan by press release. One might have thought that a plan that was described by the minister as "ambitious and wide-ranging" and that comprises five sections and 23 proposals would have merited at least a ministerial statement in the Parliament or an Executive debate. We all know that the Executive has debated far less important issues in the past, so surely an "ambitious and wide-ranging" plan merited parliamentary attention. Unfortunately, however, Executive arrogance transcends Executive accountability and, of course, parliamentary debates have the tiresome habit of being embarrassing for the Executive, which is certainly not part of the devolved governance game plan. Therefore, the Conservatives are pleased to rectify the Executive's omission and to bring the Executive's proposals to where they should have been brought in the first place—the floor of the chamber.

Of course, we should not be surprised that the Minister for Justice felt impelled to launch her criminal justice plan, but the public could be forgiven for asking where it has been. The Executive's record on crime is appalling. A crime is committed every 78 seconds. Since 1997, violent crime is up 16 per cent, vandalism is up 23 per cent, drug crime is up 38 per cent, figures for handling offensive weapons are up 49 per cent, figures for rape and attempted rape are up 34 per cent and homicide is up 20 per cent. Significant levels of unreported crime must be added to those figures. I am talking about retailers who cannot cope with the hassle of reporting shoplifting and about incidents involving broken windows, dented cars, disorderly behaviour and mindless acts of petty vandalism. Levels of reoffending are also giving cause for concern.

Therefore, an Executive criminal justice plan is overdue. Unfortunately, the plan is indicative of confusion, incoherence and paradox. For example, what is the underpinning strategy of the plan? I do not know and I suggest that no one else knows. However, I will offer a strategy. We should deter people from committing crime, detect them when they commit crime and, on conviction, ensure that the sentence reflects both the public's desire for punishment, protection and deterrence and the rehabilitation needs of the accused.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I have a brief question. What were the reoffending rates for various crimes under the Tories?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is perfectly obvious from the statistics that I have just given that the overall rate of crime was significantly lower and that visible policing in our communities was significantly greater. There is a clear connection between the two.

I asked what the underpinning strategy should be. Do the five sections and 23 proposals offer implement of the strategy? They do not. We cannot protect communities and prevent crime as long as there are only 140 police officers on the beat at any one time throughout Scotland. Indeed, as more police officers are deployed by the First Minister for duty in our turbulent schools, the beat presence will diminish further. That is why we must prioritise the provision of more police officers, which alone would deter first offenders and repeat offenders from committing crime. Fear of being caught is an effective inhibitor. In addition, when the court considers that prison is the appropriate disposal, the sentence that is imposed should be the sentence that is served. That means an end to automatic early release, which my party has consistently advocated.

It is interesting that something seems to have penetrated the minister's mind. Apparently, she will consider ending automatic early release for prisoners who are convicted of sex offences. That is good, but to pick and mix who gets automatic early release and who does not is incoherent and illogical. If automatic early release should be ended for sex offenders, it should be ended for all offenders.

My party differs from Labour and the Liberal Democrats in that, instinctively, they do not like the concept of prison. They seek to avoid sending offenders to prison and to let those who are in prison out at the earliest opportunity.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I listened carefully to what Miss Goldie said, but what is absent from her speech is any indication of how the Conservatives would try to break the cycle of reoffending through rehabilitation, training or educational opportunities in prisons. All that they see is punishment.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That is not so. If Mr Raffan lets me continue, he will hear what he wants to hear.

The difference between my party and Labour and the Liberal Democrats is that my party regards prison as a sentencing necessity for certain convicted offenders. Where the courts deem that disposal appropriate, we would ensure that the capacity exists and that the full sentence is served. We are not coy about prison being a punishment, a deterrent and a necessary protection for the public, but we are insistent that the rehabilitation of prisoners and the preparation for their return to the community must be vastly improved, as must community support on release.

It is naive and simplistic to say that prison does not work when, under the Labour and Liberal Democrat regime, the full sentence is not served, rehabilitation is ineffectual, community support is frail or non-existent and there are not enough police officers in our communities to stop reoffending. It is true that we have full prisons but, proportionately, Spain sends nearly four times as many offenders to prison and its crime rate is about a quarter of ours. The picture in Ireland is similar.

Given the absence of any understandable drugs policy from the Executive it is no surprise that there is an unacceptably high proportion of prisoners with addictions who are offered no meaningful rehabilitation. My party supports drug testing and treatment orders at district court level, which would do a great deal to assist early intervention and rehabilitation and would reduce the pressure on our prisons.

In conclusion, the Executive's policies on crime have failed to address the fundamentals of deterrence and detection. While the Executive persists with the discredited option of automatic early release and neglects prisoner rehabilitation, unacceptable levels of crime and reoffending will continue.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the unacceptable rate of reoffending occurring in Scotland today; accepts that there is a place in our criminal justice system for a range of different sentencing options to address this problem but recognises that when a prison sentence is the appropriate disposal then prison is not simply a punishment but is intended to rehabilitate, deter and protect the public; believes that the way to reduce reoffending and subsequently the prison population is to reduce the overall incidence of crime in Scotland, and therefore calls on the Scottish Executive to increase the police presence in our communities to deter and detect crime and to end automatic early release from our prisons to ensure honesty in sentencing.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call Hugh Henry to speak to and move amendment S2M-2158.3.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I am sorry, Presiding Officer. You took me by surprise. I thought that I was merely speaking at the end of the debate but obviously the arrangements have changed somewhat.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister should give us his summing-up speech.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Members may well hear it twice.

I never fail to be astonished at the effrontery and sheer brass neck of the Conservatives when they try to lecture the rest of us on what should or should not be done in our communities. Annabel Goldie talks about police numbers, but does she seriously want us to go back to the level of policing that was available in our communities under the Conservatives? Does she want us to cut the number of officers patrolling the streets so that we reach the level that was established by the Conservatives? The truth is that since the Tories were kicked out of Government we have increased the number of police who are available in our communities—

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I will take an intervention in a few minutes. The members should let me get started—I am just warming up.

We have steadily increased police numbers. Since the Executive came to power the partnership has delivered extra police on our streets. We are going further: we have also significantly increased funding for police services. Between 1999-2000 and 2004-05, spending on police increased by 31 per cent—more than twice the rate of inflation—and it will rise by a further 17 per cent in the period to 2007-08. We do not want crocodile tears from the Conservatives or their hypocrisy when they talk about police numbers.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The minister says that there are increased numbers of police, but does he accept that that has not meant more police in our communities? There has been a requirement to recruit more police officers to deal with the greatly expanded office duties in relation to issues such as the Macpherson report, asylum seekers, management of the sex offenders register and dealing with the European convention on human rights. Does the minister accept the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland's view that increased resource is being deployed more readily towards technology and office back-up rather than towards putting policemen and policewomen back in our communities?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

There is a range of complicated issues in Annabel Goldie's comments. We are committed to ensuring that police officers do the job for which we employ them and we are making sure that they are taken away from jobs that can be done more effectively by other people. We want the police to tackle crime and we have a record of commitment in relation to that. It is true that we now live in a more complex society but it is for the chief constables to decide how to use the record resources.

We should reflect on what Audit Scotland said in a recent report on police and fire performance indicators: clear-up rates for recorded crime are at the highest ever level, housebreaking is down, car crime is down and drug seizures continue apace.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the minister confirm that, unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of drug seizures are still of cannabis and not the most dangerous drugs, such as heroin and coke?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I certainly want more seizures of drugs such as heroin and cocaine and we must remain vigilant about our continuing drug problem. However, the number of crimes recorded by the police is at its lowest level for nearly a quarter of a century. We should try to put some perspective—

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No, thanks. I have taken two interventions already.

We must put the debate in perspective. It is for that reason that we tried to bring some sensible structure to the debate on what we do on crime, criminality and offending in Scotland, and that is why the Minister for Justice brought forward her proposals to tackle reoffending. We have taken a number of steps in relation to police and enforcement, including consideration of court reform, a comprehensive programme of modernisation of prosecution services, the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 and hugely expanded youth justice programmes, but we know that there are other, more complicated issues that we need to address.

Why do so many people in this country go to prison and why do so many people reoffend when they come out? Is there a better way to address the problem? I pay tribute to members of the Justice 1 Committee, who are examining in a detailed manner what can be done to tackle that pernicious problem. It is a cheap shot for Annabel Goldie to say that the Executive opposes sending people to prison. The Minister for Justice has made it clear that she believes that those who commit serious offences should spend a serious length of time in prison. Prison is about not just rehabilitation but punishment and the protection of the community, and we have demonstrated clearly that we are committed to that.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the minister agree that the Conservatives have shown again and again their failure to understand the complexity of drug misuse? The whole point of DTTOs and drugs courts is to get drug addicts into treatment and recovery and so break the cycle of reoffending. That is how we should treat people—unless they are guilty of serious offences—rather than sending them to prison, which is a waste of time.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Keith Raffan probably gives too much credit to the Conservatives. I do not think that they have a clue about what they want to do in relation to criminality and offending.

We believe that prisons are an important part of our judicial system. They are places where people should be punished and the community should be protected by our putting people away, but we must recognise that there is a certain point in a sentence when many people come back out into the community and we need to prepare them appropriately.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member take an intervention?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I do not have time.

In "Supporting Safer, Stronger Communities: Scotland's Criminal Justice Plan", we unveiled an ambitious and wide-ranging programme to reduce reoffending. We believe that we need to press forward with reforms to protect communities, prevent crime and tackle drug-related crime. We want to continue to reform our courts, and we need effective interventions.

The Minister for Justice is clear that we can start to make a difference: by bringing together different parties and getting the Scottish Prison Service to communicate with local authorities more effectively; by creating new community justice authorities; by getting people to co-operate at a local level; and by having an overarching, strategic national framework with local delivery.

We need to reflect on why people are failing when they come back out of prison. It is right to ensure that someone at a local level takes responsibility. For too long, no one took responsibility: work was done in prisons and in the community, but there was no consistency or continuity and people fell through the gaps. Local community justice authorities will have responsibility for tackling reoffending and ensuring that there is joined-up thinking. The minister has reserved the power to take action if those authorities should fail.

We have listened carefully to people who told us to leave the staff where they are just now and to leave responsibility with people locally, albeit in some new configurations. We agree with that and will work with people in their local areas. We want to ensure that they engage more effectively with the Scottish Prison Service and that the Scottish Prison Service engages more effectively with them.

I argue that what we have set out in our criminal justice plan is a very radical proposal, and I think that it will be effective. I must say in all honesty—not just to the Conservatives, who prompted the debate, but to other members of the Parliament—that there is no easy solution. We would be doing a disservice to the Parliament, to communities and to the wider public if we thought that we could come forward with a cheap slogan that would solve everything within a couple of months.

Some of the issues that Kenny MacAskill raises in his amendment are the right ones. What is it about our society, in which people drink too much, take drugs and turn to violence, which makes it different from some other societies in Europe and other western countries? We must get behind and address some of those problems. If we do nothing else, we will serve the country well if we encourage a mature and sensible debate.

