Scottish Parliament, 10 February 2005

323 contributions from 73 members. The official report.

Official Report 10 February 2005

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on the reform of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which will be concluded without any question being put.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I wonder whether the Lord Advocate will comment on morale within the service which, a couple of years ago, was at what I hope was an all-time low. Have these very welcome changes increased the morale of those who work in the service?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is welcome to hear about those growing figures for seizures, with the concomitant benefits of ploughing the money back into communities. However, figures from England suggest that an average heroin addict spends £35,500 a year on their habit. There are some 51,000 addicts in Scotland, so we are talking about a £2,000 million a year industry—if I may so term it. Are we being sufficiently ambitious? Can we expect substantial uplifts in recoveries in coming years? Is such work being resourced?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I thank the Lord Advocate for his comments. I will make two preliminary remarks about the basis of this debate.

I welcome this chamber having the opportunity to consider matters that the Lord Advocate and his office, and the Solicitor General, are clearly addressing. This chamber did not exist before 1999 and we used to be lucky if the Lord Advocate had time to consider matters with politicians, because of other duties. The body politic did not become involved and what we had was what we continued with, whether it was right or wrong. Today we are seeing one of the benefits of devolution.

However, there are some difficulties with this debate. I do not mean this as a criticism of the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor General, nor do I mean it as a criticism of the Minister for Justice or her deputy. My comments relate to the scheduling of the debate and the way in which information has been provided for it. Clearly, particular circumstances have led to our having today's debate at fairly late notice. However, it is not adequate that people have insufficient information on which to debate.

Some of us have a legal qualification. I have 20 years of legal experience, and others too have such experience. Some have the benefit of relevant experience on committees. However, others in the chamber who have neither legal nor committee experience would still wish to participate in the debate. They have limited opportunity because limited information has been available to allow them to get up to speed on the issues.

If this chamber is to provide the perspective of all in Scottish society—and not simply that of people who are legally qualified or who are members of one of the justice committees—information should be available to allow others to participate. It is important to involve not only the practitioners but the receivers of the service.

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

I for one have no experience; I have only just joined the Justice 1 Committee. However, all 129 MSPs deal with cases that involve the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I therefore hope that all members will feel free to speak in this debate.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am not suggesting otherwise. Members who participate without the benefit of committee or legal experience are to be commended. However, it would have been helpful for them to have information on what is going on. Not everyone will know what the Lord Advocate said in 2001, or know about the on-going work of the Solicitor General. On my way to the chamber, I asked the Scottish Parliament information centre what papers were available. The short answer was none.

We will have the benefit of a debate involving those with committee and legal experience, and those with constituency knowledge. However, those who schedule debates such as this one could add to—

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

Will Mr MacAskill take an intervention?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

By all means.

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

Mr MacAskill has said that he does not intend his comments to be a criticism of particular individuals who are here. Will he assist us by telling us exactly what kind of papers he was looking for? I know that he asks a considerable number of questions on such matters. A lot of the information is in the public domain, in one way or another.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

It may be in the public domain, but many people who are coming to the debate cold may have been looking for a synopsis—even just two sides of A4 from SPICe on the changes in the Crown Office. That would have been of assistance.

I want to move on. We put on record our support for the COPFS, which is a body that is perhaps not given the credit that it deserves. The Lord Advocate was correct to point out that it is the largest legal employer. Its role is not confined to involvement in criminal prosecutions. Many people forget that the COPFS has a role to play in cases of sudden death and fatal accident inquiries and that it acts in the public interest in relation to applications for shotgun certificates and a whole array of other matters. We should recognise that its role transcends that of involvement in the prosecution of crime at solemn or summary level.

It is also important to recognise that the COPFS acts in the public interest. That is fundamental. I want to mention no pros—cases in which it is decided that it would not be in the public interest for proceedings to take place. The COPFS has a duty to consider whether it believes that a criminal offence has occurred, whether the case could be pursued and a conviction obtained and whether it is in the public interest that there should be a prosecution. We do well to remember that there are occasions when the COPFS decides that although it could prove in a court of law that an offence had been committed, it may not be in the public interest to do so.

I practised as a defence agent in years gone by and I remember many cases in which the COPFS gave people who had erred the opportunity to make recompense in some shape or form and, in doing so, allowed them to avoid getting a criminal conviction, which would have posed serious problems as they got older—for example, when they applied for a job. It is right and proper that the COPFS allows people to thole their assize and make proper recompense. In many situations, it is appropriate not to proceed and to allow matters to be dealt with in an alternative manner. It is the duty and responsibility of the COPFS to make such decisions. Judgment calls have to be made and sometimes politicians do not agree with the decisions that are made. Politicians should cut the Crown Office some slack. On occasion, the COPFS may make what the public perceive to be a mistake, but such things happen.

The COPFS needs to move on; that is why the changes that are being brought in are welcome. It must adapt to both internal and external changes. We must acknowledge that society has moved on, not just structurally, but attitudinally. People simply used to accept many things. It was a matter of course that when someone was cited as a witness, they would go. They could not expect to find facilities for a cup of tea, never mind a cup of coffee, unless the Women's Royal Voluntary Service happened to be on duty that day. In today's society, many people would regard that as unacceptable. We would all accept that if people act in a public-spirited fashion by giving evidence or attending court as victims of crime, we have a responsibility as a society to ensure that their journey through the legal system is as pleasant as possible and that they face as few difficulties and as little discomfort as possible.

The changes that have taken place are not just structural and attitudinal; there have been changes in the nature of the system. For a great many years, the system was left unchanged. No consideration was given to it—the thinking was that that was how it was and that was how it would always be. No attention was paid to the anecdotal evidence of cases in which witnesses were told at very late notice that a trial had been cancelled. Crown Office employees sometimes went home without remembering to tell them and they were left in witness rooms like flotsam and jetsam. Such things happened; they were not done deliberately. The system simply failed to address the needs of those who were involved in it. To some extent, it was a legal sausage-making machine. There was a lack of understanding that the individuals who went through the process had emotions and, most important, rights. It is appropriate that the necessary attitudinal and systemic changes have been made.

There has also been a change in the structure of the system and in how fiscals' offices deal with cases. As society has become more modern and transport has improved, it has become clear that it is not necessary or cost-effective to have as many manned offices in all the Borders areas or in some areas in the north of Scotland, for example. That does not mean that fiscals' offices have to close; the work that they do can be covered in another way. That can be worked out locally.

I welcome the Lord Advocate's comments about morale and related matters. My view is that morale is still patchy. In some cases, that is understandable. The limited opportunity for promotion in fiscals' offices is always a problem. The fact that only so many top jobs are available always causes bottlenecks that mean that, at a certain juncture in their lives, the people who work in such offices have to decide whether they have any future in the service. Although, to some extent, that will always be an irreconcilable problem, we must try to address it.

I am led to believe that in some areas there is a worry about pensions, although it would be wrong to say that that is a concern only in fiscals' offices—the problem affects all public sector employment at the moment. There is also worry about whether the retirement age for fiscals will rise. The Lord Advocate may or may not be able to comment on that. I am led to believe that there has been a substantial increase in the number of requests for early retirement. That might simply be a matter of demography—in other words, it might be a result of the number of aging baby boomers. Such matters have to be dealt with if we are to make progress.

Although it is clear that sheriffs and judges are pivotal to the legal system, the courts are not there simply to serve them; the needs of other people who use the courts must be addressed. I know that evening courts have been considered. I think that there was an experiment in Dumbarton, which does not appear to have been a great success. My take is that the fact that the idea was not a success initially does not necessarily mean that it should not be reconsidered. We live in a 24/7 society. Sheriffs are very well recompensed for the job that they do. If they were able to work on a Saturday morning, that would ensure that the cell complexes in the city of Edinburgh could be cleared so that space was available for the people who misbehave on a Saturday night. It should not be impossible for sheriffs to sit on a Saturday and to clear a custody court to keep matters moving. Given the numbers of sheriffs, that would cause them minimal discomfort. We must address that. Given the difficulties that individuals have in attending court and the cost of taking time off work, evening courts might be suitable for dealing with the many minor road traffic offences, for example. I welcome the experiment that took place.

In summary, we welcome the steps that have been taken to make progress. The process is long overdue. That view is not partisan or ideological. We are talking about getting the best criminal justice system that we can for everyone who participates in it. In the past, errors were made as a result of the concentration on the rights and responsibilities of sheriffs and judges rather than those of the other people who participated in the court system. The COPFS has a vital job to do in our society, not simply in the prosecution of crime, but in a whole array of other matters. That is to be welcomed. I hope that people can gain a greater knowledge of what COPFS does. We should applaud and appreciate its work. It must be modernised in a sympathetic way, but we are heading in the right direction. The Scottish National Party is more than happy to pay tribute to the efforts of the Lord Advocate and his colleague.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The Executive has chosen to have a subject debate on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service; I say the Executive, because of course the Executive has the majority will on the Parliamentary Bureau. The use of the term "debate" is questionable, because there is no motion, there are no amendments, there will be no vote and, in essence, there is no point.

Mr MacAskill has alluded to the issue in more sensitive terms than I am prepared to adopt. If I look up to the public gallery, I can see that five brave members of the public have struggled into the chamber. They must wonder what they have stumbled in upon. I contrast today's deployment of time in the chamber with last week's. On a subject of hugely topical interest—the Westminster Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill—which proved controversial for various reasons, the Executive not only denied the Justice 2 Committee adequate time to produce a proper report, but deigned to afford only 50 minutes' debating time in the chamber to the discussion of what were substantive issues. This morning shows the perversity of parliamentary programming and the Executive's completely haphazard and illogical approach to priorities.

I do not impugn the sincerity with which the Lord Advocate made his remarks and I pay tribute to his efforts to modernise and make more efficient the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I will finish this observation first, as it is a tribute to the Lord Advocate. I acknowledge that this morning is—although I was previously unaware of it—the quinquennial celebration of Colin Boyd's arrival in the office of Lord Advocate. I am sure that all parties in the Parliament commend him and pay tribute to what he has endeavoured to do, but the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service—about which we are having a conversational exchange this morning—has been the subject of internal reorganisation, has been in receipt of significant capital expenditure in systems and equipment and was affected by the significant changes that were introduced by the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004. As recently as 29 December 2004, the Executive announced the establishment of an independent inspectorate for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service—that new body's first task will be to produce a thematic review on the service's approach to race issues.

Those are all important developments within the service, but it is utterly premature to make any judgment on how those changes are working and what strengths and weaknesses they have disclosed. Not only is it premature on 10 February, but it will still be premature on 10 March, 10 April, 10 May or even 10 June, because it is difficult to see how any sensible appraisal can be made without letting at least a year elapse from the passing of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2004.

I welcome the Lord Advocate's announcement that the Crown will give victims an explanation for a case not proceeding or proceeding in a certain way and I welcome his confirmation that £22.5 million-worth of assets have been restrained, but is that enough grist for a debate?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Is Miss Goldie's speech an indication that the Tory party is less engaged with the legal system inside or outside the Parliament?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Even by Mr Stevenson's standards, that is a remarkably obscure and unintelligible intervention.

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

I think that we understood it.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That would be a first.

It is perfectly obvious to anybody who cares to examine the Conservatives' contribution to the Parliament that we have made a singular contribution to promoting issues that concern our criminal justice system. Even the ministers would have the good grace to acknowledge that contribution over the past five years.

I am trying to address what I think are the priorities of the people of Scotland, because the Executive is adrift from that reality. What is happening in crime in our Scottish communities right now? What we are chatting about this morning is worthy, but it is only part of the whole. Only last week, we discovered that the number of young offenders has increased; in the same report, we read that the number of vulnerable children has increased. In England and Wales, a study is being carried out into the connection between cannabis use and schizophrenia. Fears about that link were expressed in Scotland when cannabis was reclassified, but has the Executive any proposals on that? In December, the Executive's Scottish crime survey told us that only one crime in four was being reported to the police. However disturbing that information may be to the public, it might at least point to something of a lacuna for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. In January, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland published a report recommending that the police not attend minor incidents.

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

It is important to point out that, as I hope Miss Goldie will acknowledge, ACPOS did not publish such a report; a report was prepared in a particular police force area, but it was not an ACPOS report. The police have clarified that and it is important to state it for the record.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The seniority of the officer who commended the suggestion leaves us in no doubt as to current thinking at senior police level.

The justice system in Scotland is nearing breaking point, but the Scottish Executive is ducking and diving, weaving and turning and dodging debate on the serious issues that have to be discussed. To be frank, it is allowing the Parliament to be used as an expensive and impotent social salon. We should be discussing subjects such as drug abuse, to which Stewart Stevenson has referred. Nobody is in any doubt about the seriousness of drug abuse in Scotland. Although there has been an increase in the number of drugs-related crimes that are recorded, there has been a drop in the number of such crimes that are prosecuted. Perhaps the minister, or whoever closes the debate for the Executive, might wish to comment on that. In 1997, 8,219 people were proceeded against in Scottish courts for drugs crime; by 2002, the figure had fallen by 16 per cent. Does the Lord Advocate wish to comment on drugs-related deaths?

I merely articulate those issues, because I do not expect the Executive to agree with my views on them and it would not expect me to agree with it, but at least we could have a debate on a number of them, all of which are hugely relevant to Scotland today. We could consider various other issues, such as policing. Proposals on policing are on the table, but there is no agreement on them in the Parliament. My party's proposal for elected conveners for police boards is attracting interest in communities that are plagued by disorder and, although the Executive does not agree with that proposal, the subject could still be debated.

We could also debate sentencing. The public have lost confidence in sentencing policy. It is all very well for the Lord Advocate and his colleagues to do their best to deliver an efficient, modernised prosecution system in Scotland, but if confidence in the whole criminal justice system dissipates because of an inability to understand how sentencing works and why prisoners get out early automatically, we are not assisting the public to understand the totality of our criminal justice system—all they know is that sickening crimes have been perpetrated by people who were free to commit them because they were released automatically. Is that not worthy of debate?

The sad reality is that, under the Executive—with its lack of clarity of vision on what needs to be done, its lack of resolve in trying to do it and its lack of leadership in identifying any priorities—the criminal justice system in Scotland is in turmoil, but that is not the Lord Advocate's fault. Courageous leadership, clarity of purpose and firmness in providing solutions that work are not the hallmark of the Executive and this expensive MSP chit-chat session is a sorry testament to that failure.

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

Miss Goldie questioned the Parliament's priorities in staging a debate on the prosecution service, but in light of last week's debate on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill and the fact that the Tories voted against that bill, I and many others in Scotland question their priorities in relation to organised crime.

As one member who comes cold to the debate in not having had legal experience before or since I was elected and having only recently become a member of the Justice 2 Committee, I feel slightly as I felt when I did jury service in the supreme court on an attempted murder trial: I was rather bamboozled by some of the jargon.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will Jeremy Purvis give way? I seek to assist.

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

I will give way in a moment. Twenty years of legal experience is not necessarily a benefit in a justice debate in the Parliament when the vast majority of our constituents are also bamboozled by legal jargon.

Scotland has never been safer, more tolerant or more open to embrace different cultures and communities. Police-recorded crimes fell by 18 per cent from 1992 to 2002, but the self-fulfilling prophecy that the fear of crime is the same as actual crime will be a feature of the forthcoming election campaign. The fear of crime never has been, and never will be, the same as actual crime, but that is not to belittle the effect of criminal behaviour. There are some who are intent on committing serious crimes for self-gain and others who make small communities a misery because of their antisocial behaviour.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does Jeremy Purvis consider that an increase of 16 per cent in violent crime, 23 per cent in vandalism, 49 per cent in the use of offensive weapons and 20 per cent in rape, serious attempted rape and homicide represents a safer society that he is proud to acknowledge?