The Tories are, yet again, scrabbling for some cheap votes with some cheap shots on issues that they do not really understand. Instead, we need a mature debate, which I think should continue for a number of months. I hope that we can reach some consensus in the Parliament on this issue.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Would you move your amendment?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Sorry, Presiding Officer. I move amendment S2M-2158.3, to leave out from "unacceptable" to end and insert:

"Criminal Justice Plan's acknowledgement that the rate of reoffending occurring in Scotland today is unacceptable; agrees that prison should be used where prison is the appropriate punishment but notes that prison is also intended to rehabilitate the offender, deter the prospective offender and protect the public; agrees that prison must sit within a range of different sentencing options to address reoffending, and therefore notes the increase in police numbers compared to the numbers delivered by the Conservatives, the establishment of the Sentencing Commission to consider a number of issues including early release, and that the recently published Criminal Justice Plan includes measures to tackle Scotland's high reoffending rates, reduce crime and the fear of crime and strengthen confidence in the country's criminal justice services."

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I would have been happy to have moved the Deputy Minister for Justice's amendment as well as my own. We have no real difficulty with its tenor, nor do we have much difficulty with most of the minister's rhetoric. This appears to be an area in which we require to work together, not fall apart.

I fundamentally disagree with one part of Annabel Goldie's speech. Perhaps I picked her up wrongly, but she seemed to say that because sex offenders are dealt with in one particular way, other offenders should be dealt with in the same way. I do not believe that, rationally, it is possible to deliver that. A small number of sexual predators are deeply dangerous and are not capable of the rationalisation that is required. They might not be mentally ill or capable of being treated in prison, but they might be either sociopathic or psychopathic and they need to be dealt with differently from other prisoners. To say that that small handful—thankfully, it is just a small handful—should dictate how everybody else is dealt with is not acceptable.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does the member agree that, in any criminal justice system, there must be equality of treatment and that honesty in the sentencing of one offender should mean honesty in the sentencing of every offender?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

It must depend on the individual. If somebody is incapable of making a rational decision or is deeply dangerous because of some psychological flaw, it is our duty as a Parliament and as a society to deal with that person differently. A handful of people out there—as I said, thankfully, it is only a small handful—are deeply dangerous and we know them to be capable of reoffending if they are released. They are ticking time bombs. To say that somebody who has free will and choice and who has stolen a hunk of meat from a shop should be dealt with in the same way as a dangerous sexual predator is patently not correct. We have to deal with such dangerous people differently. Sadly, they exist and we cannot treat all prisoners in the same way as we treat that deeply dangerous minority.

Is there a role for prison in society? Absolutely. There is clearly a need to deal with dangerous people, from whom we have to be protected. Some offences are of such magnitude and of such gravity that none of the available sentences other than imprisonment is appropriate, even if the offender is not dangerous. However, that necessary role of prison is not one of crime control or prevention; it is the sentence of last resort. Simply imposing prison sentences will not dissuade people from committing crime. We must examine other methods, particularly rehabilitation. There are far too many people in prison, including fine defaulters and people serving various short-term sentences. None of those people is capable of being rehabilitated or reformed in any way by prison; we are simply containing them for a period of time. In many instances, we are making circumstances worse.

I sat in on committee meetings listening to the evidence of Andrew McLellan and others as various questions were being asked. What is it that encourages somebody not to reoffend? Do they have a home to go to? Do they have employment that they can access? Do they have a family? In many instances, people who are locked up for a short sentence lose their employment and their tenancy and break their relationships with their parents, partner and whomever else, and the likelihood of their reoffending escalates. That is why short-term sentences do not work.

Sadly, Scotland is heading towards having the highest per capita prison population in western Europe. There are many European league tables that we should aspire to lead, such as those on economic growth, pension provision for the elderly and social provision for the needy. However, I certainly do not include banging up more people in our society than in any other civilised democratic community in western Europe among those aspirations. The Executive is culpable of doing that at the moment, and the Tories want to escalate the rate of sending people to prison.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Would Mr MacAskill care to comment further on the situation in Spain?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Not particularly. The fact is that we are heading towards having the highest per capita prison population. That is something that we cannot take pride in. I agree with the points that Mr Henry made about that.

Our kids are not genetically programmed to commit more crime than youngsters in Dublin, Stockholm or anywhere else. The reasons have to lie elsewhere. There must be other factors, not just with regard to what causes crime but with regard to how other countries address the punishment for the crime. Simply to aim to bang up more people is a counsel of despair. I agree with the minister that there is no one magic bullet or easy solution to curing crime and the social problems that go with it.

Poverty is no excuse as far as causing crime is concerned. Societies that are far poorer than ours have lower crime rates. We had significantly greater poverty in this country in the 1920s and 1930s, yet crime was not at the same levels then. There is still clearly a link, however, and if people deny that link, they deny the obvious solution: we must address mass unemployment, social dislocation, community fragmentation and family fragmentation, all of which have occurred. In the 1980s, when the Tories brought in their new great hope under Thatcherism, they ruined many areas by creating mass unemployment overnight. Into the vacuum where once there was labour, toil and work, there came heroin into the veins of many people. The Tories stand culpable of that. It might not have been their intention, but that was the outcome, and they should show some humility.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

rose—

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I will take an intervention from either member.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Margaret Mitchell was up first.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does the member accept that many of the people who are entering prison now have no experience of work and that it is possible to introduce them to work in prison, as a result of which their chances of employment are increased, which in turn stops them reoffending?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

No, I do not accept that as far as short sentences are concerned. When I met Mr Croft, the governor of Saughton prison, he pointed out that any sentence under six months was useless. The prisoner has a four-week induction period and another four-week period at the end prior to getting out. Most courses last a minimum of 20 weeks. Courtesy of simple arithmetic, unless people are sentenced to at least 28 weeks, there is nothing that the SPS can do with them other than simply control or contain them. Therefore, such short sentences do not work. In fact, they lose people employment prospects, rather than provide people with any skills with which to gain employment.

Although there is no simple solution, we should try to develop some consensus about where we go from here. That will need the Executive to trim a bit, and it will require members of Opposition parties to give a bit more. We cannot have a stop-start approach or keep chopping and changing. We cannot limit ourselves to one method, as there is no simple solution that will work overnight. Drug testing and alcohol rehab will not change our society overnight, because we are dealing with problems that have come about over two or three generations of long-term, deep-seated unemployment, in households where there is no work, no father figure and so on.

We need to work together to achieve a consensus. However, that consensus must not be simply to lock 'em up or hang 'em high. We must be tough on crime and must ensure that individuals take responsibility for their actions, but fundamentally our society and the Parliament that represents it must take responsibility for all our citizens and communities and solve many of their social problems.

I move amendment S2M-2158.2, to leave out from "accepts" to end and insert:

"further notes that the causes of crime are manifold, involving social and economic dislocation and family and community fragmentation with drink, drugs and deprivation remaining at the root of much crime and antisocial behaviour; notes with concern that Scotland is heading towards having the highest per capita prison population in western Europe; calls, therefore, for a visible police presence in our communities and for prison to be reserved for serious and dangerous offenders; calls for action to be taken to ensure that community-based disposals are available for minor offences to ensure rehabilitation and best use of public funds; calls, therefore, on the Executive to ensure that it is not only tough on crime but tough on the causes of crime, and recognises that the solutions are multifaceted and require individuals to take responsibility for their own actions and for society to take responsibility for all its communities."

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I welcome this debate—[ Interruption. ] The bottles are starting to fly.

I begin by making the point that the number of people whom we send to prison is ultimately a political decision, rather than a judicial decision. In recent years, the prevalent political mood has been to send more and more people to jail for longer and longer. As Kenny MacAskill said, we build more jails and break more records annually for the number of people whom we incarcerate. The Conservative claims that the Scottish Executive does not trust prison and is not serious about sending people there are not backed up by the facts.

It is time to acknowledge that the prevailing political mood has been unhelpful in reducing reoffending levels and has failed to address the deep-seated problems in Scotland that relate to offending and reoffending levels. As the Deputy Minister for Justice knows, many people have said for a long time that sending people to jail for longer does nothing to reduce levels of offending and reoffending in our society. Among them is Professor Jacqueline Tombs of the Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice, who has been proved correct yet again. The prevailing attitude, from which the Executive has done too little to dissuade people, is that prisons are holiday camps and that non-custodial sentences are soft options. Today our courts sentence more people to longer prison sentences than they did 10 years ago.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Colin Fox will have heard Stewart Stevenson's intervention about reoffending levels under the Conservatives. Does he acknowledge that those levels rose only after we mistakenly introduced automatic ending of sentences when they were only halfway through?

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I am delighted that we have already secured an admission and an apology from the Tories. I hope that that is not the last one in the debate.

I hope that members will address the attitude that I have mentioned, examine where we are failing and accept that a change in direction is badly needed. As other members have indicated, reoffending rates are immensely disappointing. Eighty per cent of male offenders under 21 reoffend within two years and 82 per cent of all jail terms are for less than six months. The Scottish Prison Service admits that it can do little to alter the offending behaviour of people in that category.

Over the past year, as the Scottish Socialist Party's justice spokesperson, I have taken the opportunity to visit a number of Scotland's prisons. I am repeatedly told by the governors and staff whom I meet that the vast bulk of prisoners in their care ought not to be there. Eighty to 90 per cent of the prisoners in our prisons represent no threat to the public and are there because of a mental health problem or drug or alcohol addiction. Prisons are not the place in which to address the problems of people with those conditions and to rehabilitate them.

To add insult to injury, it is well established that first-time offenders often learn things in prison that ensure that they come out with worse attitudes than those with which they went in. When the Scottish Prison Service forecasts—as it did last month—that, on current trends, the Scottish prison population will reach 10,000 in the next decade, it is surely impetus enough for action and progress on this matter.

We need an altogether more imaginative and determined approach if we are to insist that offenders challenge their offending behaviour and, in return, help them to return to the straight and narrow. The cost per prisoner is £33,800 per annum, which is a costly failure.

I recognise the need for a range of sentencing options, as the minister and others have said. Diversionary activities and action to tackle the roots of the problem are particularly important. All criminal justice professionals agree that the most effective intervention is that which nips the problem in the bud. I support community programmes and restorative justice programmes. I also support the constructs programme to which the Executive referred in the document that it published last week. Those are steps in the right direction, although the constructs programme looks like an admission that strangling the Airborne Initiative was a mistake. I also welcome the home detention curfews.

All members of the Parliament accept that communities throughout Scotland express a strong desire—which Annabel Goldie was right to highlight—for a local community police presence, dedicated to supporting the community's needs and answerable to it. The minister might want to reflect on the fact that, although the number of police has risen, they are not arriving in the communities that desire and need them.

There is a danger in the attitude that the courts currently take to community disposals and the fact that such disposals are being used for lower-end tariffs—to avoid fines, fiscal warnings and so on—rather than as an alternative to jail. We need to put more funding into community options, residential drug and alcohol rehab facilities, supported accommodation, community service orders and other measures. I look forward to resources being made available, so that if we turn in that direction, facilities are properly resourced and managed.

The Sentencing Commission must examine the public's failing confidence in the automatic early-release scheme. As other members have highlighted, it is illogical for an offender who is sentenced for four years to be out in two. The public are showing signs of losing confidence in the system. In principle, good behaviour should be rewarded and there should be earned remission. I am sure that the minister will give a commitment to consider that question.

I move amendment S2M-2158.1, to leave out from "the way" to end and insert:

", since 80% of male and female prisoners represent no danger to the public, non-custodial sentences should be given much greater consideration and support; calls on the Scottish Executive to provide more specially-trained community police officers accountable to the communities that they serve in order to increase public confidence in the justice system, and reaffirms that, in cases where serious crimes have been committed, remission should be earned and fully recognised by both the wider community and the prison population itself."

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I agree with much of what Kenny MacAskill and Colin Fox have said, and with much of Kenny's amendment.

Preventing prisoners from reoffending is one of the key jobs of all the agencies that manage the rehabilitation of offenders. I find it amazing that today the Tory party has given us only an hour and a quarter to debate this important issue. It has been debated a number of times during Executive business, but today's debate is too short. That shows that the Tories have little to say on the matter, except that we should scrap early release and lock up people for as long as possible. During the Tory years, that approach led to 70 to 80 per cent of juveniles reoffending.

Kenny MacAskill covered extremely well the thorny question of early release for sex offenders and I agree with his comments. The issue is being addressed by the Minister for Justice, and the Sentencing Commission will make its recommendations in due course.

Why are short prison sentences still seen as a solution for small-scale criminals? Although losing their liberty for long periods is the key punishment for those who have committed the most callous crimes, we must accept, as other members have said, that at present 82 per cent of prison sentences are for less than six months and that there is no statutory aftercare or supervision for those sentenced to less then four years. Prison is not working. Twenty per cent of the people in prison are there for fine defaulting, which is clearly ludicrous.

The Executive is tackling the problem with a criminal justice plan. Electronic tagging will become more widespread and more use should be made of it. We will also combine more community and custodial sentences. It is okay for the Tories to pander to the climate of fear that has been created in the United Kingdom and to plan to lock up people for longer, but that is not acceptable. We need to do more to show victims that strong restorative sentences provide the justice that they seek and reduce reoffending.

Restorative justice, with work to reduce reoffending, should be our twin-track approach to dealing with those convicted of a majority of crimes. The current figure of 55 per cent for those sentenced to between three and six months in prison is too high. The figure of 60 per cent for those who reoffend within two years is also too high.

I believe that the Executive has introduced policies that will improve the situation; indeed, the Liberal Democrats have put rehabilitation and restorative justice at the top of the justice agenda. That agenda will end unnecessary custodial sentences while ensuring that those who are convicted of serious crimes get the long sentences and rehabilitation in prison that they deserve and need.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Pringle says that the answer to these difficulties is to divert many more offenders to community-based services. However, "Scotland's Criminal Justice Plan" refers to a proposal to fund 400 front-line police and social workers. Will he indicate how many of those will be social workers, whose burden of responsibility will increase significantly under his proposals, and how many will be police officers?

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

That has still to be worked out. As members have pointed out, we have put more policemen on the streets and into police services. The Executive is also addressing the fact that we need more social workers and is trying to encourage more and more of them to come through.

People released from prison need a home and a family to go to and must be supported. I recently visited the Fairbridge project, which has had an 80 per cent success rate in its efforts to support young people who are released from prison. In more ways than one, such an approach is far more effective than the draconian policies of the Conservative party, to my right.

I am glad to see that the Executive has listened to the consultation responses and some MSPs and has scrapped its plans for a single correctional agency. Such a move would have sent out the wrong message.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I am sorry, but I do not have the time.

I am pleased that the Executive will make it a statutory requirement for the Scottish Prison Service and local authorities to work together to ensure that they form effective local partnerships. That approach will mean that work will be as joined-up as is necessary to get resources to those who need it most and will allow for things to be done outside traditional council boundaries.

I conclude by sharing with the chamber some of the good practice that is going on through a number of Executive-funded pilot projects to cut youth reoffending. During the Justice 2 Committee's inquiry into youth justice, Marlyn Glen and I visited the Dundee youth justice group, which brings together all the agencies in the city that work with young people and deals with problems such as truancy and exclusion that can lead young people into crime. The group also spearheads a zero-tolerance approach to youth crime in which all young offenders are fast-tracked into the system. That allows people to be dealt with quickly, which is what victims want.

However, the approach is two-pronged. For example, diversionary schemes to stop offending, such as midnight football leagues and other activities, have also been introduced. When we met offenders, they highlighted again and again the same problem of boredom, and we need to prevent first-offending as much as we need to stop reoffending. Crucial to the scheme is the victims of youth crime group, which helps to reduce people's fear of crime in their communities by keeping victims informed of what is going on. I hope that the chamber supports my view that such best practice should be rolled out across the country.

I call on members to support the Executive's amendment today and send out a clear signal that we will not return to the hang 'em and flog 'em policies of the Tories or their vague alternatives, but will work to reduce short-term prison use, provide real justice for victims and ensure that we get the reoffending rate down as quickly as possible.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The Deputy Minister for Justice got off on the wrong foot this morning, but I give him some urgent reassurance. We accept that these matters are complex and that there is no easy solution, but he must accept that time and time again, in arguing against his approach, my colleagues and I have suggested cogent and reasoned solutions that would make for a safer Scotland.

I point out also that the Minister for Justice's announcements last week all centred on keeping people out of jail. The bottom line is that there is a mood abroad in the Executive that no prison sentences should be imposed for summary criminal charges. I know that the Executive holds that view, but it does not have the courage to introduce any such proposals.

We must be allowed to find out how we can make non-custodial alternatives work. For example, the last time that I looked, something like 83 per cent of cases in which a penalty was imposed involved a fine, but the most recent statistics state that the amount of unpaid fines comes to almost £6.5 million. People are simply not paying these penalties because the custodial alternatives are absolutely derisory. As we have said in the past, the answer is simple: fines should be deducted at source, either from salaries or benefits. The Executive refuses to go down that route.

As for other disposals, such as community service orders, the minister was quite right to point out that reoffending is a real problem, particularly for those who serve short prison sentences. However, the reoffending rate for people on community service is only about 2 per cent below the reoffending rate for people who have served prison sentences. The reason for the problem is quite simple: by the time that people go to jail or are subject to a community service order as a direct alternative to custody, they are already quite far down the criminal justice road.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I wonder whether Mr Aitken can provide the source of that information. My information suggests that the reoffending rate for people on community service is two thirds that of the reoffending rate for people who go to prison.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I do not have the figures to hand, but what I have said is my clear recollection of them.

Moving on, I believe that drug treatment and testing orders have their place in the criminal justice system, but why does someone have to be a multiple and repeat offender before they can receive such treatment? What about people such as shoplifters and the street prostitutes in Glasgow, many of whom are anxious to stop committing offences? How do they manage to get drug treatment? The simple answer is that if they want such treatment quickly, they must commit offence after offence until they can access the drugs court.

It is not good enough for Mike Pringle to say that there are more policemen in service and on the streets. Frankly, because of the other duties that the Executive has imposed on them, they are not out there providing reassurance. In fact, the policemen who have been taken off court duties are now part of the support unit patrolling the courts. The Executive has many questions to answer on these matters.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Tories' debate, not least because their record on crime during their bleak years of power was abysmal. Under the Tories, crime doubled and the number of criminals who were convicted fell by a third; and a future Tory Administration would ensure that UK public spending would be cut by £20 billion.

To be honest, I did not quite know where to start in highlighting Tory double-talk on crime and public spending. On the one hand, the Scottish Tories tell us that they will substantially increase the number of police and procurators fiscal while, on the other, they say that they remain committed to cutting taxes and reducing public spending in the UK by £20 billion. Perhaps they will try to persuade the police and fiscals to offer their services on a purely voluntary basis—or perhaps they are just not serious about their commitments in this Parliament.

In a speech that he made on 4 December, David McLetchie conceded:

"In the longer term, the best way of reducing crime is by strengthening the bonds of what Oliver Letwin ... called the 'Neighbourly Society'".

However, his party believes that communities can be built and strengthened by cutting public spending and services.

Moreover, in his speech to the Conservative party conference on 7 March 2003, Mr McLetchie stated:

"Crime affects all of us to a greater or lesser extent whether we live in urban or rural environments. But, cruelly, it impacts disproportionately on some of the most vulnerable people in our society—the poor, older people, youngsters drawn into drug abuse and many within ... ethnic communities."

Does Mr McLetchie really believe that the way to help those most vulnerable groups is to cut public spending? Does the Tory party really believe that cutting financial support to drug rehabilitation projects, family support projects and the myriad other voluntary and community programmes that help to sustain our communities, in particular our poorest communities, is the best way to help them?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am obviously reluctant to disturb the trail of fantasy, but I have to ask Karen Whitefield why, after five and a half years of Executive governance at devolved level in Scotland, we are in the position that we are in?

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I have to say that I was somewhat taken aback by Annabel Goldie's crocodile tears earlier today when she told us how concerned she was about vandalism and crime in communities. When I sat on the Justice 2 Committee with her, she was not too keen to support our proposals on antisocial behaviour, so I am not too convinced that she is serious about tackling the problems.

A Conservative Government would have real consequences for the people of Scotland. It would mean cuts to services, cuts in support for voluntary organisations and increased pressures on the very communities about which the Tories tell us they are suddenly so concerned. We have only to look at their time in Government to see the reality. Between 1993 and 1997, the back-to-basics Tory Government actually cut police numbers in the UK by 1,132, and between 1979 and 1997, recorded crime rose by 81 per cent.

There is much more that I would like to say about some of the things that the present Government has done, in particular our Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, our youth courts and our greater protection for vulnerable witnesses, to some of which Annabel Goldie was most vociferous in her opposition.

During their disastrous time in office, the Tories proved that they could not be trusted with the economy, they could not be trusted with jobs and they most certainly could not be trusted with our health service. They certainly cannot be trusted with crime, so nothing has changed. The Tories cannot even be trusted to be honest with the electorate in promising cuts in taxes, cuts in spending and, at the same time, increased resources to fight crime. They certainly cannot be allowed to rewrite history, as Annabel Goldie attempted to do today. The people of Scotland have long memories and will not be easily fooled. I urge everybody to reject the Tory motion.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

There is at least one thing that most of us will welcome in Annabel Goldie's motion—the recognition that the level of reoffending is, indeed, too high. However, it is clear that people on all sides of the debate recognise that. Hugh Henry's amendment recognises our failure as a society as a whole, which is important, but that recognition comes from all sides. Therefore, I question the tone in which the debate has been presented. It seems as though the Conservatives think that they are the only party with an agenda with any value or meaning.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will Mr Harvie take an intervention?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I would like to make some progress with my speech, and I have only four minutes.

I question some aspects of the Executive's approach, but I come from a completely different angle from Annabel Goldie. I question the idea of prison as a source of retribution and the idea that retribution is a purpose of the criminal justice system. So far, we have had more talk than action on rehabilitation and alternatives to custody.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Will Mr Harvie take an intervention?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes. I hope that Mr Henry will make his point in summing up.