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

I am sure that that intervention has taken a section from Margaret Mitchell's speech. Scotland has never been safer and its communities have never been more open. We should say so and not pander to the self-fulfilling prophecy that Scotland is less safe than it was 10 years ago and that crime is less reported than it was 10 years ago.

I hope that we in the Parliament recognise that we enjoy our freedoms within society because, by choice, we limit those freedoms to protect others. However, we must also acknowledge that, although we voluntarily limit our freedoms out of respect for and duty towards our fellow citizens, those freedoms will, at times, be abused by some in society. Such abuse can be prevented and offenders can be successfully rehabilitated. For our communities to feel safe, there must be effective policing and prosecution of offenders, as well as public knowledge that rates of detention and successful prosecution are high. There must also be transparent justice that is anchored in local communities and is fair, equal and efficient.

In the first parliamentary session, the Executive and the Liberal Democrat Minister for Justice, Jim Wallace, put in place many of the reforms and investments that have been made to ensure that justice in Scotland is more efficient. They included the most radical reforms to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in a generation, which the Lord Advocate has outlined, as well as the biggest increase in resources to that office in a generation. In 2001-02, when the reforms began, the budget for the Lord Advocate's portfolio was £65.1 million. It is now set to be £101 million in 2007-08.

The Liberal Democrats stood on an election platform to make communities safer by keeping the number of police officers at the highest-ever level. That is being done, with 17,000 officers in Scotland. We called for support to be given to the SDEA. Further support is being given this week, with the announcement of a consultation about putting the agency on a stronger statutory footing. We campaigned to tackle knife crime. The Executive announced this week its intentions to impose tougher sentences for possession of a knife. That is action, not words. The Liberal Democrats also stood on a platform to reduce crime through tackling recidivism and making services to support rehabilitation more effective, with longer programmes.

This morning's debate is about the prosecution of offences, but we need to focus on reducing offending in the first place. Reoffending rates are still too high. Research carried out in 1999 by the Scottish Prison Service showed that just under half of prisoners released from Scottish prisons returned to prison within two years. The reoffending level was particularly high among those who had served less than 12 months. The United Kingdom Government's social exclusion unit has estimated that the cost of recorded crime committed by ex-prisoners is at least £11 billion a year in the UK.

The recent Audit Scotland report on correctional opportunities in Scottish prisons showed that we have to make progress in reducing reoffending. Some 12 per cent of the SPS's full cost of prison operations, around £30 million, was spent on correctional opportunities in 2003-04. Audit Scotland's main findings included the recommendation that the SPS's commitment to provide correctional opportunities be reflected in the Scottish Executive Justice Department's objectives—I look forward to hearing the Minister for Justice's response to Audit Scotland's findings in due course. We pay so much attention to reducing reoffending, increasing rehabilitation and reducing crime because we want people to feel safer as well as actually to be safer.

There are criminals who seek to make a living while making other people victims. Since 2001-02, the Crown Office has made significant improvements to supporting victims. I pay tribute to the Lord Advocate and to the commitment of his staff in that regard. Making local Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service staff link with local alcohol and drug teams has been a positive move. Arguably, those links could be extended to include the voluntary sector.

It is vital for the police to be visible in communities and to provide information to community councils, neighbourhood watches, schools and colleges. One of the refrains that any constituency MSP will hear in their advice surgeries, especially in cases of antisocial behaviour, is, "What's the point of phoning the police? Even if they come round, they can't do anything about it." Under legislation that was passed by the Parliament, they can. With a more assertive prosecution service, each and every community should know the law and the powers that are open to the police and they should be aware of the fact that they can be at the centre of the judicial process. Crucially, communities need to know what has happened to the offender. I warmly welcome the Lord Advocate's positive response to help individuals to understand the judicial process in detail, especially in cases of decisions to take no further action.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

The member mentioned antisocial behaviour. I am aware of a police division where 40 referrals of antisocial behaviour are shelved every week, because there are not the social services to follow the cases through. The system is not quite joined up.

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

If Mr Swinburne is arguing that the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 and the work of prosecutors will be successful only through joint working with other agencies, including housing associations, local authorities and social work departments, he is making a good point. In the area of the Borders that I represent, the prosecution service, the local authority and the police have a very good working relationship. We have well above the average rate of antisocial behaviour referrals on the slate—not on the shelf. That protects communities and puts them at the heart of the justice system, which is absolutely right.

The Executive has stated that, between 1992 and 2002, overall recorded crime fell by a third. However, the number of recorded antisocial behaviour offences increased. More people are recording crimes, because they know that something can be done. We must ensure that disposals from the courts or effective mediation services to reduce reoffending are supported. That is not being weak on crime; it is being effective within communities. Mediation and other services should be supported.

I welcome the victim information and advice service. In 2003-04, 18,000 victims of crime were given information and advice about the progress of the case that affected them, as well as information about specialist support and counselling services. In December, that service was rolled out nationwide. In Ayr, Edinburgh and Kilmarnock, prosecutors are inviting victims of crime to submit statements to the court, setting out the effect that the crime has had on them.

I was interested to look at the Executive's victims of crime website, which provides practical information and cuts through a lot of the jargon associated with the criminal justice system. Better links with local authority justice teams—for both youth and adults—will assist with the roll-out of victim information and support schemes.

I welcome the fact that the future office system information technology project, which is now nationwide, will be extended in due course to the Scottish Criminal Record Office and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which will improve case marking further. The new IT system has made a positive difference to the work of procurators fiscal in my area of the Borders. Files can be transferred more easily. Crucially, the initial stage processing and the first calling in court are made more efficient. Efficiency, equality in treatment for victims and fairness for all communities—those are the benefits of the Executive's action on justice.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We come now to the open debate. I can allocate about seven minutes per speaker.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

You are so generous, Presiding Officer.

I can hardly believe that the Lord Advocate has now served in post for five years—that shows how quickly time passes.

Unlike the Opposition parties, I think that the debate serves an important purpose. Part of our job is to scrutinise what the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is doing. This is an important opportunity for us to consider the changes that have taken place. There can be no doubt that the transformation of the service since devolution has been remarkable. Gone are the days when the law officers were seldom seen and were not held fully accountable.

We all have our own experiences of the operation of our local Procurator Fiscal Service. I have seen the changes to my local service in Glasgow, including in the relationships that we continue to have with the service. I have made my contribution to the debate, as convener in the first parliamentary session of the Justice 2 Committee, which conducted an 18-month inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Because of that work, I have no hesitation in recognising that the dedication of the staff, from the top to the bottom of the service, is second to none. Despite the pressures on the service, with the policy of strict time bars on prosecutions, we have a service to be proud of.

The Lord Advocate spoke about the changes involving the appointment of procurator fiscal deputes for the High Court and I welcome the introduction of additional advocate deputes. Let us not underestimate the decision that our law officers have made in that regard. Prior to taking that decision, it was not possible for procurators fiscal to progress to prosecute in the High Court. The proposal was met with much resistance, particularly from the Faculty of Advocates, but the Parliament must commend it, as there is talent that could progress. That change will ensure that we have the right team of advocate deputes in the High Court.

The scrutiny of all MSPs has ensured that there have been important reforms in the way in which the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service responds to the communities that we represent. The service is to be commended at a time when there has probably never been as much pressure on it, because of the complexity of serious crime and the demand to bring cases without delay.

The most significant reforms that have been delivered relate to the treatment of witnesses and victims, which is a matter of serious concern to members. The appalling experiences of some families who have been through the criminal justice system came out in the former Justice 2 Committee's inquiry. There was the notable case of the Cawley family, who described in detail their arrival at the High Court in Glasgow, where there was no one to support them or to explain to them what would happen. There was also the case of the father who found himself placed in the vicinity of the person who was accused of assaulting his son. The Lord Advocate is right to point out that the physical aspects of the court system are important, particularly when it comes to the treatment of victims and witnesses. Let us not forget that the impact of crime is on communities, individuals and families. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service must support their needs.

We have a good system in Scotland. I defend enthusiastically the independence of the Crown Office in determining the prosecution of crime. We have ambitious targets and tight timescales. I welcome today's announcement that the reason for marking a case "no proceedings" will be given to the next of kin. It is a mark of the current thinking of our law officers that they are responding to the demands of our constituents and the general public. I hope that the Lord Advocate will share with us in future the detail of how that will be handled. There are often sensitive reasons why it is not in the public interest to proceed with a case, but I hope that clear guidelines will be given to deputes and that the level of resources that might be needed to ensure that that commitment can be acted on is recognised.

I want to say something about the ability of the service to continue to deliver good-quality decisions. I have always stressed the need to ensure that resources are getting to the front line. We need a strategy to recruit good, experienced lawyers to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The Procurators Fiscal Society advised me that, at the most recent recruitment board, there was a failure to fill all the vacancies. If that is the case, we need to review the position. I recognise the work that has been done in relation to deputes' pay, but we may have to consider the reasons why young and experienced lawyers are not attracted to the service.

We await the full implementation of the Bonomy reforms to the High Court. The report is an excellent piece of work, but I am under no illusion about the difficulties involved in ensuring that those reforms come about. There have been some helpful changes, including the extension of the timescale relating to the previous 110-day rule. I do not underestimate the commitment that has been made by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to what will be a very front-loaded system. However, if the system works, as the Justice 1 Committee believes it will, that will make a massive difference to witnesses and victims, who have often had to hang about and endure constant delays—now, they will no longer be required at the early stages of the process.

Twenty-two per cent of High Court business is already being transferred to the sheriff court. I have never been opposed to that decision, but I want confirmation that the resources will follow. I await the Scottish Legal Aid Board's review of the implications of the change, particularly in relation to the fact that an accused person does not have an automatic right to counsel if their case goes to the sheriff court. I would like to think that, in cases of serious crime, the accused person will still have access to counsel. I also want the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to recognise that fiscals are now more likely to face counsel in the sheriff court.

The debate is important, as it allows us to consider the reforms and the good things that have happened over the past five years. We can see the benefits of the Pryce-Dyer report, which brought about far-reaching management changes—indeed, it would be helpful at some stage to clarify what the current management arrangements are. We should all support the transformation of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and we should continue to debate in the Parliament what changes still need to be made. Let us not forget that, before the Parliament existed, there was no discussion and there was no place to raise directly with the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General issues that our constituents raise with us. I very much welcome the debate.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I come to the debate as one of those souls that Kenny MacAskill talked about who have no legal experience and who have not had the great honour of serving on one of the justice committees. I come from the point of view of someone who, over the years, has had dealings with and has thought about the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

I am pleased about much of what the Lord Advocate said this morning, because it touched on many of the problems that the public perceive with the system. The criminal justice system and the Procurator Fiscal Service have hardly changed in 300 years, yet, if we consider the booklet on the 2003-04 review of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, it appears that quite a lot has changed in the past five years. However, there is a bit further to go.

I was particularly pleased to hear the Lord Advocate's announcement on the disclosure, where possible, of the reasons for a case not proceeding. That is a great step forward, which will be welcomed by everyone. In the almost six years since I was elected, there has been much disquiet about that point. I add, though—and I would welcome feedback on this—that I have an issue with the general lack of information for victims of crime. I say that from my experience of being a witness twice in different cases over the past five years. They were only at Hamilton sheriff court, not the supreme court that Jeremy Purvis was fortunate enough to attend. On one occasion I was a victim of crime, and therefore a witness, and on the other occasion I was purely a witness. I still do not know the outcome of either case. In the case in which I was a victim, I do not know whether the chap was prosecuted, because nobody told me. In the case in which I was a witness, I do not know the result. That is not for want of trying to find out. The cases did not affect me badly, but for someone who has been badly affected by crime to feel that they are completely left out of the loop must be psychologically difficult. I would like the Lord Advocate to respond on that point. It could be that action is already being taken in that regard.

I was impressed with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service 2003-04 review booklet—there are a many good things in it. I was pleasantly surprised to note the many achievements described in the "Building Public Confidence" section, such as the equality advisory group—equality being a subject that the Parliament has always felt strongly about. That is welcome. The openness of hosting visits for young people from non-professional backgrounds to try to interest them in the profession is good stuff too. The partnership with the Ethnic Minorities Law Centre is excellent, as is the fact that guidance has been issued on race crime. That is another issue about which all MSPs feel strongly. Building public confidence is what it is all about. That is important, because the perception is that the legal profession is a law unto itself and that it does not care about the people it directly affects.

The most important part of the review booklet is the "Continuing Reform" section at the back, because progress is still being made. It is important that there are more staff members but, as Stewart Stevenson mentioned, morale is equally important. Any service is only as good as the people who work in it. Staff morale is very important. The modernisation of information technology is extremely important too. I wonder whether the Lord Advocate has any idea how much paperwork has been saved since the IT system was put in place. I can hear the Solicitor General saying, "Lots." That is good news.

It was useful to read about the pilot youth courts in Hamilton and Airdrie, and the victims of crime pilot schemes that Jeremy Purvis mentioned—one of which is in Kilmarnock—that enable people to write in describing the effect that a crime had on them. I would like to know how those pilots are progressing, whether they will be expanded and when they will report back.

All in all, I welcome the reforms that were put in place in 2001. They are progressing well, and I hope that they will continue to make good progress. However, the core of such reforms should always be building public confidence in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, because, while much has been achieved so far—I congratulate the Justice 1 Committee on that—there is still a long way to go in that area.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I, too, recall the Lord Advocate's words from 2001. More important, I recall his explicit recognition that very much at the heart of the reform of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service was the need to win the confidence of the people of Scotland and to ensure that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service would be independent and fair and would work consistently in the public interest.

I am bemused by the fact that Opposition members do not consider the issue worthy of debate. I would have thought that reviewing how our legal system operates is a key part of tackling crime and delivering justice. We need to be assured that there is the capacity and the quality in our legal system to ensure efficient and effective prosecutions. As I do not mix in the same social circles as Annabel Goldie but lead quite a sheltered life, I am not quite sure what a social salon is. However, Annabel Goldie should know that the quality of the guests whom one invites to one's social salon is what counts, and I note that the Conservatives are down to two members in the chamber and that their chief has left the building.

Much has been achieved in modernising and improving the service, and this debate provides a good opportunity for us to build on those improvements and to enhance further the reputation of our prosecution service. I will pick out a couple of specific areas for comment. I acknowledge, as members would expect me to—I am a parochial politician, too—the welcome and significant capital investment that has been made in the courts throughout Scotland. Indeed, £3 million has been spent to refurbish Dumbarton sheriff court. That has made a huge difference to court staff and to the public, and it has made physical access to the court much easier. It has also made a huge difference to the experience of vulnerable witnesses, who are now catered for in more appropriate and better surroundings. Additionally, there has been an economic benefit to Dumbarton because, by retaining the court in the area, we have encouraged several legal firms to remain and become established in the town. I thank the Lord Advocate for that.

I also thank the Lord Advocate for his explicit recognition of the contribution of staff in the fiscal's office, which is key to the provision of a modern and effective service. An additional 100 or so legal staff are now employed there who are able to deal with more and increasingly complex cases. However, we need to ensure that those staff are deployed at the front line, directly in local offices, and not all together in the Crown Office. I would welcome some assurance on that point.

It will come as no surprise to the Lord Advocate that I raise the matter of FOS—the new future office system IT package. I have raised concerns about the glitches in the practical operation of the system before, especially when it was rolled out in Glasgow, which has probably the busiest office in Scotland. Those glitches led to delays in case marking, which was in complete contrast to the purpose of the system, which was to speed up marking. I understand that FOS has improved considerably, but I would be grateful if the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor General could give me an update on current timescales for case marking, which I gather are significantly improved.