However, I do not think that anyone would argue that the Executive has nothing valuable or meaningful to say in that regard.

I will deal with the motion and amendments. The call has come, as it has so often, for more police officers. It is important for us to recognise that, even though the increased numbers of police officers might not always be getting on to the streets and into the communities where they are needed, the other work that they are doing is not without value. When Annabel Goldie criticises all the other work that the police service does, that undervalues what the police are doing.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will Mr Harvie take an intervention?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I hope that Annabel Goldie will come back to that point in summing up, but I am afraid that, with only four minutes, I have to move on.

The purposes of prison are to punish, to deter, to protect and to rehabilitate, but no one seems to question what happens when those purposes conflict. Anyone who has been into a prison must surely question the ability of the modern prison environment to be a rehabilitative force in someone's life.

I also question the idea that prison works. Annabel Goldie wanted to accuse Labour and the Liberal Democrats of instinctively disliking prison, and she expected them to deny the charge. I admit that I instinctively feel uncomfortable with prison. I accept that any society must, from time to time, use prison, but it is an unpleasant duty and we should use it as sparingly as possible. Instinctively, I dislike it and I do not think that it works.

On Kenny MacAskill's amendment, I had a great deal of sympathy with his words, which he spoke with passion. In particular, he argued quite clearly and convincingly that short prison sentences of six months or less have no meaningful potential to rehabilitate or to allow positive interventions. More than that, they disturb, disrupt and destroy existing life circumstances. That is an argument not for longer sentences, of course, but for alternatives to custody. I have a great deal of sympathy with Kenny MacAskill's amendment, as I do with Colin Fox's amendment, which also deserves support. Colin reminded us of the offensive reality that we are locking up, as a form of punishment, people whose behaviour is the result of health problems—more so than the "Prison works" brigade would like us to admit.

We should acknowledge what the Executive is doing, but we should urge it to go further and not to listen to the Tory call for more and longer prison sentences. Victim-offender mediation should be at the core of our sentencing policy. The Executive should end short-term sentences and should transform our prisons into genuinely rehabilitative environments.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I rise to speak with a social justice hat on. As many people say, the causes of crime are manifold and are often rooted in impoverished societies, where people have little opportunity. For that reason, I think that the Tory motion is simplistic. It states the belief that

"the way to reduce reoffending and subsequently the prison population is to reduce the overall incidence of crime in Scotland"—

quite, but how is that to be done?—and goes on to say that the Parliament

"therefore calls on the Scottish Executive to increase the police presence".

That will not get rid of reoffending or of the reasons why crimes are committed.

There are well-documented links between poverty and crime, whether someone is the perpetrator or the victim. There is anecdotal evidence and visible evidence. If people live in one of those awfully described sink estates, they are more likely to be victims of crime and perhaps to be criminals themselves. There is nothing to give people ambition and achievement. There are children living on those estates who are born to fail, not just materially but because the educational opportunities and so on are not there for them. The situation has got worse since the post-war period. Post-war, people could move out of those situations; they could move from their council house schemes, but now people are quite often geographically trapped in those areas for generations.

We have to seek serious solutions and have a serious debate about why, five years down the road, we have more people in prison and more crimes. What is being done is obviously wrong in many respects. There are people who must be in prison to protect public safety and sometimes, though not always, property. However, I was on the Justice 1 Committee for four years and I am hearing things said in the chamber today that I heard four years ago. There is not time in prison for the majority of prisoners to undergo any kind of rehabilitation. There is not a substantial throughcare system to prevent prisoners who are released from going straight back into the situations that they were in before.

Statistics for poverty are really quite striking. There are nearly twice as many people in the UK who have relatively low incomes as there were 25 years ago. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation's statistics are UK-wide statistics, but they link to Scotland, where we are actually worse off. According to those statistics, one child in five is living in a family that receives means-tested benefits. One child in three in Scotland lives in poverty. As I have said before, they are born to fail—even more so if they live in Glasgow, where there are 28 council wards where more than half of all children are in families receiving out-of-work, means-tested benefits. It is in those areas that we have a culture of drugs and alcoholism. Alcoholism fuels violence and violent crime and drugs fuel the petty crimes of theft, often against people in their own communities who are as poor as the perpetrators themselves are.

What I propose is not a soft option. We are not going soft on crime. We are trying to present substantive solutions. I know that the First Minister and the Minister for Justice have recognised that something must be done. "Supporting Safer, Stronger Communities: Scotland's Criminal Justice Plan" states:

"We know that an important element of reducing crime is reducing exclusion and supporting families and children at risk",

part of which is to

"Prevent individuals or families from falling into poverty."

The First Minister did not take that on the chin when I asked him about it at First Minister's question time last week.

I quote from the Joseph Rowntree report, which states:

"the corrosive effect on society as a whole has become apparent, and tackling disadvantage cannot be seen just as a priority for helping one sectional interest with limited electoral clout."

We sometimes target effort in that way and that is wrong.

It is not easy to get the papers to report a debate in which we say, "The Scottish Parliament has decided to tackle poverty to reduce crime"—that is not very good for the tabloids—but it is a more substantial way forward than to say, "Let us have more police in the communities," which will not solve the problem.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Initially, I was surprised when I read the Tory motion. Until I got to the end of it, I thought that it could not be a Tory motion. I cannot disagree with much of what is said at the beginning; it is all so simple. We should reduce crime by having more police on the street and that, in turn, will reduce the prison population. It is a very simplistic analysis to say that prison works. The number of criminologists and people who study crime as a profession tells us that the issue is complex.

There is a rising prison population for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons is the lack of options in which the judiciary has faith, which is one of the matters that "Scotland's Criminal Justice Plan" addresses.

Labour believes in prison—let us get that straight. However, we believe in prison when it is appropriate and when it is the right sanction. There is a serious problem in our prison system. We know from Andrew McLellan's most recent reports that overcrowding is now so serious that it is holding back any real prospect of rehabilitation of our prisoners. Overcrowding means that so much time is spent managing our prisons that there is little time to address other issues. We must also address drug misuse in our prisons to create the time to rehabilitate prisoners.

Rehabilitation is just a word that we use to identify what we can do on society's behalf to support prisoners in an attempt to break the cycle of reoffending. Rehabilitation is not only about cognitive skills and anger management; it is about education, training for employment and a variety of other matters.

I commend Kenny MacAskill for his speech and I cannot disagree with a word of what he said. There cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. Therefore, it is right to change the criminal justice system in its entirety to assess the issues that individual prisoners face. That is why I have a lot of faith in "Scotland's Criminal Justice Plan". For too long we have seen prisoners as a homogeneous group, when in fact there are a range of prisoners with a complex range of needs. We must ensure that we bear that in mind when we discuss the issue.

The logic of the Tory argument is that we will continue to lock up more offenders. If that is the case, we must accept that we will have to build even more prisons, but I have not heard proposals from the Tories on how to do that.

I whole-heartedly support the idea that there should be a single system. The prison system has been isolated from other parts of the criminal justice system for too long. It is obvious that continuity in sentence management is crucial. Many prisoners have previously been on schemes in the community and their participation is disrupted when they go into prison. It is crucial that the new arrangement ensures that we pick up those offenders.

Kenny MacAskill is right to say that there are issues about the rehabilitation of prisoners during short-term sentences; however, I am not in favour of abolishing short-term sentences. We must manage short-term sentences in the same way as we manage long-term sentences. We must do what we can when the person is in prison and recognise that things must also be done outwith prison. Issues relating to the Parole Board for Scotland must be addressed.

Community sentencing is said to be a better alternative to prison. We should stop making broad assumptions. It is clear that a period spent in custody disrupts a person's life, and that it is harder for them to get their life back after they have been in prison. We must see community sentencing as a different option in its own right. We need transparency not only in prison sentencing, but in community sentencing.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

The Deputy Minister for Justice said that he hoped we would have a mature and sensible date on what is a complex issue. I believe that a great deal that is of value has been said in the debate.

I share Patrick Harvie's instinctive dislike of prisons and his concerns about the slogan "Prison works". My attitude is that in some cases we need prisons, but I have always been of the view that prison is the punishment. People are not sent to prison to be punished further; the punishment is that they have had their liberty taken from them. I share Patrick Harvie's sentiments.

There are contradictory currents in the debate. Annabel Goldie accuses the Executive of not being serious about sending people to prison. My complaint is precisely the opposite. I believe that the Executive is being too serious about sending people to prison. That is why we have record numbers of people in jail—as Kenny MacAskill says, we are close to having the highest per capita prison population in western Europe—and it is why further prison-building programmes are in the pipeline.

The Deputy Minister for Justice will remember that we have discussed the issue before. We are trying to get offenders to address their behaviour to prevent them from reoffending. Thirty eight per cent of prisoners under the age of 21 have been in care and 65 per cent of prisoners, who are in our care, have numeracy and literacy levels of an 11-year-old. On admission to Cornton Vale prison, 90 per cent of the women have drug dependency problems. I remind members that that is the constituency of people with whom we are dealing.

The Deputy Minister for Justice talked about the Executive's plan that was announced last week to establish a national advisory board and to force the Scottish Prison Service and the local authorities to work together to ensure that, as he said, someone takes responsibility for the appalling level of reoffending. I welcome those remarks and the attempt to monitor the situation. However, I cannot help but note that, if we are to solve the problem, we must address issues such as housing, employment and relationships. Support must also be provided to address drug and alcohol problems and mental health issues. When people come out of prison, where is the support for them from the agencies that deal with those matters? We must examine those crucial issues if we are to make any headway.

As Pauline McNeill and others made clear, community programmes offer us evidence that there are alternatives. Community programmes produce a lower reoffending rate than prison does. I admit that that is often because community programmes deal with people who have committed a low level of crime. Nevertheless, the evidence backs up the idea that working in communities to restore damage and to put something back into those communities works for both the offender and the communities.

We have been considering evidence from throughout the world. The Conservatives have repeatedly talked about Spain—and no doubt their villas there—but I will focus on what happens in Finland. Reoffending levels in Finland were similar to ours, but Finland now has half our rate because 30 years ago it rejected the more-prisons-and-longer-sentences approach and instead uses conditional sentences, whereby prisoners can avoid prison if they obey certain conditions. That approach is similar to the use of home curfews, which the Scottish Executive has suggested. Extensive use has been made of curfews and community-based programmes in Finland. I believe that in Scotland we have a great deal to learn from that approach. I hope that the Executive will continue to study evidence from abroad.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I ask Mike Pringle to close for the Liberal Democrats. Sorry, it is Donald Gorrie; I beg his pardon.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

My speech will not be as good. False modesty is one of my characteristics.

We have heard evidence today that service in the community works. All three amendments have been moved cogently, effectively and reasonably, whereas, in the past, we have on occasions had to put up with speeches that were unreasonable and strident, with unacceptable tone and content. That shows that things can be improved.

I will start off in jail and work my way out of jail. In jail, we need an emphasis on education. Figures show that the literacy of reoffenders is poor. I suggested to my colleague Mike Pringle that we could have a policy that nobody was let out of jail until they could read and write, but he said that that was wicked and illiberal and that I could not do it. However, the concept of concentrating on literacy education is important.

Many members have spoken well about support packages in and out of jail for housing and jobs, as well as personal support. The point is not to send people to jail at all if that is not the right thing to do. Pauline McNeill said that we should not abolish short sentences altogether, which may be right, but we have to scrutinise them carefully. We have to persuade judges that there are better alternatives, because a lot of them are not yet convinced that reparation and work in the community are effective.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I agree with Donald Gorrie on persuading the judiciary. If we increase transparency about what goes on in community sentences, that might give the public and, in turn, the judiciary confidence in that type of sentencing.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I fully agree. We have to persuade the public that community sentences work and we must learn more about them.

A great variety of schemes can be used as alternatives to custody or to help people who are in trouble. We are still not very good at identifying them rapidly, maintaining a catalogue of the ones that are available and monitoring and supporting them. I know that the minister has produced big funds, but I am not satisfied that those well-intentioned resources end up supporting the right activities at the sharp end. We have to improve that.

Above all, we have to get stuck in much earlier to create communities in which people do not offend. That raises questions about boredom, which members have mentioned, and school discipline. We should consider providing more interesting activities in school for young people who are not so academic, involving the colleges, for example. That is beginning to happen, but it could happen more. We should provide sport, creative activities and outdoor education, which are challenging and interesting.

We have to attack alcohol and drugs in the community. At several meetings recently, I have been abused—other members probably have been as well—by people saying, "Oh, you're doing something about smoking, but you're not doing enough about alcohol, which is in many ways far more serious." We have to address alcohol seriously.

Above all, we have to stimulate activity within communities. There are good ideas around for helping communities to help themselves, with individuals being active and creating jobs. We must learn from good practice in this country and abroad and do a lot more to create a community in which people do not offend so much.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Let us start with a nice consensual point that can stretch across the Parliament. The title of the motion is relevant and important—"Justice Issues with Specific Relevance to Reoffending"—so no disagreement there.

Donald Gorrie spoke about illiteracy, but perhaps the real issue is innumeracy. On that issue, the Tories will clearly be in the dog-house and in jail for some time, because this morning they have relied on the straw-man approach to debating. Bill Aitken claimed that the rate of reoffending was only 2 per cent less for people on community service orders compared with those who had been in prison, but he could not provide us with any numbers. My numbers are 60 per cent and 42 per cent, which others who have consulted parliamentary sources may also have.

I asked Annabel Goldie about the figures for reoffending under the Tories, because she was trying to persuade us that it was axiomatic that the figures were better than they are now. However, she could give us no numbers. The reality is that the debate is based around a myth of a golden age under the Tories, which is not supported by any sensible examination of the issue.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I made the point that the incidence of offences after early release went up under the Tories, but only after we introduced automatic remission.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I was going to praise Phil Gallie and I take this opportunity to do so, but one honest Tory on the benches does not an honest Tory party make.

Reference was made to Fairbridge. Like others, I recently visited that project. Only 20 per cent of its graduates appear to reoffend. Such projects are well worth the effort that goes into them. With the Justice 1 Committee, I visited the 218 project in Glasgow, which works with many people who have been involved in prostitution and are in a cycle of incarceration, which it is to be hoped will be broken.

In its response to the Justice 1 Committee's inquiry into reoffending, Aberdeenshire Council said:

"By its very nature, the prison environment cannot of itself ... be conductive to achieving the desired outcome of reducing re-offending."

The majority of parties in the chamber have reiterated that view today. I quote from the Executive's "Re:duce, Re:habilitate, Re:form" in-street interviews, which go to the nub of what people are saying on the street:

"I think the minimum prison sentences are actually a waste of money. I think prison is a last resort for people who really are a danger to the public."

We welcome moves by the Executive to improve local relationships between criminal justice social workers and the Prison Service. Prison is part of a justice system that must address retribution, reform and rehabilitation, but the greatest of those is rehabilitation. Rehabilitation starts in prison, but must finish in the community. We must have a seamless way of connecting the good work that is done in prisons with the programmes to which offenders will connect once they leave prison. To do otherwise is to spend large sums of money to deliver little. I am happy to say that I will be supporting—as the opportunity arises—the Executive's amendment.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I call Hugh Henry to close for the Executive.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We will see if it is the same speech.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

It is certainly not the same, because I had to make up my earlier speech as I went along and I cannot recall it word for word.

Before I talk about the value of the debate, I will deal with the Tories. As Stewart Stevenson said, Annabel Goldie has a problem with figures. We have seen her and Bill Aitken struggle this morning. On her call for more police officers, I remind her that there are more police officers today than ever before—nearly 1,000 more than when the Conservatives were in power. That is clearly having an impact, which is why the number of recorded crimes is down, why the number of house-breakings is down and why the incidence of car crime is down. The record number of police officers means that the police are clearing up more crime than ever before—47 per cent, which is the envy of other parts of the United Kingdom. However, that is only a start, because we recognise that serious issues in relation to violent crime need to be addressed.

Annabel Goldie also seems to have problems with her memory, as Stewart Stevenson pointed out. She made an issue of early release. I remind members that the law dealing with early release was set out in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. Perhaps Annabel Goldie would like to tell us which Government that was under. It was, of course, the Conservative Government.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention on that point?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No, thanks.

The Conservatives are clearly hypocritical and inept.

In general, the debate has been good. All parties except the Conservatives believe that we need a mature and serious approach to the issue and they are willing to engage in a serious debate about what we need to do. I admit that there will be differences of emphasis and some small points on which we disagree, but none of the parties except the Conservatives disagrees on crime's links to poverty, deprivation and mental health problems. As Kenny MacAskill and Cathy Jamieson have said, we can agree that poverty is not an excuse for crime, but we can see the links between the two. The parties agree that, as Colin Fox mentioned, we must reflect on early release, which is why the First Minister and Cathy Jamieson have given a commitment to consider the issue in relation to sex offenders. It is right that we should start by considering people who have committed serious crimes, but we have also given a commitment to ask the Sentencing Commission for Scotland to consider the more general issue of early release as a priority.

We agree that community sentencing must be effective and that the judiciary and the wider public must have confidence in it. We agree that improvements can be made and that more work needs to be done in prison on rehabilitation to ensure that offenders are prepared properly for release and supported when they are back in the community. Many of those points on which we agree can be progressed confidently and positively.

The Conservatives' first point in the debate was to accuse us of having failed to have a debate on our criminal justice plan. We will have a debate on our proposals; we have already had such a debate, but we will give members the opportunity to debate them further, not just in one debate in the Parliament, but in the committees. Members will have an opportunity to engage because the problem that faces the country is far too serious to be swept under the carpet.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Despite what the Deputy Minister for Justice says, we have the opportunity to question and challenge him today only because the Scottish Conservative party used its parliamentary debating time to ensure that this important issue is discussed fully in the Parliament. Karen Whitefield should reflect on that point. It shows disregard for the Parliament—and, by implication, the people of Scotland—for the Executive to inform MSPs of the criminal justice plan via a press release rather than directly through the Parliament.

In section 1 of "Supporting Safer, Stronger Communities: Scotland's Criminal Justice Plan", which is on protecting communities and preventing crime, the Executive's first claim to fame is that its increased funding has led to record numbers of police officers. We readily acknowledge Hugh Henry's laboured point—he made it in both his speeches today—that the police service receives more funding than before, but he failed to point out that the vast majority of the extra police spend most of their time carrying out their new and greatly expanded duties, such as those that relate to the ECHR, the Macpherson report on racism and the maintenance of the sex offenders register, to mention just a few. I grant that those are all necessary activities but, as Colin Fox and other members have pointed out, that means that, at any given time, only 140 officers are available for foot patrol in the entire country, which is hopelessly inadequate.

The December 2002 report "Narrowing the Gap: Police visibility and public reassurance" revealed that 80 per cent of the public agreed that a more enhanced and targeted police presence would make people feel safer and reduce and prevent crime. Given the feeling that a more visible police presence would help to make a safer and stronger community, it beggars belief that the Executive has not addressed that point.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Will the member give way?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I want to press on.

The second section of the criminal justice plan document is on tackling drugs in our communities. The Scottish Conservative party welcomes the drug treatment and testing orders—a point that Keith Raffan does not appear to understand—but we want the measure to be extended to include offenders who appear before district courts, not just those who have committed more serious offences. However, the positive effect of the policy is likely to be diluted substantially, if not totally negated, by the Executive's disastrous know the score harm-reduction policy, coupled with its decision to downgrade cannabis from a class B drug to a class C one. As I have said previously, members should be under no illusion that cannabis is a soft drug, as the adverse effects that the drug is known to have on the immune, reproductive and central nervous systems, among other effects, all too poignantly prove.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I want to talk briefly about where we have come from rather than where we are. The member will be aware that the mens rea provision for a criminal offence in Scotland is that a crime can be committed intentionally or by wilful recklessness. Does the member accept that the consequences of Thatcherism of mass unemployment and poverty had social implications and that the Conservatives knew, or ought to have known, what those effects would be? Will the Conservatives now acknowledge guilt for the crimes that they perpetrated?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Frankly, no.

The third section of the criminal justice plan is about the reform of Scotland's courts. It is ironic but entirely typical of the Scottish Executive's muddled thinking that one of the key measures was to scrap Scotland's much-revered 110-day rule in favour of a 140-day rule. As a consequence, offenders—whom the Executive asserts it seeks to keep out of prison—will almost certainly spend longer behind bars in Scotland's overcrowded prisons. In view of that, I can hardly wait for the implementation of the Executive's proposals to make the courts work more efficiently and deliver justice more quickly and visibly. On the Executive's past record, those proposals will almost certainly achieve the opposite result.

In the fourth section of the plan, which is on effective interventions and sentences that fit the crime, the Executive pats itself on the back for piloting youth courts to fast-track offenders into court and gives a commitment to build seven completely new prisons in the decade from 1999. That sounds impressive, but the same Executive gave a commitment to reduce youth offending by ensuring early intervention and then closed Longriggend remand centre, thereby ending the excellent work that was done there to assess offending behaviour and to address it through education as soon as youths were remanded in custody. Pauline McNeill highlighted that important work. The complete absence of strategic and logical thought from the Executive, which used to be indecisive and is now not so sure, means that it regularly ends up working against itself and has to introduce new measures to undo the damage of other measures that it has imposed on the justice system and the nation.

The final section of the plan is on integrated services for managing offenders. The Executive states that it intends to

"merge the Community Justice and SPS accreditation panels in spring 2005 to promote consistency in programmes for offenders in ... the community."

However, the Executive and members such as Mike Pringle appear to be oblivious to the fact that it will not be possible to replicate best practice and deliver continuity of service in rehabilitation and work programmes in Scottish prisons as long as the Executive fails to ensure that adequate resources and contingency plans are in place to cover staff shortages in the Prison Service.