I will focus my remaining comments on the Lord Advocate's announcement on giving reasons for decisions to victims and their relatives. Essentially, that is about communication. In listening to constituents' first-hand experiences of the prosecution service, I have observed that the same issues arise over and over again. Victims and witnesses are often unaware of the court procedures that they face. Some complain that the charges in court are altered without their knowing why, while many never receive an explanation of why a decision has been made and encounter difficulties when they try to learn of the progress or outcome of their cases. Put simply, we need to become better at talking to people. We need a much more open, responsive and accessible service.

We all acknowledge—indeed, Linda Fabiani made the point—that the process of appearing in court as a victim or a witness is stressful. For some people, the experience can be truly traumatic. Their lack of communication with the prosecution service means that they are left feeling helpless and even more vulnerable. That is not how any of us would want people to be treated in this day and age. Complaints to the Crown Office about how cases have been handled are often a cry for help from people who have been left out of the information loop. The expansion of the victim information and advice service throughout Scotland undoubtedly will help victims by giving them general information about the criminal justice system and acting as an important tool in the provision of information about the progress of individual cases.

Nevertheless, I have already noted some gaps, which I will illustrate. In the past two months, constituents have told me that no reason was given for part of a charge being deleted; that no explanation was given of a decision that was arrived at; that there was difficulty in accessing information about the progress or outcome of a case; and that there was a lack of support following a case—indeed, the correspondence from the fiscal's office precluded any further involvement of the victim information and advice service. All those issues require attention. We need to ensure that support and advice is available to people after their case is closed, and we must give reasons why charges are dropped midway through a case. That will avoid the Crown Office becoming clogged with complaints and information requests that relate to the outcomes of court cases from people who are trying to come to terms with the meaning of decisions. Therefore, the Lord Advocate is absolutely spot on with his announcement today, which I welcome. We need to give the reasons behind our decisions. People understanding why something has happened is essential to justice being done.

We need a prosecution service in which people in Scotland can have confidence—a service that is framed by openness, consistency and fairness. I believe not only that we have put the building blocks in place, but that we have made considerable progress towards ensuring that what we have in Scotland is exactly that. I hope that the momentum is maintained, so that we will continue to have access to a first-class justice system for all our communities.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

It does not seem five years since the Lord Advocate assumed office, at a time and in circumstances that some of us thought were a bit unfortunate. To him, it must seem much longer ago. However, it would be churlish and quite wrong to say other than that he has acquitted himself well. It would also be unfair to say that what has happened since 2001 has been all bad—it has not. Morale in the fiscal service is undoubtedly better, as Pauline McNeill said, and the service is more sensitive and much more responsive, especially in its dealings with the public. The Lord Advocate's announcement on the provision of explanations of Crown Office decisions to relatives is not a step without dangers, but it is a courageous step and we will wait to see what happens in times ahead.

The additional resources that have been invested in the prosecution service should, in time, result in a reduction in delays, although I am a little concerned that we have not seen more tangible evidence of that up to now. The fact that we now have solicitor advocates with rights of audience in the High Court serving in the fiscal service is a positive step forward, and builds on the changes that the Conservative Government implemented that brought about the solicitor advocate system.

I have noted the money that has been invested in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and I have seen the improvements that have been made and, inevitably, I have compared and contrasted those with the performance of the Executive under other headings. If the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General ever seek to eschew the law, they might think about entering the health service and bringing about similar improvements there. Naturally, I do not expect either of them to comment on that.

Nevertheless, there are still many problems in the prosecution service that require urgent attention. Although I accept that some of the issues are broader and not strictly within the remit of the prosecution service, they still require to be considered. The witness citation system appears to be more efficient, but I will relate a personal story about it. I was recently cited to attend Edinburgh sheriff court. Naturally, I was keen to fill the diary, so, two weeks before the case was due to happen, and after the intermediate diet, I attempted to find out what was happening, but nobody answered the phone. By fairly dubious and devious means, I got hold of the fiscal in Edinburgh, but a layperson would not know how to circumvent the system. That must be examined.

A problem continues with warrants, on which the Procurator Fiscal Service requires to be more proactive, because the feeling is growing in the Glasgow area that people who evade justice for long enough will get away with it. I know that the matter is for chief constables, but the fiscal service should lean on them more heavily. Relationships with the police have improved and the Glasgow scheme is working well, but problems remain with delays in receiving police reports. Fiscals must start jumping up and down more determinedly to ensure that reports are received. Perhaps steps could be taken.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am aware of those protocols, which should have happened earlier. The issues should have been attacked more determinedly.

Pressures are still present in the fiscal service. I sometimes feel that decisions to divert cases from prosecution and to make conditional offers are governed by the pressure of work, rather than the interests of justice. The Lord Advocate will know that I feel unease about some of the Bonomy proposals. We will have to wait to see how they work, but the solemn courts and Glasgow sheriff court are under increasing pressure.

The debate—if we can call it that—takes place against the worrying background of significant increases in violent crime, the fact that a crime is committed in Scotland every 78 seconds and limited police presence on the street. Despite the best efforts of all concerned, 85,000 more crimes and offences are committed in Scotland now than in 1997. Above all, we have the 21st century curse of drugs, which corrodes the heart of many of Scotland's communities.

We must examine solutions to those problems. I was intrigued to hear that Kenny MacAskill is at long last on board with the suggestion that we have made for years of wider utilisation of court facilities. I have said for years that I see no reason why courts cannot sit in the evening and at weekends. I do not see why diet courts cannot run at night, which would free up courts to deal with trials during the day.

I am disappointed that Sheriff Principal McInnes's proposals have had no more mention today, because the proposal to have, in effect, stipendiary magistrates could reduce delays.

Above all, the Lord Advocate needs to apply pressure to his colleague the Minister for Justice, who requires to consult the Treasury and the Benefits Agency to ensure that fines are collected from benefits and salaries. Members can think of the number of means warrants that that would cut. That practice must happen.

We must examine the operation of the drugs courts. I know that they are still experimental, but my observation is that those who appear before them are hardened offenders. I know that that is the policy—I disagree with it, but I understand its logic—but surely we should target the assistance that a drugs court can offer to the lower level of offenders and ensure that those who have only two or three convictions receive the proper drug rehabilitation that they need.

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

If that is the case, Mr Aitken will support the proposal that I announced for consultation yesterday of mandatory testing, which would enable people who could be involved in drug misuse and offending to go into treatment and rehabilitation at the earliest opportunity, even before they reach the courts.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The proposal is interesting, but the minister will be aware that I have concerns about the available resources. Many drug tests will require to be conducted and I have serious problems with the practicalities. We shall see what develops.

We must consider more radical solutions. A Glasgow solicitor recently described the children's hearings system to me as nurturing the seedcorn for his profitable and lucrative future. There is no doubt that the children's hearings system does not discourage offending.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member give way?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Do I have time, Presiding Officer?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We can manage one more intervention.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Thank you very much. It is always a pleasure to cross swords with Bill Aitken.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Do not waste time—come on.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does Bill Aitken remember that, before the children's hearings system was introduced some 40 years ago, the offending rate among young people was 25 per cent higher than it is now?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Mr Stevenson is somewhat older than me and his recollection might be better. However, as we have discussed before, there is no doubt that, in those days, offending was less tolerated than it is today. That accounts entirely for the disparity in the figures.

We must consider whether it is sensible to send 14 and 15-year-old serial offenders to the children's hearings system. The system does sterling work under many headings. In particular, it does tremendous work for children who are at risk of abuse or neglect. However, it is not an effective agency for dealing with higher-tariff offenders who are aged 14 or 15.

Above all, we must have honesty in sentencing. Annabel Goldie dealt with that. The recidivism rate is appalling and I know that it concerns the Minister for Justice. Many people have been adversely affected by the attention of thieves, and those who would assault them who would remain in prison if we did not have the ludicrous system of automatic remission.

The discussion has been interesting. I look forward to seeing what develops from it.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

I bring to the debate no personal expertise and I am not a member of a justice committee. However, as the convener of the cross-party group on survivors of childhood sexual abuse, I have had in-depth involvement with the Crown Office on some changes, particularly those for vulnerable witnesses. I will concentrate on that aspect.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in an important debate. I am surprised that the Conservatives do not agree that the debate is important. In a debate in 2001, the Lord Advocate outlined his vision for the prosecution service, which we were all pleased to hear. From our experiences in our constituencies, we knew of the need for that vision.

The vision was of a modernised service that responded to public needs. The first objective and value in the prosecution service's strategic plan, to which Linda Fabiani referred, was for the service to play a pivotal role in the community justice system in maintaining the security and confidence of all our communities throughout Scotland in the prosecution service, which would make the justice system more accessible and responsive. That is what our constituents ask for and what we have been moving towards. The system has undergone many improvements.

As Pauline McNeill said, the debate gives the Parliament an opportunity to examine how far the department has progressed. I put on record my support for the steps that have been taken to date, especially the increase of 12 per cent in the number of permanent staff in the department, which has brought about a real improvement for our communities.

I also welcome the new fiscal office in Kirkcaldy, which was opened by the Solicitor General. My constituency office is located in the same office block as the new fiscal office, and I have seen at first hand the positive effect that it has had—not only on members of the public but on staff morale. The Lord Advocate raised that important issue this morning. Like Pauline McNeill, I believe that we have a service to be proud of and am pleased to have seen many improvements to the services in my constituency. I put on record my thanks to Procurator Fiscal Service staff in my constituency and elsewhere, who are working hard to ensure that there are improvements across Fife.

The Fife drugs court was set up on 9 September 2002 and involves both Dunfermline sheriff court and Kirkcaldy sheriff court, which is in my constituency. As Bill Aitken said, the court has dealt mainly with cases in which individuals have been subject to a drug treatment and testing order. All members have received representations from constituents who have been subject to drug-related crime. From the wider criminal justice perspective, I hope that there will be a reduction in such crime.

We hear continually from constituents of instances in which crimes have been committed to feed offenders' habits. Many of those crimes are perpetrated by continual offenders, which is a big challenge for the service. One elderly lady in my constituency had her property broken into and was robbed four times by the same perpetrator. The drugs courts are dealing and will continue to deal with such continual offending, which has a big effect. I look forward to seeing the results of the University of Stirling's research into the effectiveness of drugs courts and hope that they will be rolled out across the country.

Partnership is also important. In Fife, especially in Kirkcaldy, I have seen a huge increase in partnership working, involving the police, social work and drug and alcohol teams, and the effect that that has had. A lot of work has been done and there have been many different ideas. Flexibility of provision must be welcomed.

About 75 per cent of the complaints that I received at my surgery on Tuesday evening were about antisocial behaviour. However, by working with the Minister for Justice, we were able to amend the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill to ensure that consideration was given to antisocial behaviour using a vehicle. I know that that is a real problem across the board, including in my constituency. Every MSP supports the work that is being done and must continue to be done in our communities on antisocial behaviour. I thank the Executive for listening to my constituents on that issue.

The cross-party group on survivors of childhood sexual abuse, of which I am convener, warmly welcomed the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004, which changes the way in which the criminal justice system interacts with vulnerable witnesses. The group has seen evidence of the impact that the act has had. Many victims of sexual abuse come forward a long way down the line. Although they are now adults, they were children when the crime was perpetrated against them. The special measures for those under 16 and for very vulnerable witnesses are to be welcomed and have made a huge difference to people's lives. I also welcome the work of VIA, which provides first-class support to vulnerable witnesses. I have corresponded with the Lord Advocate on the service.

Jackie Baillie spoke a little about openness, which is relevant to the subject of the debate. People need to feel that they are informed throughout the process, especially if they are vulnerable and a crime has been perpetrated against them, perhaps historically. When people have the courage to come forward to report a crime, they should receive a high level of support and we should communicate to them at all times what is happening. Like Jackie Baillie, I welcome the Lord Advocate's announcement today that people will be given information. Historically, the system has been seen as inaccessible and secretive, so the changes that have been made are welcome. Today's announcement is significant, and I am sure that it will be welcomed by all members of the cross-party group on survivors of childhood sexual abuse.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I am grateful to you for calling me, Presiding Officer. When Bill Aitken spoke for 11 minutes, I was worried that I would not get my time.

I welcome the debate, the Lord Advocate's remarks and the opportunity that the Parliament has been given to consider the on-going review of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I also welcome the Lord Advocate's assurances today that the service is stronger, more positive and more outward looking, and accept that real progress has been made. I am sure that he will accept from me and from other members that, although progress has been made, we still have a long way to go before we assuage fully the public's fears about the service.

When reading the material that has been produced for the debate, I was reminded that the review was ordered because the system is deemed to be slow, cumbersome, frequently adjourned and poorly managed, and to offer little incentive to either the prosecution or the defence to process cases more quickly. In a previous debate, we were told that of 130,000 cases each year, 17,000 are dropped because of delays and repeated delays. Those who are seeking justice will welcome many of the reforms that the Lord Advocate has mentioned today.

The review states:

"Wherever possible, we explain the reasons for our decisions."

I welcome the moves that have been made in the right direction. However, from my speech and from others, the Lord Advocate will know that many members of the public still feel that they are ignorant participants in the process. A fortnight ago, a member of my staff was called up to Dunfermline sheriff court, where she sat around for a week or so without being informed properly of what was happening and the changes that were taking place. I am sure that the Lord Advocate is aware that we still have some way to go with the reforms.

Like other members, I put on record the fact that I strongly welcome the recommendations that have been made in a number of reports, not least the McInnes report, which contains five or six recommendations that are progressive and helpful. Welcome reforms include the proposal to take tens of thousands of cases involving relatively trivial matters such as road tax or television licence evasion out of the criminal justice system altogether, the use of a vast array of alternatives to prosecution such as fixed-penalty notices and social work interventions, and the use of abbreviated reports, which will save police time.

The documentation that has been presented for the debate talks about it in the context of reducing reoffending. We are focused on prison sentences of six months or less, which come from the summary courts and represent the vast majority of sentences. Such sentences present the Scottish Prison Service with real problems. The service admits that it can do very little in such a short time to prevent prisoners from reoffending. I welcome the fact that that issue has been highlighted.

I return to the main theme of our previous debate on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I have always been concerned—I will put it no more strongly than that—that reforms to improve the rights of victims and witnesses should not abridge defendants' rights to a fair trial. Anything that does that is not modernising justice or making the system more efficient. I have expressed concerns that encouraging people to plead guilty to get rid of a case may prevent innocent people from pursuing the rights to which they are entitled. We have discussed the pros and cons of the 110-day rule, which is to be abolished because it is said to allow people to walk on a technicality. In fact, the rule is a progressive part of Scots law. Given the circumstances that we have discussed at Belmarsh, Guantanamo bay and Bagram airbase, I think that there is nobody who would not want to ensure that people are safeguarded from being detained for long or indefinite periods.

In an earlier debate in Parliament, I referred the minister, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General to the excellent new book by Helena Kennedy QC entitled "Just Law". I feel sure that the minister will have read it by now. In it, Helena Kennedy is sceptical about those who argue for

"rebalancing the system in favour of victims",

which she says is a phrase that has

"all the hallmarks of the advertising agency".

She adds:

"Maintaining that justice for victims can only be purchased at the expense of the accused is as dishonest as the claim that jurors are the source of miscarriages of justice ... The criminal justice system is based on the fundamental principle that it is far worse to convict an innocent person than to let a guilty one walk free. It is that fundamental principle that is now in jeopardy."

Before I turn to the theme of miscarriages of justice, I mention that Helena Kennedy QC has accepted our invitation to lead this year's Edinburgh May day parade, so I expect all those who find her remarks about international and domestic justice arresting to come along and hear her.

I hope that the Solicitor General will be able to answer some questions about miscarriages of justice. In light of the Kenny Richey case, which is admittedly not under the jurisdiction of Scots law, and in light of the Prime Minister's apologies to the Conlon and Maguire families regarding the Guildford four trial, I wonder whether the Scottish Executive intends to offer apologies to T C Campbell and Joe Steele or to Robert Brown?

Those Scots have suffered miscarriages of justice. Does the Solicitor General believe that the lessons from those cases have been learned? Even where those cases occurred elsewhere, I believe that they still have lessons for us in Scotland.

I suggest to the Solicitor General that the best type of apology might be to announce that she intends to support the retreat project that the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation has asked her to support. The project serves to offer counsel to victims of miscarriages of justice when they are released, to help them to cope with the mental anguish that they suffer after their release, because they get no help at present.

I am sure that the Solicitor General will not be keen to speak about any individual cases, but are we really clear and confident that there are no further miscarriages of justice in the Scottish system?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Will the member give way?

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I will give way in a second. I refer in particular to the appeal of William Gage, which comes before the Court of Appeal next month. I hope that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service will become more positive and strong enough to withstand pressure to convict innocent men. What modernisation is planned to halt our depressing record—our repeat offending—of sending innocent men to jail? I notice from the statistics that there has been a stark fall in the number of criminal appeals that are held in the High Court—they are 31 per cent down on last year. Are we to conclude that the state is making fewer mistakes or are we to conclude that convicted prisoners are not getting access to the appeals procedure? I would appreciate it if the Solicitor General would address that question.

As all members have already done, I welcome the rolling out across the country of the victim information and advice service, but I seek clarification of when we will see it rolled out entirely.

I also welcome the proposed independent inspectorate of prosecution, but will the Lord Advocate tell us about developments to establish an independent police complaints commission? In the COPFS review, we learn that 337 complaints were registered, but only 10 resulted in proceedings. It does not say whether any complaints were upheld. Public confidence in police complaints must improve too.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am pleased to respond to the Lord Advocate's speech. As he has reminded us, when he took office five years ago, he acknowledged the need for change in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. There was at that time a public perception that the welfare of victims and witnesses was not a priority for the justice system—a feeling, almost, that the rights of the accused came before the rights of the victim.

The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General gave a commitment to change that perception by recreating the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service so that it was much more responsive to those concerns. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Parliament plays its role in judging the progress that has been made and in highlighting areas where further progress might be required five years on. I would have been pleasantly surprised had Miss Goldie engaged in today's debate on that basis. However, as is her wont, she is much more interested in rhetoric than in engaging in action and relevant discussion. When the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill progressed through Parliament, she was far more interested in safeguarding the rites of passage of the young, even if that meant that the safety of communities would be destroyed. Last week, when she had an opportunity to do something to tackle serious crime in Scotland, she chose not to. I find it regrettable that she has failed to engage this morning and that she has not showed the Parliament respect by staying until the end of the debate.

Unlike Miss Goldie, I congratulate the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General on the substantial positive changes that they have made to the organisations that they lead. They have ensured that increased resources are being used to improve prosecution services by investing in staff, both in raising their numbers and in improving training opportunities. They have ensured that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has moved into the 21st century by introducing a range of IT resources aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of both parts of the organisation. They have ensured that the physical estate in which those services are delivered is modernised, resulting in improved facilities for staff, victims and witnesses. Those improvements are all to be welcomed.

However, I will focus this morning on the improvements to the way in which the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service deal with victims and witnesses. I will also mention the benefits that arise from youth courts. Many of us in the chamber will know from contact with our constituents how distressing the prospect and the act of giving evidence can be. We know that the stress that is felt by victims and witnesses often increases because of the lack of familiarity with proceedings. Distress can also be caused when victims and witnesses are left without any knowledge of how a case is or is not progressing.

The prospect of facing the accused in court can cause great distress to victims and witnesses. However, in recent years, we in Scotland have taken considerable strides to address those problems and to support victims and witnesses better. The victim information and advice service now provides a range of support measures to victims and witnesses. The service ensures that victims and witnesses receive advice and information about how the criminal justice system works, including the option of visiting the court before trial and it will also keep victims, witnesses and next of kin up to date on the progress of the case with which they are involved. It is important to note that VIA will point victims and witnesses in the direction of other support services such as Rape Crisis Scotland and ChildLine Scotland.

In many ways, those are quite basic improvements, but they are making a genuine difference to the experiences of victims and witnesses in Scotland. The efforts of VIA have been complemented by the provisions of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004. I was pleased to have been a member of the Justice 2 Committee when it dealt with that legislation. The act will ensure that there is far greater protection for our most vulnerable witnesses and that there is a proper balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of witnesses, including the victim.

I welcome the Lord Advocate's assurances that there will be training in that area for relevant staff, as that was one of the major concerns that were raised in the committee during consideration of the bill. I also welcome the extension of the youth court model to Airdrie in my constituency. If we get it right, the system could benefit both the communities that are plagued by youth antisocial behaviour and the young people who perpetrate it. An effective system is one that tackles antisocial and criminal behaviour quickly and effectively. Fast tracking alleged young offenders not only helps to protect communities but ensures that offending behaviour is addressed at an early stage. In addition, partnership working by the courts and social services ensures that a range of non-custodial sentences is available where appropriate. Such sentences allow offending behaviour to be challenged more effectively, as they place greater emphasis on the individual circumstances of the young offender. I look forward to seeing how the youth court in Airdrie fares.

Lest it be said that I have been overly complimentary, I want to pick up on the Lord Advocate's comments on environmental crime. I welcome his positive comments, but I am concerned about the lack of effective challenge to those developers who consistently and deliberately breach the conditions that were imposed on them when their planning application was granted. We need improved communication between local authorities, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the procurator fiscal to ensure that sufficient evidence is gathered to enable a strong case to be brought against any developers who breach their planning agreement. We all have a part to play in that effort, but it is essential that communities believe that, where possible, criminal proceedings will be taken against such developers and that the courts will protect communities.

In conclusion, I welcome the many positive changes that have been introduced by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General and all their hard-working staff in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Things have improved both in the way that we tackle crime and in the way that we involve victims and witnesses. I look forward to the on-going modernisation of the service.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I echo the congratulations that have already been expressed by many members, including Karen Whitefield just a moment ago, on the work that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General have done in improving a service that a previous Justice 2 Committee rightly identified as having some deep problems. We have seen notable improvements over the past few years but, as other members have said, there is still some way to go.

I welcome the Lord Advocate's announcement that victims and, where appropriate, their families will be informed of the reasons why some charges are not pressed or are changed, or why a whole case is dropped. We welcome that extremely important measure. It is long past the time when the Executive should have arrived there, but we are all grateful for a policy change that will allow people who are on the receiving end of crime to understand more about the process that the service uses and the reasons why charges are dropped or changed. As I said, that is a most welcome development.

I take this opportunity to praise the work of the staff in the victim information and advice service. The fact that they have helped more than 47,000 victims and vulnerable witnesses is testimony to their hard work and their dedication to the cause. It is extremely important that the service be supported and expanded, so I am pleased that it will be rolled out across all Scotland. Everyone is in favour of providing more care for victims of serious crime, for vulnerable witnesses and for bereaved relatives. It is long past the time when an organisation such as VIA should have been introduced, but I am pleased that it is now in place.

By providing information and advice both on the legal system and on what people should expect, VIA staff make an invaluable contribution to the smooth running of the justice service. We have heard many examples, some from personal experience, of how little knowledge and information was previously made available to people who became involved in the justice service through being witnesses or jurors or through being victims of crime. By clearing things up and giving information and assistance, VIA makes an extremely important contribution. As Karen Whitefield said, VIA staff also keep victims and witnesses updated on the progress of cases, and make them familiar with court proceedings. Where they deem that to be necessary or appropriate, the staff can put victims and witnesses in touch with organisations—a particularly useful function that ensures that the service is connected to the outside world The introduction of VIA is one of the most important improvements of recent years for ordinary users of the court system.

However worthy and welcome such developments are, what good are they if budget restraints mean that a witness must sit in the same room as the accused or the family or friends of the accused? Familiarisation of victims and witnesses with the courtroom will count for little if, the first time they turn up to the court, they are confronted by the very people against whom they are to give evidence. Although the introduction of VIA is welcome, it is regrettable that many witnesses and victims must still share the same space in court as the alleged assailant while they wait to give evidence. The Executive must acknowledge that that is an on-going problem and it must commit resources to ensure that the problem is eradicated in the near future. Quantifiable targets would help. I know that providing more physical space in many older court buildings might prove to be difficult, but it is important that we target the problem and deal with it in the near, rather than the distant, future.

Much of our debate has rightly centred on the resources that are available to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The marked increase in resources for the service is certainly welcome, but those resources have been needed to allow the service to fulfil its expanded role in the past few years. In effect, the Executive has told us that it is piling in money to the service, but it should also consider the additional money that the justice system could use if it was not required to hand over money to the Treasury in London. For example, in a reply to a parliamentary question from my colleague Kenny MacAskill two weeks ago, the Executive confirmed that the Scottish Executive has handed over almost £12 million in district court fines to the London Treasury over the past few years. I listened with interest to the Lord Advocate's figures on seizures under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002—if I remember rightly, he mentioned figures of £2.5 million from seizures, £3 million from cash seizures and £227,000 from civil recovery—but although I welcome the additional moneys that are being brought into the system, I am sure that the Lord Advocate will agree that the seizures have been slow to come through and that much of the money has been siphoned off to the London Treasury.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am aware that a recent change, which the Lord Advocate explained to the justice committees, will allow more money to be retained within the system than was previously the case. However, the Lord Advocate confirmed in response to my question that the money is capped. Some money will be retained in Scotland, but beyond a certain point the money will still go to London. It seems to me to be entirely reasonable that all the money that is recovered from seizures in Scotland should be kept here.

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

Does the member accept that we need to work in co-operation not only with our political colleagues at Westminster but with HM Customs and Excise, which has a major role to play in ensuring that we tackle the problem of drugs being brought into the country? Does he accept that Westminster provides resources for that?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I do not object to co-operation with the customs service, but the fact that the amount of money that can be kept in Scotland is capped is still a bit of a problem. I hope that the minister will inform us what plans the Executive has to ensure that we get the opportunity to keep all the money that we raise in Scotland within the Scottish legal system, so that we can ensure that all the resources that are made available put the safety of victims and witnesses at the forefront of our reforms.

My experience of dealing with reform of the High Court—I and other members of the Justice 1 Committee found it to be an interesting and complex issue—and my reading of the McInnes report have convinced me of the essential need to implement measures to speed up the rate at which cases progress through the justice system. Procurators fiscal are clearly often overburdened, but it is equally clear that some accused make calculated attempts to slow down the justice process and to avoid being taken to court by various technical manoeuvrings. It is important that reforms go through to block such attempts.

The High Court reform, the impact of that reform on the sheriff courts and the impact of the likely reform to the district courts will all affect the efficiency of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Several changes need to be implemented as a result of the High Court reform, but the idea that flowed from much of that work was the need for a cultural change in the way in which defence and prosecution operate. The idea of cultural change was widely welcomed by all those who are involved in the system, but that much-desired change will have a significant impact on the operation of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The reforms that were intended to improve the efficiency of the High Court include areas that impact greatly on the work of COPFS. For example, it was envisaged that the presumption of early disclosure on the part of the Crown would assist the defence to prepare cases and thereby reduce the number of times cases were postponed. It is clear that continual postponements will do nobody any good and will only lead to inefficiency in the system, an increased workload and greater pressure on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

The same is true of some of the other changes that are being introduced, such as preliminary hearings and fixed trial dates. Although those are welcome changes, they will impact on the service. It is essential that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service work as efficiently as possible; that is necessary in order that it can meet the deadlines that will be expected of it following the changes. However, changes in the High Court, the sheriff court and perhaps the district court will all have an impact on the service's ability to carry out its functions efficiently and speedily.

It is fair to say that it is too early to say whether the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service will be able to deal with the new pressures and challenges that will confront it as a result of changes elsewhere in the system, but I hope that the Executive has got the reforms and the matching resources right and that they result in the kind of service that we all want.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I welcome today's debate and I also welcome the fact that we are all getting sufficient time to comment, which is probably why I got into the debate. However, I am concerned that the length of time that we have available to us is a reflection of the lack of interest—particularly from some Opposition members—in a debate that is particularly important and that has produced some worthwhile speeches.

The Lord Advocate's comments in the debate show that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is aware that the way in which it worked previously may not be suitable for the 21st century.

It is undoubtedly the case that prosecuting crime today is the same as it ever was, but expectations are very different. The expectation is that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service will work in partnership with others, such as the police and the courts, which has been mentioned. People, whether as individuals or as communities, now expect more: they believe that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service should be more aware of their lives and their circumstances and that those should be taken into account as it does its job.

I take the opportunity to congratulate the Lord Advocate. I had not realised that this was his five-year anniversary. This is a good time to congratulate him and the Solicitor General for Scotland on the contribution that they have made to moving the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service into the new century. As Pauline McNeill said, great strides have been made since devolution in 1999. There is increased confidence in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which is essential if the service is to be delivered appropriately. However, knowing the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland, I am sure that they will accept that there are still challenges and things to do.

I welcome the protocols that the Lord Advocate has announced to improve the effectiveness of the service's working relationship with the Scottish police and the Scottish Court Service. Such clear guidance on how those relationships will be developed will benefit us all because it will increase our understanding of how the service will develop. I will return to more general points later in my speech but, like Jackie Baillie, at this stage I will be more parochial.

A couple of weeks ago I met the police service in West Lothian. We discussed how they were developing their relationship with the procurator fiscal; they were full of praise for the progress that is being made; I will give an example. To some people housebreaking may not seem to be the most heinous of crimes, but it can be extremely traumatic for the victims. Repeat offenders therefore concern many of us. Now, when the police apprehend a suspect for burglary, a call to the procurator fiscal's office can be made to check the suspect's history and more appropriate action than was previously taken can be taken to prevent an individual from becoming a repeat offender and to stop him going back out on to the streets and offending again. By fast-tracking the accused's case, there can be a more positive result in a small local setting. That is a small example of the developing relationship, but it is one that is making a difference. As Kenny MacAskill said, it is a step in the right direction.

I believe that the relationship will be further strengthened in West Lothian when the Procurator Fiscal Service, Linlithgow sheriff court, West Lothian police division and West Lothian Council are all brought together on one site in Livingston. Although I might have some concerns about losing the court in Linlithgow, I recognise that it is no longer fit for purpose; it has gone way beyond its usefulness and there is need for new provision. In many places, one or two such services have come together under the same roof; they have shared their experiences and have worked together more closely, but this is an exciting opportunity in that four of our major services will be delivered under one roof. The opportunities that that presents for people to work more closely together to deliver for the people in my constituency in Linlithgow and in the neighbouring constituency of Livingston are exciting ones and I look forward to benefits' being delivered.

I will deviate a little from the direction in which the debate has developed. Many MSPs recently attended a briefing by the Scottish Retail Consortium, which provided us with information about the rise in retail crime and outlined the efforts that members of the Scottish Retail Consortium are taking to combat the problem. The Minister for Justice was present and contributed to the discussion. I have to say that I sometimes wonder whether stores might be able to tackle the problem more effectively if they employed a few more staff. However, I recognise that they are making efforts to deal with the problem.