Once again, the Executive's rhetoric falls far short of reality, which is why we will not support its amendment. It is little wonder that the Scottish Executive, in its management of business, is content to schedule repeat debates in order to avoid being held to account on important issues such as reoffending and other justice matters. I have much pleasure in supporting the motion.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1291)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

At next week's meeting of the Scottish Cabinet we will discuss our progress towards building a better Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

In 2001, Susan Deacon claimed that the

"phoney war on waiting is over"

and promised to cut waiting times. A few months later, Malcolm Chisholm also promised to cut waiting times. Why should anyone believe the promise made by the current Minister for Health and Community Care to cut waiting times when the same promise has been made and broken by the previous two health ministers?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Because, in that time, we have seen dramatic reductions in the waiting times for treatment of Scotland's key killer diseases and every promise that has been made and guarantee that has been given to those who wait longest in our health service has been met by this devolved Government. Further, in addition to the targets that were set out clearly yesterday by the Minister for Health and Community Care, we have in place the investment and the reforms that we now know that the nationalists would deny Scotland but to which we are absolutely committed.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I remind the First Minister, as he witters on about targets, that the number of in-patients who are seen within six months has declined each year since he became First Minister. Never mind that, however, as we are now to have a step change in policy. I would like to ask the First Minister about one aspect in particular. Yesterday, Andy Kerr said—and had it printed in bold type, so it must be important—that he will

"bring all of the available floor space (at former HCI) into intensive clinical use".

If that really is a new policy, can the First Minister tell us how it differs from Malcolm Chisholm's promise in June 2002

"to maximise the use of the 60,000 square feet facility"

at the Health Care International hospital?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I know that the Scottish National Party has a slight problem with turning rhetoric and theory into reality, but the reality is that we want to ensure that not only do we have that building but we have the capacity to ensure that that building delivers for Scottish patients. The thousands of Scottish patients who have already benefited from that new hospital will continue to benefit in the years to come, as will many more. That is in direct contradiction to the statements that were made yesterday by members of the SNP who were opposing the very reforms that will make a difference for Scottish patients—a position that is, incidentally, in direct contradiction to promises made by their current deputy leader only 18 months ago.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The First Minister has just put his finger on his own problem.

Yesterday, Andy Kerr said that one of his never-seen-before policies was better workforce planning. However, how does that differ from Malcolm Chisholm's pledge two years ago to

"develop new workforce planning arrangements"?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As—[ Laughter. ] The SNP members will not be laughing in a minute. As Ms Sturgeon should be able to realise, it is possible at every stage in this journey to improve those waiting times, ensure that we bring down the longest waits and ensure that we continue to bring down the waiting times for those who are suffering or in danger of dying from the key killer diseases in Scotland. We will do that not only by maintaining the record levels of investment in our health service that we are making but by implementing the necessary reforms. As I just said, that stands in direct contradiction to the stated policies of the SNP.

Yesterday, Ms Robison, on behalf of Ms Sturgeon, told us that the SNP is totally opposed to the use of the private sector in Scotland's hospitals. However, only two years ago, Ms Sturgeon was telling us that a so-called SNP Government

"will never stand in the way of a patient receiving treatment in an empty private sector bed".

SNP members says one thing when it suits them on one occasion and another thing when it suits them on another occasion. They should be more consistent. They were not consistent on the issue of the council tax last week and they are not being consistent on the issue of the health service this week. They need to realise that the NHS in Scotland needs not only investment but reform. If it gets both, it will continue to deliver improvements for Scottish patients.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is it not the case that the only people who stand between patients and treatment are those in the Scottish Executive? Is it not the case that the First Minister's health policy has more repeats than the Christmas television schedules and that virtually every promise made in the past five years has been broken? That is why the First Minister is now turning in desperation to the private sector—a move that expert after expert says will drain resources away from the health service. Was yesterday's announcement not simply the final admission of defeat by an Executive that, under the First Minister's leadership, has failed patients time after time?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I think that Nicola Sturgeon was pretty poor this week, too.

Three years ago, the SNP called on us to shift the focus from waiting lists to waiting times; now it calls on us to shift the focus back again. Three years ago, the SNP called on us to focus on the longest waiting times. We have done that, we have brought those waiting times down and now we will bring down the others too. Three years ago, the SNP called on us to focus on and prioritise Scotland's key killer diseases and we have saved hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of lives in that time because of the focus on cancer, heart disease and stroke. We will continue to focus on those key priorities for Scotland, but we will also ensure that all other patients get a better deal too.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I put it to the First Minister that he can spin, but he cannot hide. Out-patient waiting times are up and in-patient waiting times are higher than they have ever been. That is not progress but regress and it is the patients of Scotland who are paying the price.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The 12-month guarantee for in-patients: met. The 9-month guarantee for in-patients: met. Bringing down the waiting times for heart disease treatment: met, and lives saved. Bringing down the waiting times for cancer treatment: met, and lives saved. Bringing down the waiting times for stroke treatment: met, and lives saved. Those are the real achievements of the Scottish health service. We will build on those achievements, not just by investing resources that the Scottish nationalist party could not even dream of, never mind deliver, but by ensuring that people in Scotland get the reforms in their health service that will deliver those changes and put patients first. That is in direct contrast to promises that were made in the past by Ms Sturgeon but yesterday contradicted and abandoned by Ms Robison.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1292)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no immediate plans for a formal meeting with the Prime Minister.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

When they do meet, the First Minister and the Prime Minister might like to compare notes about their respective performances in dealing with waiting lists and waiting times in the health service north and south of the border. That would be a most illuminating discussion.

Will the First Minister tell us why the targets announced yesterday by Mr Kerr are conveniently set for the end of 2007, following the next election to this Parliament? Why was the Minister for Health and Community Care remarkably reluctant to give equivalent target figures for the end of both 2005 and 2006? Why can we not have some indications of progress before we next go to the polls? Is what we heard yesterday not a case of another health minister, another waiting times initiative and another desperate attempt to cover up the failures that we have seen in the past five years?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I know that we have been in this Parliament for only five and a half years, but most members have managed to notice in that time that we have quarterly reports of progress in the national health service and that the statistics contained in those reports outline the different changes that have taken place. It is critical that those reports should be made more transparent and more able to allow the health service to be held to account. That is precisely why Mr Kerr announced the changes in those statistics yesterday. However, it is wrong to say that there will not be proper progress reports between now and the end of 2007 because the reports that are made will show that progress.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

We are of course aware of the lack-of-progress reports that we have been given quarterly during the past five years on a range of issues and indicators on waiting times and waiting lists in hospitals. Is it not the case that the announcements that Mr Kerr made yesterday are, far from representing a so-called step change—to use a favourite piece of new Labour jargon—little more than a mouse? Is it not the case that the operations that will be commissioned on behalf of NHS patients from the independent sector will amount to little more than one tenth of 1 per cent of the health budget? Given that derisory statistic, is it not the truth that there is no clearly thought-out strategy on significantly increasing health capacity in Scotland to reduce waiting lists, and that all we have heard is another series of back-of-the-envelope solutions?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

On Mr McLetchie's first point, I have already said that the waiting times for heart treatment, for example, are dramatically down from when the Conservatives were in power. That is saving lives in Scotland and he should not demean that achievement by the people who work hard in our health service.

It is true that we must ensure that there are further improvements, first by reorganising and improving the work of the health service and the staff who work directly for it, but also by using other capacity and other providers, which is precisely what the Minister for Health and Community Care announced yesterday. The minister will outline further progress on that as contracts are developed and signed. It is clearly possible for that to happen in addition to the existing capacity of the health service in Scotland, as providers themselves said yesterday evening. As a result, many patients in Scotland will be treated more quickly in the years to come. The Conservatives should have welcomed the initiative, but they were not big enough to do so.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

We did indeed welcome the initiative, because it represents a tiny step along a road that we alone in Parliament have been advocating for the past five years. The First Minister should apologise to the patients of Scotland for the five wasted years during which tens of thousands of patients languished on Labour's waiting lists, while Labour arrogantly turned away from the improvements to capacity that could have led to treatment for many of them.

If the initiative had been carefully thought out, then instead of the vague homilies about the use of the independent sector that are in the report that the Minister for Health and Community Care presented yesterday, on which little additional light was shed during the debate, we would have a good deal more information about the diagnostic and treatment facilities that are to be brought on stream and about the new, more flexible, mobile scanning units.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

If the plans have not just been dreamed up in a desperate measure to ensure that the First Minister can be seen to be doing something, why were we not presented with much more substance than was announced to Parliament yesterday?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will not conduct negotiations with private companies in public. Mr McLetchie, of all people, should understand that principle. He talks about capacity in the health service in Scotland. I remind him that in almost every category of staff in the health service, the number of staff is up dramatically from when the Conservative Government was in power. That is because of our commitment to the national health service, as opposed to his party's commitment to privatising and breaking up the national health service. We know exactly what the Conservatives would do with the extra money that is available for the health service—if they even kept it in the budget. They would use the money to subsidise the operations of people who can already afford to pay for their operations, rather than do what we are doing and ensure that the money is used to deliver operations for patients on a basis of equity across the whole of Scotland. No matter what someone's background, income or personal financial circumstances are, in Scotland today they receive the same treatment from the health service, as the Minister for Health and Community Care outlined yesterday. Under the Conservatives, a person's ability to receive that treatment would depend on their ability to help to pay for it. That is wrong. The health service should be free at the point of need for all. That is our commitment and we will stick to it.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

There is one extra question this week, from Richard Lochhead.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The First Minister will be aware that at next week's fishing talks, Scotland's fishing communities will once again be at the mercy of the unworkable and failed common fisheries policy, which is why after First Minister's question time the Cod Crusaders will hand into the Parliament their biggest ever petition, in which 160,000 Scots call for Scotland to come out of the common fisheries policy. In relation to next week's talks—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the First Minister ask the Prime Minister to permit Ross Finnie to officially lead the UK delegation in Brussels? At least that would increase our chances of getting a good deal for Scotland. Given that we have led on education and health talks in the past and given that Scotland has 70 per cent of the UK fishing industry, why can we not lead on fishing?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I respect those who have been campaigning locally and those who have genuinely campaigned for their own industries and communities over the past two years. It is also important to recognise that the situation has changed over that time because of the Executive's efforts in Brussels and elsewhere to improve the situation of Scotland fishing communities.

As a result of the efforts that have been made by this devolved Government, we now have, for example, a proper regional advisory council for North sea fisheries. The North sea regional advisory council will influence the decisions that are made at European level. It will build on those decisions to ensure that we get the regional management for the North sea fisheries that all of us have been looking for.

The regional advisory council was established precisely because of the actions of this devolved Government. Instead of undermining things, as Mr Lochhead does when he goes to Brussels, we have taken action with the support of the UK Government. Year on year, we have gone to Brussels to negotiate a proper solution and to get changes to the European Commission's proposals that are in the interests of the Scottish fishing communities. Those efforts will continue. We will engage actively in the negotiations to represent Scottish fishing communities and ensure that they have a sustainable future. We are not shouting from the sidelines or trying to exploit and undermine the negotiations, as Mr Lochhead has done consistently, year after year.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1295)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no immediate plans for a formal meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

The First Minister will be aware that the first session of the Parliament saw Scotland lead Europe in the implementation of the water framework directive, which was hailed as one of the most far-reaching and significant pieces of environmental legislation in 40 years. However, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency stated this week that it has a shortfall of £20 million in the budget that it needs to carry out its duties in protecting our water environment. Is the First Minister concerned that Scotland could plummet down the European league because of a lack of care for its environment? What does he propose to do about that?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No. The connection is an illogical one to make. It is natural for quangos, public bodies and others that we finance to demand more money. All of them seem to do that on a regular basis and SEPA is no exception to the rule. However, there is no direct relationship between that and our implementation of the directive, the object of which is to ensure that we in Scotland see significant improvements in the quality of our water supply.