I assure the Lord Advocate that I am not speaking as the mouthpiece of the SRC, particularly as I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I am aware that the SRC is campaigning for the Crown Office to undertake a pilot awareness-raising scheme for procurators fiscal, sheriffs and justices of the peace to enable them to gain a clearer understanding of the impacts of retail crime. A similar project is currently taking place in the north-east of England. The feeling is that such awareness raising might result in more effective sentencing, more use of restorative justice and the use of disposals such as antisocial behaviour orders to cut reoffending rates for retail criminals. That could in turn encourage more retailers to report crime to the police. Retail crime is sometimes seen as being a victimless crime, but as staff can be involved and can be victims, and as all of us pay the price for stolen goods and damaged property, I suggest that the crime is not victimless. I would be interested to hear from the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor General for Scotland whether the suggestion to have such a scheme is one to which they feel they could respond positively.

I will return to the points that have been raised in the debate. The Lord Advocate referred to on- going projects and other members mentioned youth courts and the drugs courts. I add my support for the domestic abuse courts, which are a progressive development for people who are in those circumstances and which I know the Solicitor General for Scotland has greatly supported.

Like Pauline McNeill, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue today. I do not believe that we have to have debates on motions and amendments to ensure that genuine points of importance that will benefit the people that we represent are made in Parliament. Perhaps, because there is talk of a general election, some Opposition members are becoming nervous about how they contribute to the debate. Many of the contributions have been worthwhile, so I think that it was right to have the debate today.

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

As I said in my intervention, I come to the debate with no great knowledge of the justice system and I am completely new to the Justice 1 Committee. Nevertheless, although it may be becoming repetitive, I want to record my thanks to the Solicitor General for Scotland, the Lord Advocate and their staff. I have always received timeous, courteous and thoughtful replies to any problem that I have raised. That is good news. I congratulate the Lord Advocate on having served for five years. Elish Angiolini and Colin Boyd are, as far as I can see, rocks in an ever-changing—except for Ross Finnie—ministerial sea. Let us hope that they are in place for another five years.

The Lord Advocate mentioned openness and accountability, which is very much in keeping with Parliament's work. Members have made the point that before devolution there simply was no such access to the law officers. I think that the public recognise that—indeed, the very fact that the names of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland are known when those of their predecessors, however worthy they were, were not, demonstrates that that is the case.

I cannot avoid welcoming and thanking the Lord Advocate for the announcement that a number of jobs will go to my home town of Tain. A similar number of jobs have already gone to Dingwall—I feel a good-news press release coming on.

I will comment briefly on members' contributions and I apologise for the fact that my judgment will be subjective—my knowledge of the law is pretty well limited to the worryingly high number of speeding fines that I seem to have built up of late. There is no doubt that Kenny MacAskill made a thoughtful contribution, although he talked about a lack of information from the Scottish Parliament information centre which is—as we all know—part of the Scottish Parliament and not part of the Crown Office.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I did not mean to denigrate SPICe, just as I did not mean to denigrate the minister. Mary Mulligan was right to make the point that we can have debates that are not based on formal motions and amendments, but I simply meant that if a debate entitled "Reform of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Services" is to have value and if we are not to go off at tangents—to the credit of most members, that has not been the case—we need to know what the debate is about, where we are at and where we have to go. Therefore, information and statistics would have been of assistance and would have focused the debate. That said, we got there—although perhaps by accident rather than by design.

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

Mr MacAskill is generous.

I welcome Miss Goldie back to the chamber, but it is unfortunate that she missed the debate, which has been a full debate rather than a "chit-chat" in an "expensive ... salon", as she described it in a contribution that was uncharacteristically ill-tempered. We expect something a little lighter from Miss Goldie, who said that there was no point in having the debate, but then made a good old-fashioned bang-'em-up Tory speech, which had quality, although I did not agree with it. There is a point in having the debate and arguments have been developed during its course.

Nobody can contradict the point that Jeremy Purvis rightly made; there are 17,000 police officers in Scotland, which is an all-time high. I will return to his comments about the role of community councils and schools.

Pauline McNeill was the first member to emphasise the point that I repeated about the visibility of the law officers. She also flagged up physical issues in relation to the court system. Members from different parties highlighted the importance of ensuring that witnesses who attend court do not encounter the people against whom they are about to give evidence.

Linda Fabiani made a generous and thoughtful contribution—she has the same information base as I have. She welcomed, as did others, the new policy to disclose the reasons for not proceeding with a case. In fairness to Bill Aitken, who has left the chamber, I say that he pointed out that that is a courageous move. There will be risks associated with the move, which has parallels with issues that are arising as a result of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, which all members are considering with interest. There are challenges associated with putting facts in the public domain. I will return to Linda Fabiani's comments later in my speech.

Jackie Baillie made a first-class speech and welcomed the changes' impact on her constituency. Bill Aitken made a measured, thoughtful and informed contribution from the Tory benches. I liked the cute twist whereby he used his praise for the law officers as an opportunity to take a swipe at every other minister. That was quite a clever debating technique, so I give credit where it is due. Most important, Bill Aitken flagged up what he called "the 21st century curse of drugs", which will remain a challenge not just for law officers but for us all.

Marilyn Livingstone and Mary Mulligan referred to what I call partnership working—four organisations under one roof—which presents a challenge not just for law officers but for all departments of the Scottish Executive. We must consider how work can be combined; imaginative approaches can be taken.

Colin Fox made an important point about the police complaints procedure, which I think would strike a chord with our constituents. It is my considered opinion that there is not the level of public confidence in the police complaints procedure that there should be. I accept that work is in progress and that it is too soon to reach conclusions. However, time is of the essence.

In conclusion, I pick up on Linda Fabiani's comments about building public confidence and Jeremy Purvis's remarks about the involvement of schools and community councils. Perhaps the fact that I am not a law professional helps in that regard, because we must consider what a layman understands by a court, a procurator fiscal and the police. People know that criminals are up in court and they know that they might become victims of a crime or be called for jury service or to give evidence. However, in general the system seems to be very much a matter that is parked at a distance and does not involve us. An approach whereby the system becomes involved with schools and community councils would be first rate. We must involve our communities and we can go further in doing so. It will take time, effort and a certain amount of money, but I would love to see the day when parties of schoolchildren are taken to the offices of procurators fiscal and to courts.

It is too bad that none of us has ever been to court—unless members have been called for jury service or, like me, been issued with a speeding fine. It is not a pleasure to see people up in court, but it is part of how we run our society. My suggestion is genuinely well meant and we should consider the comments of Jeremy Purvis and Linda Fabiani and acknowledge the importance of engaging the public. What we have done is great—well done to the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General—but we can do more in the future. There is a role for members of this Parliament in that regard. Why do we not suggest to our local procurators fiscal—as I could do when the 5.5 full-time extra posts come to Tain—that fifth-year modern studies pupils visit their offices to find out what happens and to learn about the system?

Good work is happening. The debate was worthwhile and has moved things forward. It was a pleasure to take part.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I acknowledge the sincerity of the Lord Advocate's comments and I welcome his announcements about cases that are marked "no proceedings" and in which charges are reduced.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is a major player in the criminal justice system and is certainly at the sharp end of changing trends in crime and the detection of crime. On one side of the justice scales, police campaigns and enforcement initiatives have a direct impact on the workload of the service. On the other side, the increase in violent and serious crime since 1997 has reverberated through the service like a shock wave, causing strain in a service that was already under pressure.

It is therefore not surprising that during the past four years the COPFS has come under the microscope and has been the subject of, or an integral part of, a number of inquiries and reviews that have been aimed at improving the delivery of justice in Scotland. The reviews do not make happy reading. In early 2002, the Pryce-Dyer review of planning, allocation and management of resources in the COPFS stated that the service had poor internal and external communications and was seriously under-resourced. The COPFS revealed that, according to an internal audit:

"The pressures on the Department have ... had a serious impact on the morale of staff and left them feeling 'stressed and undervalued'."

Kenny MacAskill, Marilyn Livingstone and others raised that issue.

In January 2003, the Justice 2 Committee of the first session of Parliament published a report on its inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which referred to

"unmanageable caseloads for both procurators fiscal and advocate deputes, with inadequate preparation time and routine late evening or weekend working".

In response, the Lord Advocate acknowledged to the committee that the service had been "chronically underfunded" for years. We must ask whether anything has changed. Much has been made of increased funding and although I welcome the new funding arrangements for the three years from 2003-04, I note that the Justice 2 Committee's report said:

"We acknowledge the significant resource increases now being made but note that neither the Committee, nor the Department, have the necessary information to say whether these increases are enough ... We remain concerned about the real impact of the staff increases being made and how these translate into staff resource for frontline duties ... We would be particularly concerned if too much of the additional resource went on additional managers and management systems".

In other words, there is concern that the response to the Pryce-Dyer review has resulted in what my colleague Bill Aitken has described as top-heavy management structures and systems, at the expense of the targeting of additional resources at increasing the number of procurators fiscal as a priority. Those concerns were fuelled by the evidence of the Faculty of Advocates to the Justice 1 Committee last year during scrutiny of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, when the picture that emerged was of a COPFS in chaos. The committee was told that

"on numerous occasions when the defence approaches the Crown Office to speak to an advocate depute about a trial that is coming up, they are told, 'I only just got the papers today and I have not read them.' ...They might be sent the papers for 10 trials that are scheduled for a sitting and they cannot read them".—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee, 7 January 2004; c 395.]

Therefore, as Colin Fox said, it does not look as if much has changed since the Pryce-Dyer review or the previous Justice 2 Committee's inquiry report.

As Stewart Maxwell and Annabel Goldie pointed out, there is as yet no real evidence that the reforms in the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2004 have resulted in improvements. If the COPFS is to be improved and is to provide the best possible service, those and other issues must be addressed. For example, continuity must be achieved in as many cases as possible and we must tackle the delays that arise when forensic reports that the Crown has commissioned are not available in time. Those issues are not technical, but are simply a matter of resources.

Quite simply, we need more procurators fiscal as well as weekend and evening court sittings to tackle the backlog of cases and to reduce the pressure on the COPFS in order that we can keep to an absolute minimum the consequent delays in trials and the number of cases that are marked "no proceedings". Those outcomes seriously undermine confidence in our criminal justice system.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I congratulate Colin Boyd on the achievement of his first lustrum. I was greatly concerned by his tone of voice earlier—I thought that we were about to see a change of personnel, which I would definitely regret. I am glad that we did not hear that. The Lord Advocate has indeed tholed his assize. In particular, I congratulate him on his innovative and correct use of parliamentary opportunities by participating in a members' business debate last year on an issue about which he felt strongly. I hope that he and the Solicitor General will make use of such opportunities in future, where appropriate.

Since I became a member of the Parliament, a considerable amount of change has occurred in the service, almost all of which has been welcome. So much change has there been that, occasionally, newsreaders in London can pronounce the words "procurator fiscal" without stumbling, which is a substantial advance. On the person who holds the office of Lord Advocate, I must say the three words that I hear most often about him, although not always joined together, which are "integrity", "honesty" and "commitment". I congratulate him on his service to date and hope that it continues in a similar manner.

In view of certain comments in a national newspaper today, I apologise to FM—by which, of course, I mean Fordyce Maxwell. I have found a long-sleeved shirt today and I am wearing my jacket. I have brought to this debate the solemnity that certain people thought that I denied yesterday's debate.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Hear, hear.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I see that Mr Johnstone applauds me.

I will say a word or two about information technology modernisation. Members will be aware that I spent 30 years—during which I might have engaged with wider society—as a technologist. I welcome the fact that the accounts appear to show that about £5 million or £6 million has been spent on modernisation, which is a substantial amount. However, although the benefits to the service of IT modernisation are enormous, I hear of a difficulty when I talk to the people who have to input data directly. That was previously done in ways that made it more difficult to share information, such as keeping data on bits of paper or annotating documents. However, although the change benefits others and improves the system's efficiency, we must ensure that we resource the people who input directly to the system, because their workload may increase.

Like other members, my colleagues in the SNP and I substantially welcome the announcements on communication with victims on matters that they will not readily understand simply by looking at them. No pros, reductions in charges and deals are all a proper part of the system, but nonetheless they are often puzzling to victims, who may feel that they reinforce their victimhood. We require an appropriate monitoring system to enable the Lord Advocate to report on the success of the scheme, perhaps through testing the opinions of those who receive communications from the Crown Office. That would allow the Lord Advocate to refine the system as he gains experience and it would allow the Parliament to support him in further efforts.

Many changes are taking place in our courts. I do not know whether we are planning to introduce a supreme court—perhaps Jeremy Purvis was in the United States on the occasion to which he referred.

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

rose—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

One moment, Mr Purvis.

Like others, Jeremy Purvis admitted to being a comparative novice on legal matters. Being a mathematician and a software engineer, I certainly profess no particular training or expertise, albeit I have thoroughly enjoyed my times on the justice committees. However, help is at hand for Jeremy. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has produced a helpful series of publications to make understanding of the system more accessible to those of us who come to it cold.

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

rose—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

One moment.

In particular, I commend "Going to Court as a Witness?", which is an excellent document, although I must say that it is for schools and for people who are aged five to 12. However, it is a useful primer for the Jeremys and Jemimas of this world.

Does Mr Purvis still wish to intervene?

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

I will intervene as Jeremy. I am sure that that reference work will be useful for Mr Stevenson and that he will find within it the fact that we have a supreme high court of judiciary, in which I served as a juror in an attempted murder case, in the Royal Mile. I am sure that he would wish to correct his error.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am told that it is called the High Court of Justiciary. Perhaps the London newsreaders will now be able to pronounce that, too.

Annabel Goldie did not display the commitment to the debate that we expect of all parliamentarians. I welcome the opportunity to have a free-flowing debate on a range of subjects; it does not let the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service off the hook, nor does it mean that the service will not have to ensure that we receive information in the future. I was interested in Kenny MacAskill's suggestion that our courts should sit for 27 hours a day, which I hope the Executive will pick up.

Over the years, we have seen huge change in what is an important part of our criminal justice system. In the previous session of Parliament, the Justice 2 Committee started its work on the subject almost exactly when I became a member of the Parliament and I was happy to be part of that work. Many of the issues that that committee raised are being substantially addressed, but issues remain. We have achieved a lot—we have made progress on victims and on efficiencies—but there is more to do.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Can the Solicitor General give us any quantitative or qualitative view of what witnesses think about the changes that have been made and the challenges that are still to come?

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-1430)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

First of all, I hope that all members will want to join me in congratulating His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker Bowles on the announcement of their wedding in April. [ Applause. ] We certainly look forward to continuing our work with them both, as the Duke and Duchess of Rothesay, when they are in Scotland in the years to come.

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

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I echo the First Minister's comments and I congratulate the Scottish band Franz Ferdinand on its stunning success last night. [ Applause. ]

Today, people all over Scotland will find out how much more they will be hit for in council tax next year. Is the First Minister concerned that the average increase will be more than double the rate of inflation?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Given that local government in Scotland has received a 5.5 per cent increase in resources from central Government for the coming financial year on top of the substantial resource increase of about 40 per cent in the five years since devolution, I believe that local authorities should be able to get closer to the rate of inflation than many of them have been predicting, and I think that today's figures might show that that is, indeed, the case.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is the First Minister aware that councils, most of which are run by his party, say that council tax hikes—and they will be hikes—are his fault? That view has been echoed by one of his own back benchers, Kate Maclean, who has demanded that the Government explain why it has set such a low level of budget settlement this year.

Is not it the case that, two months ago, English councils got an extra £1 billion to keep council tax down and that Scotland has had its share of that money? The straight question for the First Minister is why he has not handed that cash over to Scottish councils to let them keep council tax down here in Scotland.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That is not true. The additional resources that were allocated to English local authorities in November totalled about £120 million and we in Scotland received £12 million for that. As I have said before in the chamber, council tax increases in Scotland have been and will continue to be consistently lower than those in England. That is a good thing for local authority management in Scotland, as are the resources that have been received from the devolved Government.

There has been an increase of 40 per cent in the past five years and there will be an increase for next year of 5.5 per cent, which is well above the rate of inflation. Therefore, local authorities should be able to get their increases closer to the rate of inflation than many of them have been predicting. I notice one or two particularly high increases from councils with which Ms Sturgeon might want to be associated.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The hard fact is that action has been taken to help English council tax payers, but the First Minister has not lifted a finger to help council tax payers here in Scotland. I invite him to come down from his ivory tower and to see the matter from the point of view of real people all over Scotland. What is the reality for them? It is eight consecutive council tax rises—under Labour; a rise this year of more than double the rate of inflation—under Labour; and an overall increase since 1997 of 55 per cent—under Labour. Does the First Minister not realise that because of the council tax, pensioners and hard-working families are struggling to make ends meet under Labour? Is it not time for him to do something about that and to axe the unfair council tax?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

A few weeks ago in the chamber, in relation to the council tax, Ms Sturgeon proposed that we should cut £450 million from local authority budgets during the next few years. That would have a devastating impact on the poorest sections of Scottish society, in particular on Scottish pensioners. The local authority services that are provided in Scotland remain of the highest importance to us. At the same time, they are properly funded by the devolved Government. A 5.5 per cent increase has been allocated to Scottish local government next year, and there has been a 40 per cent increase in resources during the past five years.

There is a responsibility on Scottish local authorities to have efficient, properly managed budgets, to deliver the improvements in services that we are funding and, at the same time, to keep council tax rises to a minimum. That goes as much for places such as Angus and Falkirk as it does for anywhere else.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Today, council tax rises will be more than double the rate of inflation. If the First Minister had listened, he would know that I have argued that money that the Executive has already cut out of local council budgets should be used to help council tax payers, and that the help given to council tax payers in England should now be given to Scottish council tax payers. Is it not the case that the First Minister has consistently failed to answer the question of what he is prepared to do to ease the burden on council tax payers, whose bills have gone up by 55 per cent under Labour?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Ms Sturgeon recently mentioned her legal degree in the chamber; I sometimes find it a pity that she does not have a maths degree. The 5.5 per cent increase in local authority resources in Scotland is more than three times the rate of inflation. There is absolutely no need for local authorities to make excessive council tax increases. In any case, I point out to Ms Sturgeon that the 5.5 per cent increase in the resources available to local authorities is just that: it is an increase, not a cut. It will fund improved services in our schools and nurseries and will improve services in social work, transport, the police and a range of other areas. At the same time, councils have a responsibility to manage their budgets efficiently, to keep rises to a minimum and to ensure that the substantial resources that they receive from this devolved Government are used properly to the benefit of the people in their areas.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I associate the Conservative party with the remarks made by the First Minister and Ms Sturgeon about the forthcoming marriage of the His Royal Highness the Duke of Rothesay and Mrs Parker Bowles.

The First Minister, in his response to—[Interruption.] Oh, sorry. I beg your pardon. I have to ask the question.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1431)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

In his response to Ms Sturgeon, the First Minister alluded to his degree in mathematics. I want to set out for him an appalling equation that is coming to light today. A court decision made today means that prisoners in our jails will be set for multimillion-pound compensation payments over slopping out as a result of disastrous political decisions taken by the First Minister and his deputy back in 1999. As we have heard, the very same day, people will hear the announcement of higher council tax bills. Is not that an appalling equation of more taxes on the one hand and more wasted money on the other?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am happy to give Mr McLetchie an example of both. As far as the council tax is concerned, we all know that in every single year since devolution in Scotland council tax increases have been less than they were in each of the last five years of the previous Conservative Government. As a result, I will take no lectures on council tax increases from him.

As for wasting public money and the lack of investment in public infrastructure, I point out that we are only now getting close to ending slopping out in Scottish prisons—which, after all, was stopped in English prisons a considerable time ago—because, when the Conservative Government was in power, it refused to invest in new prisons in Scotland or in changes that would have ended the practice. The court case that has been before us over the past few months is a direct result of the Conservatives' decisions back in the mid-1990s to invest only in English prisons, not in Scottish prisons, and to leave Scottish prisoners to slop out.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

People in Scotland are not interested in the higher council tax bills that they received from Labour councils in 1995; they are interested in the higher bills that they will receive from Labour councils in 2005. The First Minister should get up to date with the issues that concern people.

As for the First Minister's claim in relation to slopping out, I point out that the judgment of Lord Bonomy in the first instance made it absolutely clear that the decisions on budget allocations and to stop the completion of the prison estate improvement programme—a programme initiated by the Conservatives—that the Scottish Executive took in 1999 are what led to the compensation claims and to a situation in which at least £160 million will be wasted. Will the First Minister apologise for that appalling waste of public money?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I fail to see how not spending money is an appalling waste of public money. That seems a strange equation to use.

I say, yet again, that the fact that there has still been slopping out in Scottish prisons in recent years is a direct result of the decision of the previous Conservative Government to invest in ending slopping out in English prisons but not to make the same investment in Scotland. At the time, the Conservatives were probably trying to pay for a botched reorganisation of Scottish local government with resources that could have been used elsewhere. It is to the credit of those who have invested national public resources in local services that, in recent years, we have seen consistently lower council tax increases in Scotland than south of the border, and consistently lower council tax increases in Scotland than there had been for several years.

However, increases must be as reasonable as possible. That is why, with an increase of 5.5 per cent in council budgets for next year—from this Government's coffers—and with a 40 per cent increase in council resources over the past five years, councils have a duty and a responsibility to have the most efficient budgets possible and the lowest council tax increases possible. I hope that all of them will take heed of that message today.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The First Minister has a responsibility to ensure that all the millions of pounds of savings that he says he will make through his efficiency drive are, in part, returned to the council tax payers of Scotland, who are having to shell out fortunes to have local services provided by their councils.

I want to return to the points about slopping out and the money. In the judgment of the court, Lord Bonomy said that the situation arose because the Scottish Executive

"took a deliberate decision not to address"

cell conditions

"when they both had the resources and the capacity to do so".

That was the judgment of the court; why will the First Minister not accept that judgment?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The judgment was subject to appeal and may yet be subject to further appeals, despite today's news. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the judgment in detail in this chamber—as I am sure Mr McLetchie, with his background, knows.

It is appropriate to point out that the sum of money that Mr McLetchie quotes would not even have paid for the recent extension to the prison here in Edinburgh. Directly equating the sum of money to the ending of slopping out in Scottish prisons is simply not accurate.

I return to my previous point. The fact that, in the late 1990s and early 21st century, we have still had slopping out in Scotland's prisons when it does not exist elsewhere in the United Kingdom is a direct result of the investment decisions of the previous Conservative Government. It is only now that we have proper decisions on investment in capital infrastructure for Scotland's prisons—as well as in our roads, schools, hospitals and other important areas of public life in Scotland—that we are making the difference that brings Scotland into the 21st century.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1449)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not have a formal meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland tomorrow, but I intend to see him tomorrow. We will discuss how to ensure that, in the aftermath of any United Kingdom election that might be held this year, Scotland and the rest of Britain continue to go forwards and not backwards.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I am sure that the First Minister will join me in welcoming the first environment week in the Parliament, which is currently under way and was organised by Scottish Environment LINK. At last night's Scottish Environment LINK reception, the First Minister accepted—very honestly and clearly—that some of Scotland's environmental record has been pretty poor. However, he made another important point on the G8 and climate change. He said:

"the single most damaging decision made by any government in the last ten years was the United States decision not to sign up to Kyoto."

Will the First Minister confirm that statement today and commit to ensuring that George Bush and Tony Blair hear the point when the G8 comes to Scotland in July? Perhaps he could do that through his meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The British Prime Minister has perhaps not used such specific language, but he has made a similar point in calling on the American Government to sign the Kyoto protocol. It is essential that we maintain the pressure on the United States of America to recognise its responsibilities not just to present and future generations of its own citizens, but to the citizens of the rest of the world. The USA creates far too much of the world's pollution. It has a duty and a responsibility to help to alleviate the world's pollution and to ensure that, in years to come, the environment is much better than it is today.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I warmly thank the First Minister for that answer. I am sure that he will agree that it is important that, when the G8 comes here, there is no embarrassment about Scotland's contribution to climate change. According to research by the national environmental technology centre, between 1990 and 2002, emissions for the United Kingdom as a whole fell by 14.9 per cent, those for England fell by 18 per cent and those for Wales fell by 8.6 per cent but, over the same period, Scotland's emissions fell by only 5 per cent. In other words, our emissions are not falling as quickly as those of other parts of the UK. Does the First Minister agree that it is important that, before July this year, we are able to show clearly and convincingly how we will catch up with England and Wales on reducing CO2 emissions?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not have the specific figures in front of me, but I believe that we need to update and refresh our strategy for tackling climate change in Scotland. That is precisely why we have embarked on a review of the policy. I hope that members of all parties will contribute to that review, because I believe that the issue should—at least at times—cross party boundaries. In the spirit of this week's environment week and of the great work that Scottish Environment LINK does to publicise environmental issues throughout the year, I hope that we can move forward not only by influencing in our own way what happens at the G8 summit, but by ensuring that we have in place the right policies to reduce pollution and to help with climate change here in Scotland.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Members will want to join me in welcoming Philippe Auberger, the president of the France-UK friendship group, and a delegation of members from the National Assembly. [ Applause. ]

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

To ask the First Minister how the United Kingdom Government's reform of the immigration and asylum system will assist the fresh talent initiative. (S2F-1439)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Home Office five-year strategy for asylum and immigration acknowledges the specific challenges that face Scotland due to our falling population and emphasises the importance of having flexibilities within the UK system. It puts us in a stronger position to attract fresh talent to Scotland, by using the new graduate student leave to remain scheme and other initiatives.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Does the First Minister share my dismay at the Conservative party's call for fixed quotas, the disparaging remarks that a Conservative spokesperson made this week about Scotland as a place to settle and the call that the Scottish National Party leader made on Monday for there to be two different immigration policies within the UK? Under that proposal, I presume that Alex Salmond would have to have a visa check when he went to work each week. Are any of those developments offside distracting the First Minister from getting on with attracting new Scots through the fresh talent initiative?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Not only does the nonsense that we hear from the Conservatives and the Scottish National Party not distract me from that important initiative, but it encourages me to speed up and to make further progress with it.

Dominic Grieve of the Conservatives said:

"Scotland is not a very attractive place for people to come and settle."

Frankly, he should come and enjoy the benefits of living in Scotland for a month or so. If he did, he might not make such a statement again. By the same token, for the nationalist party to claim that the best way to attract more people to Scotland is to erect more borders and barriers on the outskirts of the country is for it to engage in fantasy-land politics. We need to have not only a strong UK immigration system but, crucially, specific measures here in Scotland that promote our country as a great place to visit and in which to live, study and work and which allow people who want to come here to contribute to our economy and the future of our communities.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I will leave aside the problems that the fresh talent initiative is experiencing from without and address some of the flaws that it is experiencing from within. I refer the First Minister to a letter in The Herald today from Professor Anthony Cohen, the principal of Queen Margaret University College in Edinburgh. Although he praises the scheme, he indicates that, on a trip to Singapore and India from which he has just returned, he was dismayed to learn from British Council representatives that

"they have been instructed not to advertise Fresh Talent further, not least because they have been unable to elicit any further guidance about it from the Scottish Executive."

If the Executive cannot get its act together, how can the people of Scotland have any faith in it?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not want to question the letter or its writer—I do not know the gentleman concerned and do not want to question his personal credibility—but Kenny MacAskill's raising that point is a disgraceful slur on the British Council, which has been one of the best supporters of the fresh talent initiative. At its events—including one in Edinburgh just before Christmas, which SNP members attended, at which the British Council promoted our fresh talent initiative to its representatives from all over the globe and encouraged them to work with the embassies and consulates around the world to promote the initiative—the British Council has been a great supporter of the initiative, and to criticise it for a lack of support is wrong. It is helping to deliver the initiative rather than talking Scotland down like the SNP does.

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

Does the First Minister realise that a woman came into my surgery the other day—[ Interruption. ] Do members mind? This is a serious question. That woman has a PhD in statistics, but her visa runs out at the end of February and she graduates early in the summer. She is from Cameroon and, if she graduated later in the year, she could take advantage of the fresh talent initiative, but because her graduation date falls before the scheme starts, she will have to return to Africa and apply to come back to the UK. Will the First Minister consider extending the initiative back to 1 January 2005 to allow all of this year's graduates to take up the scheme?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

To allow the new scheme—which is to Scotland's direct benefit and is supported by the UK Government and the Home Office—to operate properly, all the right regulations and procedures must be in place, and it cannot start until they are.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the First Minister how infrastructure development in the Highlands and Islands will be affected by the European Commission's audit of European regional development fund projects. (S2F-1447)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not expect infrastructure development in the Highlands and Islands to be adversely affected by the European Commission's audit of European regional development fund projects.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

It is hard to see whose interest was served by leaks to the BBC of the draft interim European Commission audit documents on objective 1 projects. The Scottish Executive's silence on its responsibilities, as highlighted in the audit, which is confirmed today, is deafening. Will the First Minister guarantee that no programmes in the Highlands and Islands will suffer as a result of the audit and that proper procedures for monitoring European spending in Scotland are in place? Will he detail what action he is taking in Brussels to support the Highlands' claim for future European Union structural funding? Independent analysis shows that too many areas in my region have a lower gross domestic product than do parts of recent accession states in eastern Europe.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Of course, we will fight extremely hard to ensure that the maximum resources are available to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and I am convinced that, should Tony Blair and Gordon Brown be re-elected to the positions of Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer following any election that might take place this year, they will deliver for the Highlands and Islands in the same way as they did in the previous negotiations in 1999.

I will comment on the general issue of the audit procedures that the Executive is currently challenging. Mr Gibson has perhaps missed it, but Allan Wilson has never been off the television and the radio, commenting on the matter and explaining the Executive's position. In doing so, he has been talking accurately and truthfully about the issue, unlike the member for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, from whom we have heard inaccurate rubbish. This week, he said that the audit, which relates to the years 1994 to 1999 was

"the most devastating example of financial mismanagement since devolution."

I believe that the Parliament was created in 1999. The situation has nothing to do with devolution.

By properly challenging the situation, by providing the facts and by ensuring that the current audit is properly completed, we hope to ensure that the Highlands and Islands are properly protected.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Does the First Minister agree that European structural funds have helped to improve life and work in the Highlands greatly? Does the First Minister agree that the £200 million of transitional funding, which was secured five years ago by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is being properly and sensibly spent? Incidentally, that £200 million was once described by the SNP as a disaster for the Highlands and Islands. Will the First Minister join me in condemning the cretinous remarks of SNP members, who have done nothing but undermine decent, hard-working public servants in local authorities in the Highlands and Islands and throughout the Highlands and Islands Enterprise network?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It would be wise of me not to comment on the audit until it is complete. We believe that, with the proper information, the issues will be properly dealt with once the audit is complete. I endorse the member's remarks about the importance of European funding to the Highlands and Islands over the years. The investment in infrastructure has made a real difference. It is through the negotiating power of Great Britain, alongside the actions of the Scottish devolved Government, that the best representations will be made for the Highlands and Islands in the years to come.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I would have thought that the Scottish Executive would have learned a lesson after its mathematical incompetence caused the Highlands and Islands to lose objective 1 status and millions of pounds of grants.