The levels of investment that this devolved Government has pursued over the past five years prove our commitment to deliver on that overall commitment. The quality of water supply in Scotland has improved over that time and will continue to improve. The management of Scottish Water, which all members and parties in the Parliament have been critical of in the past, is now to be congratulated on the significant improvements that it is making. It is also to be congratulated on the efficiencies that allow it to make even better use of the investment.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

The First Minister has not answered the question about the £20 million shortfall. The SEPA chief executive said:

"Although additional funds have been provided, they were not at the level we'd requested."

The First Minister is selling the environment short. At the very least, will he agree to look into the issue of the shortfall as a matter of urgency?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No. I do not equate the improvement of the environment in Scotland, by means of our investment in the environment, with the pumping of money into one particular body, agency or quango just because it has requested more money. The Executive has to make balanced judgments about our budget. We make those judgments because of the need for wider levels of investment.

In terms of the budget that was announced this year, what is important for the environment is not whether SEPA got every bit of money that it asked for but the fact that we will invest record amounts of money in improving how we recycle and manage Scotland's waste. It is also important that we will invest record amounts in the improvement of the quality of our water supply and in a whole range of other environmental measures that improve Scotland today and will improve Scotland in the future. SEPA should monitor that work, but it should do so within the budget that it has been allocated.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Yes. The Minister for Health and Community Care signed the bill today and it will be published tomorrow.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I welcome the First Minister's reassurance. People to whom I have spoken in my constituency, particularly young people, say that whether one is young or old, rich or poor, one is entitled to be protected from the effects of smoking. Does the First Minister agree that, for that reason and for the sake of clarity, it is important that there are few—if any—exemptions to the ban on smoking in public places?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Yes. I would simply remind the chamber that, as we said in the chamber just one month ago, 13,000 people in Scotland die of smoking-related diseases every year; about 1,000 people—we know for certain—die from the effects of passive smoking; and the lives of many more may be affected by passive smoking. However, 70 per cent of those who live in Scotland do not smoke and two thirds of those who smoke want to give up. The best way to encourage those who want to give up, and the best way to reduce the impact of smoking and of passive smoking, is to implement a comprehensive ban on smoking in public places. In the interests of our country and its future, we will do that as quickly as we can.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Does the First Minister intend that the smoking room in the Scottish Parliament complex should or should not have a future?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

That is not really a responsibility of the First Minister. [ Laughter. ]

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

And isn't he glad about that.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the Presiding Officer, I say that I have been on the record from the beginning as saying that I do not believe that the Parliament building should have a smoking room. I believe that it should be closed as quickly as possible.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Executive has had regarding the performance of national health service accident and emergency units. (S2F-1298)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Cabinet discussed the matter yesterday morning. Waiting times in accident and emergency have to improve and we therefore endorsed the target that was subsequently announced by the Minister for Health and Community Care yesterday afternoon. From the end of 2007, no one in Scotland will wait more than four hours from admission to an accident and emergency unit until discharge or transfer.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

In announcing that target, the Executive has clearly recognised that the experience of some patients in accident and emergency is less than satisfactory, but given the totally different nature of accident and emergency from the rest of the hospital service, and given that the solutions are not covered in "Fair to All, Personal to Each", will the First Minister say what specific proposals he has for accident and emergency that will allow that target to be met?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

One of the key things about the changes that are required in accident and emergency to meet that target is that we should use the best practice that exists in the many parts of Scotland where targets are being met. Tough targets have been set locally and have been met because of the way in which consultants, nurses and others are organising themselves in those accident and emergency units. One of the problems that we have in Scotland today is that there is not a consistent level of good practice throughout the country, which is why we are now setting a very clear national target, and we will ensure that that best practice is replicated in every part of Scotland.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The First Minister will be aware of the uproar in Campbeltown about the closure of the assessment ward at Campbeltown hospital and the likely impact that that will have on accident and emergency services at the hospital. The ward was closed after no consultation with local people and without any alternative service provision being put in place. I ask the First Minister to put pressure on the health board to suspend the closure until a proper consultation is carried out, and the community is satisfied that alternative provision has been put in place.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The planning and provision of services at a local level is a responsibility of the local health board, which has to take that responsibility seriously. That should include, at all times, proper consultation of local people and a proper plan to be in place when service changes are taking place.

I do not know the exact circumstances of the local situation to which George Lyon refers, but if improvements are required to the way in which the health board operates in that area, the Minister for Health and Community Care will take that up with the board.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Edinburgh's Royal Bank of Scotland infirmary has won the least coveted award for the worst accident and emergency waiting times in Britain, with 25 per cent of patients waiting for more than four hours for treatment. That is a worse performance than that of the old hospital in the city centre, which was built in 1723. Does the First Minister agree that the promises of hospital managers, who claim that the situation is better now, are clearly worthless and does he accept that critics of the private finance initiative scheme predicted the appalling record? Does he now wish that he had listened to the many warnings that bed and staff reductions would lead to the current erosion in the NHS's capacity to cope with demand?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Few people, beyond those who do not wish progress because of ideological baggage, would want to return to the previous situation in Edinburgh with the old hospital. Mr Fox might be one such person, but I suspect that those whom he represents do not agree with him.

The question partly relates to Mr Morgan's question. One improvement that can be made in accident and emergency units throughout Scotland relates to the fact that the process of registering and then seeing patients does not necessarily have to be consequential on the order in which they come through the door. One of the problems that existed at Edinburgh royal infirmary was that people were having to wait until those who required major treatment were dealt with before fairly minor issues were seen to in the course of an evening's work. That has changed in the six months since the survey was carried out, and the hospital has learned from the experience, which seems to me a good thing for it to do. I hope that Edinburgh royal infirmary will be only one hospital in Scotland to learn from that experience and improve accident and emergency performance in the months and years to come.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive plans to take on the findings and recommendations of the expert group on prostitution's stage 1 report. (S2F-1308)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Ministers do not plan to make any decisions on the expert group's report until the three-month consultation on the report has been completed and we have had a chance to consider the responses.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I thank the First Minister for his reply and comment on its wisdom. I also commend to him the expert group's findings because, as the Executive will find when it studies it, it manages to reconcile two conflicting duties of care. I ask the First Minister to consider seriously what the report says; we have managed to bridge the gap between the cities in Scotland.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I confirm that we will consider the report very seriously. We will also consider any representations that are made to us during the three-month consultation that began today.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does the First Minister agree that if we are serious about tackling the problem of street prostitution, one of the key issues must be to tackle kerb-crawling, which is one of the most odious forms of antisocial behaviour? Will he consider what progress the Executive can make on the partnership agreement commitment to legislate to make kerb-crawling a criminal offence?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

One of the reasons why we have to consider carefully the expert group's report and the responses to it is that it makes a different recommendation from that commitment, which was agreed 18 months ago. As I understand it, the report, which has been published today, recommends a different legal route for tackling kerb-crawling. That is a suggestion worthy of debate and consideration and I hope that those who have campaigned on the issue, raised it on a number of occasions and wish to see action, such as Mr McAveety, will read the report carefully and, if they disagree with the recommendation, make representations in the consultation to give us a chance to consider their point of view as well.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

As there is, as Margo MacDonald indicated, a difference of opinion between different cities, will the First Minister use his influence to achieve a consensus or, if he cannot achieve that, to ensure that those cities that wish to progress in a different manner may do so?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There is an interesting policy challenge for Government in that. On the one hand, we have a desire for a consistent national approach and a strategy to tackle the problems that result from prostitution in Scotland today. On the other hand, we have legitimate demands to adopt local strategies that are felt to be more relevant or at least have some support—in the city councils in particular. We will weigh up the balance of the arguments from those two points of view. I expect the four main city councils to be among the respondents to the consultation.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE — Enterprise, Lifelong Learning and Transport

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what percentage of staff and students in further education colleges it estimates will require to be vetted by Disclosure Scotland in the next academic year. (S2O-4624)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 will come into force on January 10 2005, with the result that FE colleges must not knowingly employ people who are disqualified from working with children under the terms of the 2003 act. A disclosure will be required to ascertain whether a candidate is unsuitable for a college post. At this time, we are not currently aware how many FE college staff will require to be vetted by Disclosure Scotland. The 2003 act should, however, have no impact on the number of students who might apply for a disclosure.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for that helpful reply. I am sure that he is aware that there is concern among college principals and others about interpretation of the 2003 act. There is concern that many adult students will have to be vetted if they share classes with younger students. The problem is uncertainty. Can the minister assure us that it will be made clear to FE colleges what the rules are and how they are to be interpreted?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am pleased to give that assurance to my colleague Mr Gorrie. On the specific concerns of the college principals, to which he referred, there should be no change to the arrangements for disclosure in respect of college students, as I outlined in my first answer. I accept that there is concern about the confusion that the change will generate, but I understand that we are today issuing to organisations a guidance note to alleviate concerns and reduce confusion about the impact of the 2003 act.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether its target of reopening the Airdrie to Bathgate railway line by the end of 2008 will be met. (S2O-4691)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The development of the project is progressing well and we expect completion of the rail link by the end of 2008.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am grateful to the minister for that reply. Does he agree that it is important to the people of Airdrie and, indeed, to the people of West Lothian that work on the important railway link be started as soon as possible? Does he also agree that is essential that the railway link provide access to the people of Plains and Caldercruix, and some West Lothian villages if it is to make a real difference to the rail infrastructure of central Scotland?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I believe that there will be significant benefits from completion of the rail link, which will provide a link from Edinburgh right through to Glasgow. The communities along the route will clearly have a strong case to argue for stops when the matter comes before Parliament for scrutiny. We must get the balance right; we cannot have a stop everywhere a community wishes one. However, it will be appropriate to have a reasonable number of stops and Parliament will carefully scrutinise that issue in due course.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I am aware that the minister recognises that the Airdrie to Bathgate link is one of the most important transport projects that the Executive is committed to in terms of alleviating road congestion. Bearing that in mind, is the minister prepared to meet me, my colleagues Mary Mulligan and Karen Whitefield, and officials of the relevant local councils, as was requested in a recent letter from Mary Mulligan?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The short answer is yes. It is important that there is a meeting about the project including the relevant local councils and MSPs. Risks are associated with the development of all major transport projects. We must keep projects of the scale and importance of the Airdrie to Bathgate rail link on time and on budget. It is important that everyone involved drives such projects forward. I am determined that we will deliver them effectively and quickly over the coming months and years.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

How much money is allocated to the project in the current Executive budget document, which goes up to the year 2007-08?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The full current allocation for the project is in the region of £225 million. That includes an allocation for what the Treasury calls optimism bias. As we progress such projects, we try to become ever more certain about the costs and to drive out that optimism bias. The answer to Alasdair Morgan's question is £225 million.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made in improving travel across the Forth estuary. (S2O-4638)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Executive is working closely with the Forth Estuary Transport Authority and other stakeholders to improve transport links across the Forth. That work includes initiatives such as the expansion of Ferry Toll park and ride and the improvement of rail services across the Forth rail bridge. We are also progressing the construction of a new crossing at Kincardine.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

The minister will be well aware of the major traffic difficulties that people experience in trying to get across the Forth road bridge, especially at peak times. Hold-ups now commence prior to 7 am and there are still problems with rail services to and from Fife, notably in respect of reliability and overcrowding. What plans does the minister have to improve the appalling A8000 bottleneck, which plays a large part in the difficulties on the bridge? What improvements can be made to Fife circle and east coast main line services to increase the number of trains on those routes?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

As Scott Barrie knows, we are investing in new trains on those routes, which will significantly increase peak-time capacity. To bring about that major improvement, we are extending the length of the platforms at some stations to accommodate the longer trains.