Allan Wilson has denied that £21 million might have to be repaid to the European Union. Will the First Minister give the Parliament an assurance on the issue, given that all the 14 projects that were inspected failed the auditors' initial inspection test and that a second inspection by the European Commission is due shortly? Is this yet another appalling equation produced by the Executive's financial mismanagement?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Highlands and Islands politicians would serve their constituents better if they backed up the projects that have received the funding and argued that they should retain the money. The sort of comments that we hear from Jamie McGrigor, Fergus Ewing and Rob Gibson encourage the European Commission to take back the money from such projects, and they are very unwise to make them. The current audit is part of the way through—it is not yet complete—and the proper representations have been made to the Commission. If any resources were ever taken back, they would come from the projects themselves—from the businesses and local public projects in the Highlands and Islands that have been financed. However, that is something that we are doing all that we can to avoid, rather than to encourage, as the Opposition parties seem to be doing.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

It is interesting to note that Audit Scotland, which has audited Highlands and Islands Enterprise, reports no concerns to the Scottish Parliament's Audit Committee about how Highlands and Islands Enterprise implements the various programmes concerned. Will the First Minister assure us that everything possible will be done to ensure that this matter is drawn to a conclusion quickly and that we win our fair share of funding during the negotiations leading up to 2006, during which so many members seem determined to ensure that we damn ourselves and lose the investment that is badly needed in the Highlands and Islands?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Absolutely. I have absolute confidence in the truthfulness, accuracy and credibility of the people in the Highlands and Islands, in both the public and private sectors, who have used European money well over the past few years. I do not accept that they should be condemned either by the Commission auditors or by the Opposition parties in the Parliament. We will continue to defend them before the European auditors. We will argue their case to retain the money that they were right to spend on their projects. Thereby, we will ensure that the credibility of European programmes in Scotland remains intact.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive measures economic success. (S2F-1433)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Our top priority as a devolved Government is to help to achieve a sustainable increase in Scotland's long- term growth rate. I would measure economic success in a number of ways, but employment and unemployment levels are central to that.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister might be aware of the publication this week of the Federation of Small Businesses index of success, written not by a Conservative economist but by John McLaren, former adviser to the First Minister's predecessors. Does the First Minister agree that the fact that the report ranks Scotland last out of 10 nations with populations of less than 9 million puts into perspective the First Minister's oft-repeated claim that Scotland is the best small country in the world? Furthermore, will the First Minister acknowledge that as Scotland has, according to the report, fallen four places in the rankings since 1990, here is conclusive proof, from a Labour economist, that we were better off under the Tories?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Let us take some of the indicators that I mentioned earlier. What were the figures for unemployment in Scotland back in the days to which Murdo Fraser wants us to return? Just 10 years ago, unemployment in Scotland was more than double what it is today. If we go back 20 years, to the very heart of the Conservative Government to which Murdo Fraser wants us to return, unemployment in Scotland was nearly four times what it is today. I do not want to return to those days; I would rather be where we are today here in Scotland, with the second-highest employment levels in the European Union and the lowest unemployment that we have had in the whole of my adult life.

Frankly, the Conservatives have taken a survey that I would strongly dispute. Scotland is not the worst small country in the world, and it is nonsense to suggest that that is the case, much as the Conservatives might enjoy doing that. However, the Federation of Small Businesses says in its survey that we in Scotland need to do more about health improvement, and I agree with that absolutely, so I challenge the Conservatives to put their votes where their mouths are, to vote for the smoking ban in the Parliament later this year, and to ensure that that health improvement comes about.

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

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to assist the manufacturing sector. (S2O-5404)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Manufacturing remains vital in both its direct and its indirect contribution to the Scottish economy. That is why we announced to the Parliament last year the establishment of a Scottish manufacturing advisory service, which will assist in the provision of product and process innovation best practice to manufacturers in Scotland. The service will become operational later this year.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

I know that the minister is aware of the proposed loss of 110 jobs at Forbo-Nairn Ltd in Kirkcaldy in my constituency. In light of that announcement and of the impact that those losses will have on the central Fife economy, which already faces major challenges, will he agree to meet me, Scottish Enterprise Fife and Fife College to discuss what support the Executive can give to us to meet the challenges?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I will indeed. We obviously regret the company's decision and I am conscious of the impact that it will have on the employees and their families. I will therefore be pleased to meet Marilyn Livingstone and the local partnerships involved to see what advice, assistance, support and guidance we can give on reskilling, retraining and providing alternative sources of employment to those affected.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take following the publication of, and formal consultation on, draft road orders for the A80. (S2O-5399)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The draft road orders and compulsory purchase orders for phases 2 and 3 of the A80 upgrade, which were published on 26 November 2004, have attracted a number of objections as well as indications of support. The intention is to hold a public local inquiry this summer. The inquiry will consider all three phases of the A80 upgrade.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I certainly look forward to the public local inquiry and to progress being made in tackling congestion along the A80. However, residents in Cumbernauld have been sceptical about the timing of publications relating to the A80. For example, the draft orders were published, as the minister mentioned, towards the end of November and into the Christmas and new year holiday period, making it difficult for community groups to meet. For that reason, I ask that the public local inquiry not be held during the recognised summer holiday period. I ask also for further information on the remit of the inquiry.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Those are matters for the inquiry reporter, but I see the good sense in what Cathie Craigie says. If there is an appropriate way in which I can make representations on timing, I shall do so. Otherwise, I am sure that she will be able to pass on to the office of the inquiry reporter a copy of the Official Report of this afternoon's meeting. At the local inquiry, the department would expect to justify its proposals and it would be in order for objectors to seek to challenge proposals on areas such as the need for the specific new road proposals and the appropriateness of the chosen alignments. The department would expect the public local inquiry to be able to demonstrate the merits of the proposed road against alternatives such as the Kelvin valley route.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

In relation to the work that is scheduled for the A80, what consideration, if any, has been given to the concerns that my constituents in Mollinsburn have about road safety?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

In the development of the proposals, careful consideration needs to be given to those issues as they relate to Mollinsburn. Indeed, that is the case for all the traffic management arrangements along the route. At all times during such schemes, we try to keep two lanes of traffic flowing. We will continue to take that approach and to look at impacts on neighbouring roads. We will work closely with North Lanarkshire Council on the issue.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will take forward the recommendations of the forum for renewable energy development in Scotland's biomass energy group report. (S2O-5356)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The report recommends actions for a number of agencies as well as for industry. The forum for renewable energy development in Scotland, which I chair, will monitor progress. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the importance of the biomass sector and the need to support it further. I will look urgently at the recommendations that are addressed to the Executive and respond as soon as possible.

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

The minister may be aware of the considerable investment programme in the Borders for three new high schools, which is a large public sector build. Does he see the rich potential for those schools to be heated and powered by biomass through the use of combined heat and power plants? Given that all MSPs are being asked to sign the Holyrood declaration as part of Scottish environment week, the commitment that I seek would be a good measure for the Executive to take and would demonstrate our commitment to biomass fuels in the future.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am aware of the investment in secondary schools in the Borders. Indeed, we have identified the Borders as an area where there is considerable potential for biomass. School public-private partnership projects can provide a good opportunity for local authorities to consider sustainability issues, consistent with the Executive's approach to such projects.

Perhaps I should make it clear that the specification for PPPs is output based rather than input based. The output specification that the local authority has to produce should set out the authority's requirements regarding sustainability issues and highlight the specific areas in which bidders can be expected to demonstrate good practice. Through a workshop last July in Glencoe, we directly targeted the local authorities that are involved in school building projects. The workshop was organised by the Executive's Education Department and its objectives were to raise awareness of sustainability issues and to assess how that aspect can be better incorporated into school projects.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I welcome the minister's positive replies. Is he aware of the concerns of those who promote biomass that our environmental regulations may be slightly out of step with our aspirations for biomass energy? Will he talk to his colleague Ross Finnie, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, about ways in which the Executive can promote the biomass industry? We need both to act in an environmentally responsible way and to ensure that our environmental regulations deal with the current generation of biomass developments and not previous, old-style developments. There is a real fear that, without a bit of joined-up thinking, we may not be able to take full advantage of the great opportunity that biomass energy offers. I hope that the minister can give me a positive response.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Certainly, I am aware of some of the concerns to which Sarah Boyack refers. I want to ensure that we can maximise the opportunity that biomass offers. Biomass has considerable advantages, as it is a predictable and stable form of renewable supply. I will discuss the matter with Ross Finnie—indeed, I have done so already. Our discussions will continue as we respond to the FREDS biomass energy group report. We will look at the ways in which we can address some of the problems—which in some respects are definitional—that may be holding back a better use of biomass for generating electricity.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The point that I want to raise is similar to the one that Mr Purvis made about the school estate. The PPP projects in my constituency would benefit enormously from a wood-fuel heating system under the biomass umbrella. A concern has been expressed that the configuration for grant applications for a more expensive heating system is outwith PPP projects. Can the minister update me on whether a resolution has been found that fits the Executive's strategic priorities?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am aware that at times difficulties have been encountered with renewables inputs into PPP projects. Under the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative, profit-making organisations are ineligible for funding. As I said in my reply to Jeremy Purvis, the specifications are output based rather than input based. Setting outputs and calling for best practice is one way of addressing the issue, although access to the SCHRI would not be allowed. The problem is that, if we were to allow profit-making schemes to access the fund, the percentage of grant funding could come down from 100 per cent at the moment—which some community groups have benefited from—to something like 30 or 40 per cent. Because of that problem, we are evaluating the SCHRI. The study will consider the use of that source of funding for PPP projects. We expect the outcome of the research to outline how we can best move forward to help to fund the installation of small-scale renewables technologies in PPP projects.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

The Deputy First Minister will know that at peak times 40 per cent of Scotland's electricity is generated from coal. In light of the report, what discussions is he having with coal producers and power generators to increase the use of biomass for co-firing?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We received the report only at the end of last month—it was warmly welcomed by the FREDS group when we met on 31 January—but it gives us an opportunity to move forward and to see how we can maximise the contribution of biomass. I am more than willing to engage with coal producers to see where there are opportunities for co-firing. I know that some regulatory issues need to be ironed out.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it will take in the light of the publication of Peter Wood's issues paper for the cross-cutting expenditure review on economic development, published on 1 February 2005. (S2O-5386)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Growing the economy is the Executive's top priority. As I made clear to the Finance Committee when I appeared before it, our spending plans reflect that. We will respond in due course when the committee publishes its final report.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

What steps will the minister take to minimise the negative impact on economic development of recent spending levels, which, as the paper proves, have not kept up with increases in the overall Scottish Executive budget? In particular, what will he do to minimise the negative impact on businesses, investors and skilled people who are considering investing their capital and their working lives in Scotland?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Because the issues paper was an advisory paper to the committee, it would be inappropriate for the Executive to respond until it has received the committee's report. However, I make it clear that we approach our objective of growing the economy in the widest sense. All Cabinet ministers are signed up to that objective, which has relevance to the work of the transport division; to the Education Department, in relation to primary and secondary education; to my department, in relation to higher and further education; to tourism, culture and sport; and to the Environment and Rural Affairs Department. It also has relevance to the Health Department—it is important to recognise that one of the biggest items of expenditure in the Scottish Executive's budget is health and that what we do to tackle illness and promote good health can lead to improved productivity and, therefore, to growing the economy. I am not sure that that was reflected in the paper to which Mr Mather referred.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I agree with the minister that we should wait until the Finance Committee has completed its investigations in its cross-cutting review of the Scottish economy. In that context, I hope that he accepts that some of the decisions that we make on spending should be transparently aligned with economic growth priorities and should be seen to be able to deliver not only economic growth, but the Scottish Executive's other key objectives, including closing the opportunity gap. I hope that the problems of urban areas such as the one that I represent are as much to the forefront in those considerations as are those of the area that the minister represents.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I share that view. It is important to recognise that items of expenditure that might not immediately appear to relate to economic growth—for example, health spending—can nevertheless make an important contribution to it. On urban and rural expenditure, I acknowledge the work that is being done on regeneration—I visited Clydebank and know about the work that is being done there and the importance that ministers attach to it.

The issues paper also considered funding for the common agricultural policy, which is non-discretionary for ministers. It therefore gave a slightly misleading impression. Moreover, I understand that it saw Highlands and Islands Enterprise as operating in a totally rural area. Inverness is a city—the Latin for city is "urbs", which gives us our "urban"—so perhaps it was wrong in that respect, too.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it expects the wave power industry to contribute to the target of generating 40 per cent of electricity from renewables by 2020. (S2O-5440)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We expect our renewables targets to be met from a wide range of renewable sources, including marine technologies.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for that answer and agree absolutely. It is a pity that companies that are trying to promote and develop wave power, such as Wavegen in Inverness, are constantly struggling to get funding and are still dependent on the vagaries of venture capital. Given that wave power is a young technology, the companies are less attractive to venture capitalists, who expect a much quicker return on their investment than the industry can offer. Does he accept that the Government must underpin the funding for the emerging renewables technologies so that they are not lost to Scotland?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Both the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government are doing a considerable amount to support and promote renewables technology, particularly marine technology. Eleanor Scott will certainly be aware of the resources that the Executive has put into the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, which is now operating successfully. We have announced the strategic environmental assessment of our coastline, which will be funded from resources that we are providing. Moreover, the Department of Trade and Industry has allocated £50 million to help to realise the potential of the development of marine renewables; as it indicated recently, £42 million of that has been allocated largely as revenue support for the development of a number of larger-scale pre-commercial demonstrations. I believe that Scottish projects and developers are well placed to benefit from the funding.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the minister assure us that that the new transmission charging arrangements, which will come into force in the not-too-distant future, will not discriminate against methods of producing electricity such as wave power, which are often, by necessity, located quite far from the sources of electricity consumption?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I assure Alasdair Morgan that my colleague Allan Wilson and I have engaged with our DTI colleagues and have made appropriate representations to ensure that—this is exactly the point that Alasdair Morgan makes—the charging regimes will have no adverse impact on the ability of our resources, such as marine energy and wind energy, particularly in our peripheral areas, to contribute to our overall energy supplies in the years to come.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

The Deputy First Minister will be aware that it has been estimated that up to 20,000 jobs could be created in Scotland in a successful wave and tidal energy industry. Those jobs would be vital to the north-east and to his constituency. Does he agree that the review of the renewables obligation certificate system, as well as the welcome continued investment in research and development, could be key to developing a renewables sector that includes a successful wave and tidal energy industry?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I certainly agree that the opportunity for jobs is considerable. The FREDS marine energy report, which was published last summer, speculated that, by 2020, marine energy could generate as much as 10 per cent of Scotland's electricity, as well as help to create 7,000 new jobs, which will of course be part and parcel of our green jobs strategy.

The ROCs operate effectively and, as Richard Baker will know, work is under way to extend the obligation to 2016, which will give increased security. That will be followed by a fundamental review, which is to take place this year. We will certainly consider the views of stakeholders and the Enterprise and Culture Committee when we come to undertake the review.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to increase trade with developing world markets. (S2O-5405)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Through Scottish Development International, which is a joint venture, we monitor world markets and the opportunities for Scotland's key industries and high-potential companies. SDI's activities, which are delivered in partnership with UK Trade & Investment, senior business people and trade organisations, are targeted at areas of highest business opportunity in established markets and at helping companies to explore the potential in fast-developing economies such as those in China—where SDI will shortly double its staffing—Russia, Brazil and India.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

The Deputy First Minister might be aware of the work that James Watt College in my constituency has done to attract a number of international students, particularly from China. How does he think that we can use the opportunity that is provided by the increase in SDI staff in China to open up further opportunities for Scottish further and higher education and Scottish manufacturing and exports?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I share Irene Oldfather's view that there is a huge potential in China, which I saw for myself when I was there two weeks ago. I welcome what she said about the students attending James Watt College. Since 1999, the number of Chinese students studying in Scotland has increased sixfold; indeed, that grouping has overtaken European Union students as the international grouping with the highest number of students in Scotland, which reflects the high regard in which Scottish higher and further education is held. The work that has been done by the Scottish Qualifications Authority to form partnerships with Chinese education institutions is encouraging and was part of the memorandum of understanding that I signed with the Chinese Government when I was in Beijing.

China also represents opportunities for companies. The life science companies that accompanied me on my trip to China demonstrated their potential there. Furthermore, as the chamber will be aware, earlier this week the First Minister announced that, during 2005, there will be introductory workshops relating to China for Scottish companies and new market research will be made available. As he also said, there will be learning visits for top chief executive officers and, in October, a major China business conference.

Justice and Law Officers

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what confidence it has in the accuracy of the latest figures on youth offending produced by the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration. (S2O-5434)

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

On 4 November 2004, I made a statement to the Parliament setting out a robust, credible baseline against which to measure future progress.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I refer the minister to the minutes of a meeting on 14 May 2004 at Victoria Quay between her civil servants in the sponsor division and the SCRA's senior management. The minutes state:

"A significant gap continues to exist between SCRA and the Minister about the role of SCRA ... Not simply process improvements—must be about improvements in outcomes for children."

A later meeting was referred to as being a "make or break meeting" with regard to the role of the SCRA. Is it not the case that the SCRA has lost the battle for taking on a wider role—that is to say, improvements for individual children—and is now skewed to servicing statistical data for the minister, as is evidenced by the resignation of the widely respected Alan Miller?

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

We should be clear about the fact that ministers—including me and the ministers responsible for education—take actions because we want to prevent young people from becoming involved in a life of crime. That is why I wanted to know exactly how many young people in Scotland were involved in persistent offending. That is why I have been working, over the past years, with elected members and chief executives in local authorities to ensure that the information that we have on our databases matches up with the experiences of people at a local level. That is why I made a parliamentary statement to indicate that the number of persistent young offenders was higher than had been previously been thought. I hope that people of all political parties will recognise that, for every one of those 1,201 young people referred to in the reports, there is an individual tragedy as well as family tragedies and tragedies in local communities. That is what the Executive is trying to deal with and that is why we take the issue seriously.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to improve communication with victims in the justice system. (S2O-5336)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

In line with our commitments in "A Partnership for a Better Scotland" and our strategy for victims, we are taking significant steps to ensure that communication with victims in the justice system is constantly improved, most notably through our promotion of the victim information and advice service, our support for Victim Support Scotland and the introduction of the victim notification scheme. Moreover, as the Lord Advocate announced this morning, victims will, in future, be given an explanation by the Crown Office if it decides not to pursue a prosecution or to discontinue a prosecution.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I, too, welcome the Lord Advocate's announcement that victims and relatives will be given reasons for the decisions that are taken by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in the circumstances outlined. The minister will be aware that I have constituents whose experience of the justice system is sometimes less than satisfactory, who have not been given reasons for charges being dropped and who have no idea of the outcome of the case and are therefore unable to move on. The change in policy will make a significant difference. Will the minister indicate the criteria that will inform and guide fiscals and the likely timescale for implementation?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

That is very much a matter for the Lord Advocate, who I am sure will consider Jackie Baillie's comments carefully. I know that Jackie Baillie is a long-standing campaigner on justice issues on behalf of her constituency, but her specific question is a matter for the Lord Advocate.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Among the victims of the justice system are individuals who are poorly served by the conduct of solicitors. When does the minister intend to publish the consultation paper on the improvements—I hope—to the regulation of solicitors in Scotland, particularly in relation to the handling of complaints about solicitors' conduct by the Law Society of Scotland?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

As I recently indicated to John Swinney, we intend to publish that paper soon. We are reflecting on many of the arguments and issues, not least of which are the implications of the Clementi review.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

To ask the Scottish Executive what additional training will be provided to police officers and social workers to help them to deal with sex offenders. (S2O-5421)

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

We are training 400 front-line police officers and social workers in risk assessment. That will give them the right skills when assessing the risk that individual sex offenders pose to our communities.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I have two questions for the minister. First, does she agree that we need to consider how we manage sex offenders, instead of allowing them to manage the system? Secondly, does she accept that there is a need to train a wide range of agencies and staff who deal with sex offenders to ensure that we can effectively monitor registered sex offenders?

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

First, I pay tribute to the work that Paul Martin has done on the issue following some tragic circumstances in his constituency. He has been able to pull together a range of people who have an interest in the matter to look for positive ways in which to proceed.

We intend to legislate to establish joint arrangements between the police, social workers and prisons to assess, monitor and manage sex offenders. We also intend to give the court with jurisdiction in the place of the offender's last-known address the power to grant a warrant for the arrest of a sex offender who has failed to register timeously.

A community-based sex offender programme that we have developed, based on work that has been done elsewhere, has been provisionally accredited. It covers community sentences and work with those released from prison. As members are aware, I have also asked Professor George Irving to review the operation of the sex offenders registration scheme.

I take the issue very seriously. As members will be aware, the Parliament is considering legislation that we hope and believe will ensure greater protection for children who are at risk of being exploited by sex offenders.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

The minister mentions joint training opportunities at local level for social workers and police officers. Does she agree that the fact that only two local authorities have boundaries that are coterminous with those of constabularies should not be used as an excuse for either social workers or police officers to fail in their statutory duties to investigate and prevent the sexual abuse of children and young people? Does she believe that there is a key role for local child protection committees to ensure that effective procedures are in place and adhered to? Such procedures can minimise repetitive interviewing and enable proper joint sharing of information.

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

I agree that there is never any excuse for failing to take the appropriate measures to talk to other agencies, to share information and to ensure that children are given the best possible protection. Clearly, the child protection committees have a key role to play, but individual agencies also have to recognise that it is their responsibility to share information where they believe that there is a risk to children. We want to encourage people to do that, but they will also have a duty to do so.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps are being taken to improve delivery of the Procurator Fiscal Service in Dumbarton. (S2O-5413)

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I recognise that there have been improvements in the service and in the physical environment of the court system in Dumbarton. What further improvements might be made in aligning the fiscal service with the police to ensure that maximum use is made of police time in carrying out duties other than court duties and that an appropriate service is provided for offenders and others?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Like my colleague, I welcome the £3 million investment in Dumbarton sheriff court, which is making a real difference. I am sure that the Lord Advocate will agree that partnership working is essential to improving service delivery. At the national level, the fiscal service is working with Scottish Women's Aid on training for new prosecutors on the range of issues that they are likely to encounter. Will he encourage similar partnership working at a local level and suggest that fiscals should attend domestic abuse partnership groups such as the one in West Dunbartonshire, as that dialogue will result in improved service delivery?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the current timescale is for establishing a Scottish human rights commission. (S2O-5349)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The Scottish Executive remains committed to introducing legislation to establish a Scottish human rights commission in the current parliamentary session.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The matter has been consulted on twice over the course of the previous parliamentary session and into this session, and there has been an unqualified commitment to it in the partnership agreement for some time. Can the minister confirm that it will be in the legislative programme for 2005, as it will require to be if the commission is to be up and running before the end of the current session? Will the commission be up and running before the end of the current session?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I refer Robert Brown to my previous answer. It is right that we take our time to consider the detailed responses that we received during the consultation. Notwithstanding that, we are continuing to develop the bill and examine the issues that were raised in the consultation. We have considered examples of other institutions in the United Kingdom and abroad. For example, officials have discussed our proposals with the national institutions unit at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and they have attended a series of workshops that have been run by the British Council in order to learn from the experiences of human rights institutions around the world. We have set out our legislative programme for this year and it would be wrong for me to anticipate what a future programme might look like. However, we remain committed to establishing the commission in the current parliamentary session.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

What right will the commission have for ensuring the protection of human rights at Dungavel immigration and removal centre?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

That would depend on which specific aspect was raised. Many of the issues are reserved matters, although there may be some specific instances of devolved competences. The commission's main functions would be promotion, education and awareness raising; providing guidance to public authorities; advising the Parliament on legislation after introduction; general monitoring and reporting in relation to law and practice; and investigating and reporting on generic or sectoral human rights issues. The Dungavel situation would depend on the claim that was made.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Is the minister aware of plans to create a single equality body for the United Kingdom, which will include a human rights commission? Would an overlap be created if Scotland had two bodies to deal with human rights?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

It is obvious that the potential for overlap would exist. When a proposal is produced, not only the Executive but the Parliament will need to consider it carefully. The UK proposals that have been developed have several benefits, but we are keen to ensure that we do not have two bodies that examine the same issues at the same time. Detailed consideration would need to be given to protocols and areas of work and a proper understanding would need to exist between the bodies.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Questions 7 and 8 have been withdrawn.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what further action it will take to tackle crimes involving firearms. (S2O-5316)

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

In the past 10 years, the number of firearms offences in Scotland has almost halved. I want that trend to continue, but we are not complacent. We are discussing with the Home Office the responses to a major consultation last year on what more might be done to control the use of firearms.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I welcome any reduction in firearms crimes. The minister will be aware that the latest figures show that four fifths of attempted murders and four fifths of recorded robberies that involved firearms took place in Strathclyde. She will also be aware of the increasing use of replica firearms in crime—the use of replica weapons is a growing menace throughout Scotland. Therefore, does she agree that there is no obvious logic to the Parliament having power over some offensive weapons, such as knives and swords, but no power over firearms? Does she agree that control of firearms should be devolved to the Parliament, so that we can tackle the issue now, rather than waiting in the hope that Westminster will act at some future date?

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

I am perhaps sorry to disappoint Mr Maxwell by saying that I disagree. I will draw his attention to provisions that were commenced in January 2004. Any situation in which a replica firearm is used is serious and the legislation should be able to deal with that. The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 introduced new laws to protect the public from the misuse of air weapons and imitation weapons. It raised the minimum age for owning air weapons from 14 to 17 and created a new offence of possessing an air weapon or an imitation weapon in a public place without reasonable excuse. We also banned the import and sale of air weapons that use self-contained air cartridge systems and introduced licensing for such weapons that are already held.

That is a good example of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive and Westminster working together on devolved and reserved matters to protect the public. I hope that the Scottish National Party will at least acknowledge that.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the minister agree that the current system that is designed to regulate the use and ownership of firearms and shotguns UK-wide is robust and resilient and that very few crimes that involve firearms or shotguns are committed by licence holders?

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

I do not often find myself tempted to agree with Alex Johnstone, so I am checking my notes carefully before I answer. I understand that the number of crimes and offences that involved the alleged use of a firearm represented only 0.4 per cent of all recorded crimes and offences of homicide, attempted murder, assault, robbery and vandalism in 2003.

Whenever a firearm or replica firearm is used, that is serious. However, as people are aware, Scotland has a particular issue with knife crime. We have announced measures that we propose to take on that. I look forward to receiving Mr Johnstone's support when we vote on those measures in Parliament.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what value it places on rehabilitation programmes in prisons to tackle drug and alcohol abuse. (S2O-5370)

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

The Scottish Prison Service offers a number of accredited programmes that are designed to address offending behaviour. As I made clear when launching the criminal justice plan, we must ensure that sentences, whether served in prison or the community, focus on changing offenders' behaviour. That will include addressing alcohol and drug misuse.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

In England, there is an easily accessible directory of drug treatment places and programmes, with up-to-date information for addicts and their families. Does the minister agree that such a directory is a useful tool? Will she commission a similar directory for Scotland?

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

Information is currently available in a number of ways. I draw Margaret Mitchell's attention to some of the work that has been done on arrest referral schemes, even before the point at which people enter the prison system. There are very good working relationships between the Scottish Prison Service and the voluntary sector to deliver programmes. We have also increased the amount of funding that is available for drug treatment and rehabilitation programmes and have a robust alcohol action plan. People can already be linked into the system in a number of ways.

Of course, we will continue to try to ensure that the earliest possible action is taken. I remind members of the proposals that we announced for consultation yesterday, concerning the possibility of introducing mandatory testing for people who are arrested in connection with drug-related crime. I hope that there will be a full and proper debate on the proposals, to ensure that we get people into treatment at the earliest possible opportunity. I look forward to debating the proposals and, hopefully, securing people's support for them.

General Questions

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will reform the way in which the land register operates. (S2O-5383)

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The Scottish Law Commission is undertaking a review of the legislation that governs the operation of the land register, the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979, as part of its sixth programme of law reform. The commission published the first of two discussion papers in February 2004. The paper considers the connections between the law relating to registration and the underlying rules of property law. It sought views on proposals to improve the alignment between those areas of law and is available on the commission's website. The commission is working on the second discussion paper, which is to focus on practical aspects of registration, and expects to publish it in June 2005. The commission expects to publish its findings in a report at the end of the year. The Executive will consider carefully the report and any recommendations that it makes.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for a thorough answer. Will she confirm that the land register is in chaos? How many people in Scotland do not have a proper secure title to their property because the land register is so slow and inefficient? What is the average time for registration of title?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

We should remember that registration counts from the date of receipt of application, so no one is disadvantaged by delay. We must recognise that it is important that the process is thorough, that people have confidence in it and that any possible disputes are dealt with at a very early stage. Thus far, 0.1 per cent of dealings have led to a dispute that required indemnity.

I do not accept that the whole process is in chaos. There are delays because cases are at an early stage and thoroughness is essential. We are conscious that it is important to seek to eliminate delays by improving efficiency and are moving towards electronic registration. However, we must focus on the fact that these are complex matters and people must have confidence in them. Once the more complex cases have been dealt with, we can deal with more straightforward ones and the process can be developed in a way that allows everyone to have confidence in it.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will take forward the implementation of the strategy and action plan for improving sexual health. (S2O-5398)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

On the day that the sexual health strategy was launched, I wrote to national health service board chairs, council leaders and other organisations, stressing the importance that I attach to early action to secure its implementation. As part of that process, two workshops for key stakeholders are being organised. The first will be held on 16 February and will bring together clinicians and other senior NHS personnel to set in train work on service redesign to improve sexual health services. The second, which will follow shortly thereafter, will involve a range of voluntary and statutory interests and will concern their role in implementing the strategy.

Steps are also being taken to appoint the national sexual health advisory committee, which I will lead and which will have an important role in monitoring progress. An early task of that committee will be to offer advice on targets that will help to deliver the key elements of the strategy. Implementation will be facilitated by additional funding of £15 million over the next three years, the bulk of which will go towards improving front-line services.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

I am aware from the publications that I have seen that information will be suitable for a wide-ranging audience, including those who are not currently accessing services. That is important. What specific methods and strategies will be used to ensure that information will be available to all, whatever their requirements?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

With regard to the member's particular interest in the adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, I tell her that that the strategy mentions specifically a review of relevant services and support.

In the practical plan for action that is contained in the document, we seek to ensure that no one is excluded from appropriate sexual health services, whatever their life circumstances, by means of a comprehensive equality and diversity impact assessment process in line with the Executive's equality and diversity approach. It is for the Executive to ensure that that happens on the ground, as well as for NHS boards whose nominated executive directors will need to take into account the issues that impact on sexual health, especially in relation to inequalities, and utilise the diversity impact assessment process. We have considered the points that the member raised in her question and we have adequately addressed those issues in relation to the work of all the partners that are involved in ensuring that the sexual health strategy is a success.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister clarify the Executive's position on the funding of faith schools should they decide not to implement the sexual health strategy in full?