As regards the ever-increasing congestion on the road bridge, the Forth Estuary Transport Authority is considering a number of ways to improve the situation in the long term. A key development that I want to be progressed as quickly as possible is the completion of the A8000 upgrade to dual carriageway. The Executive is offering every assistance to ensure that that happens on time and on budget and I believe that the project, which should get under way next year, can be completed by the middle of 2007.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister join me in congratulating bridgemaster Alastair Andrew and his team on the efficient way in which they are managing traffic on the Forth road bridge? They cannot be expected to do that indefinitely. What does the most recent structural report that the minister has received say about the state of the bridge, especially since the opening of the main suspension cables, which I understand has caused concern?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Those are matters for the Forth Estuary Transport Authority. I meet the authority and the bridgemaster regularly. They are doing a lot of good work and are looking to the long term.

As Keith Raffan knows, they are considering whether there should be another crossing of the Forth estuary. They are also examining ways of managing the traffic on the bridge through measures such as tolls that vary according to the time of day people cross the bridge and according to whether a vehicle has a single occupant. About 70 per cent of the vehicles that cross the bridge have single occupants, so there is real potential to reduce congestion on the bridge through innovative new measures.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Is the minister aware that there is substantial demand for the A8000 to be upgraded speedily? If the minister was able to bring forward the completion date from 2007, that would be widely welcomed by the many thousands of commuters on both sides of the Forth who would be greatly assisted by reduced congestion, especially during rush hour.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I understand the point that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton makes. I use the A8000 regularly and I see the huge amount of congestion that can occur.

The last time I met the bridgemaster, I discussed the issue with him. Along with City of Edinburgh Council, the Forth Estuary Transport Authority has a key role in delivering the upgrade of the A8000. I offered the bridgemaster every assistance that I can make available. We considered a timetable that could be achieved as quickly as possible, given the work that must still be done in terms of land acquisition and issuing the contract. I am confident that we can get the work under way next year and that we can meet the sort of deadline that I mentioned. If I can assist with anything that needs to be done to speed up the process, I will do so.

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

I associate myself with the comments that have been made by other members, in particular Scott Barrie, on rail travel. I invite the minister to travel with Fife members on what passes for a rail service between Fife and Edinburgh. Can the minister update Parliament on the discussions that have taken place and the progress that has been made on encouragement of a fast ferry service from Fife to Edinburgh?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Such a ferry service would have to be a commercial service. It would not be seen as a lifeline ferry link and so would not qualify for subsidy under European Union regulations. That said, I will not travel too far into the area of ferries.

On train services, I agree with Tricia Marwick that we need to modernise, improve and upgrade services to Fife. That will be one of the significant benefits of introducing the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line. As well as the improvements that the new trains and longer platforms will bring, once the SAK line is completed in 2008, we will have opportunities to introduce more services. Significant improvements are on the horizon and my role is to drive forward those improvements to ensure that they are delivered as quickly as possible. There is real potential to grow the rail market between Fife and Edinburgh.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with the Strategic Rail Authority on the franchise arrangements for the east coast main line. (S2O-4589)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Scottish Ministers issued advice to the SRA in June this year about re-letting the east coast main line franchise. The advice was taken into account in the invitation to tender that was issued to bidders.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

As part of the discussions that are being held, or of the advice to the SRA, was the issue of direct services between Europe and Scotland via the east coast main line raised? The minister will be aware of reports in some weekend papers that Eurostar will renege on its promise to provide direct services between Scotland and Europe. Will he raise the issue with the SRA and with Alistair Darling? We need assurance from Eurostar that direct services to Scotland will be provided.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I am determined that the current level of service on the east coast main line will be maintained and improved. Obviously, and ultimately, the cross-border services on the line are the responsibility of the SRA and the UK Government. The Scottish Executive's advice on those issues is non-binding, but that said, we have had constructive discussions with the SRA. I will take up the issue that Iain Smith raises when next we meet the SRA.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will ensure that Scottish Enterprise delivers environmentally sustainable development. (S2O-4685)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The Executive provides strategic guidance to Scottish Enterprise through "A Smart, Successful Scotland: Strategic direction to the Enterprise Networks and an enterprise strategy for Scotland". The refreshed strategy places sustainability at the heart of enterprise and competitiveness and makes it clear that the enterprise networks must take account of the need for sustainable development in all their activities.

The refreshed document also makes an explicit link to the developing green jobs strategy. Our green jobs strategy takes sustainable development as its starting point and will examine the business opportunities that the commitment to sustainability can create.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Although "A Smart, Successful Scotland" was recently refreshed, its focus is still economic growth. It does, however, include a line with which I agree:

"Economic growth and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive - resource efficiency and waste minimisation increase productivity and can drive economic growth."

To take that forward, will the minister instruct Scottish Enterprise and the enterprise agencies to follow the lead of many other businesses, countries and local authorities around the world in adopting a policy of zero waste which would, if it were to happen, save resources, be a driver to innovation and save money.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Eleanor Scott is right to draw attention to that passage in "A Smart, Successful Scotland" and to underline the fact that pursuing sustainability policies and economic growth are by no means incompatible. By driving forward efficiency and resource efficiency and by pursuing the use of renewable energy sources, we can impact positively on companies' performance and finances. Furthermore, Scotland can show leadership in devising and manufacturing the technologies that will assist companies in implementing resource-efficiency measures.

Ministers have not formally adopted a zero-waste policy but we are taking action throughout Scotland to reduce, reuse, recycle and compost waste as part of our national waste plan. That can lead to significant reductions in the use of landfill. The Waste and Resources Action Programme is a UK body that we help to fund. WRAP is working with retailers on how packaging and products can be designed to minimise waste. I believe that with good interface with business, opportunities for treating waste better can be highlighted.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to make public transport less vulnerable to antisocial behaviour. (S2O-4664)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Scottish Executive continues to work in partnership with local authorities, transport providers and others to reduce the levels of crime, vandalism and antisocial behaviour on public transport. Recent initiatives such as the closed- circuit television programmes in the south-east of Scotland and in the city of Dundee are positive steps. We fully support First ScotRail Ltd's recently announced drive to protect its rail staff.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The minister will be aware that earlier this year a bus driver was shot in the head by a youth with an air gun in Erskine, in my constituency, which caused great distress to his family and community. I am glad to hear of the minister's support for schemes such as the one in Dundee. However, my understanding is that such partnerships are not forming as quickly as they could or should.

Will the minister consider meeting representatives of the appropriate bodies, including the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive, local authorities and bus company representatives to encourage and support investment in schemes similar to the one in Dundee? I suggest that there would be no better place to start than west Renfrewshire.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I would be happy to attend a meeting with Trish Godman at which issues relating to, for example, the tragic incident involving the bus driver in west Renfrewshire can be raised. I want more to be done about such issues throughout Scotland and will play any part I can in that. One of the reasons why we are forming regional transport partnerships is to drive the initiatives forward faster. Some local authorities have been progressive and have developed good relationships with bus operators and others, but we need to instil more urgency and greater momentum in other parts of the country. I would like that to happen.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made in making ex gratia payments to former members of the Scottish Transport Group pension fund. (S2O-4557)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Twelve thousand and thirty-two members and dependents have now been paid a total of £121.84 million for claims that were received before the cut-off date of 31 October 2004. Arrangements are now in place to distribute a further £3.8 million to beneficiaries who received their second payment previously. That money should be in their bank accounts before Christmas.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

What is the point of the Executive setting a cut-off date of 31 October for late claims, but then holding back a quarter of a million pounds from the pension fund surplus for further late claims that might be submitted after the cut-off date? In the unlikely event that further valid claims will be submitted, could members and their dependents not be paid out of the Scottish Executive's contingency fund, instead of the minister holding back a quarter of a million pounds that belongs to the pensioners, which should be paid out now to those who have submitted valid claims?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I have discussed the issue with Dennis Canavan on a number of occasions. We are trying to find the fairest possible way to pay out the available funds. The £250,000, in the context of a total of roughly £125 million, is a very small amount to set aside for cases of hardship and for circumstances in which there might be good reasons for a claim not being made before the cut-off date of 31 October. It is only fair, prudent and sensible to have set aside that sum. Two individuals have come forward after the cut-off date—their claims will be processed and paid in January from the retained sum of £250,000. That is a fair way in which to have dealt with the situation.

Justice and Law Officers

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment it has made of the level of fear of crime. (S2O-4604)

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

The overall level of recorded crime in Scotland is currently the lowest for a quarter of a century. However, I am concerned that serious and violent crime rates remain stubbornly high. We have revised the Scottish crime and victim survey to ensure that we have a better understanding of the public's perception of crime.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Given that many groups are determined to instil a climate of fear in us, typified by the recent media headline that said "Alert after 'Arabs' take photographs of Holyrood", what steps is the Executive taking to get across the message that the risk from crime, especially from terrorism, is extremely low? Will the minister resist any attempt to encourage a climate of fear in Scotland, especially in the coming months?

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

As I am sure Mike Pringle is aware, when I launched the criminal justice plan I said that I wanted to ensure that Scotland is

"a nation of opportunity, and not a state of fear."

That is why we must tackle the problems of crime in a number of ways. We have to ensure that we prevent and detect crime and that offenders are brought to justice swiftly. All that contributes to people's understanding that they perhaps perceive the likelihood of their being victims of crime to be stronger than it is in reality. However, that does not get us away from the fact that we require to deal with the crime and antisocial behaviour that people see in their communities and with the problems in their areas. By tackling those problems, I believe that we will help the public to realise that we are getting to grips with crime.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Has the minister researched the effect on victims and the wider public of early release of people who have committed crimes of violence?

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

The member will be aware that I have asked the Sentencing Commission for Scotland to consider issues around early release. I say to Phil Gallie—as I have said to others—that there are other matters that we must consider, such as arrangements for early release of people who have committed sex offences, particularly those who have offended against children. It is not enough simply to consider early release in isolation; we must consider it in relation to supervision and monitoring of offenders once they are back in the community. That is exactly what the criminal justice plan sets out in more detail.