Scottish Parliament, 19 May 2005

358 contributions from 86 members. The official report.

Official Report 19 May 2005

Argyll and Clyde NHS Board

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Good morning. The first item of business is a statement by Andy Kerr on the follow-up to the Audit Committee's report on Argyll and Clyde NHS Board. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement and there should be no interventions.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I have asked for parliamentary time today to make a statement about the Executive's proposals for the future of Argyll and Clyde NHS Board. This follows the Scottish Executive Health Department's response to the Audit Committee's report at the beginning of the week.

Members will recall the background to the Audit Committee's report. Three or four years ago, there was considerable concern about the performance of the health board, the size of the financial deficit that was emerging and the ability of the management team to tackle the issues effectively. My predecessor, Malcolm Chisholm, took action at the time. A support team was brought into the health board and provided a report to the minister. Subsequently, the chief executives of the board and the three national health service trusts in the area left and a new board chief executive was appointed. The trusts were wound up and NHS services in Argyll and Clyde were planned and delivered on a single-system basis.

Since then, good progress has been made on a range of financial and other performance issues. We want to record our appreciation for that. There have been significant improvements in important areas such as waiting times and delayed discharges. Key services have been sustained and augmented for the benefit of local people. The fact that local staff and management have managed to achieve so much in the face of well-documented financial pressures is a tribute to their professionalism and dedication. We thank them for that.

However, the issue of financial balance has proved to be long running and deep-seated. The report by the Auditor General for Scotland, which was published in September last year, predicted that the cumulative deficit might rise to as high as £80 million to £100 million. Although I acknowledge the progress that has been made, I do not think that the Executive can justify allowing a publicly funded body to spend so much more than its income. That would be unacceptable. We have concluded that a fresh start is required and that the building of renewed confidence is necessary. I am therefore announcing that the Executive intends to consult on the dissolution of Argyll and Clyde NHS Board.

It is proposed that NHS Greater Glasgow and NHS Highland assume responsibility for the relevant areas in Argyll and Clyde. In addition, it is my intention to clear the accumulated financial deficit. I make clear that the changes are being proposed in order to secure high-quality, safe and sustainable services for local people. That remains our absolute priority. However, I am conscious that my proposal may cause concern and anxiety in the local community. People will be worried about how it may affect services, and local staff will be worried about their jobs. Let me explain the reasoning behind the proposal and what the next steps will be.

I mentioned the Audit Committee's report on NHS Argyll and Clyde's finances, which we have studied carefully. One of its conclusions was that there had been a failure between the Health Department and NHS Argyll and Clyde to agree the board's financial recovery plan. I agree that that was unacceptable and acknowledge and accept the department's share of responsibility in the matter. The chamber can be assured that lessons have been learned and that procedures will be revised. I am happy to confirm that the existing board has approved a financial recovery plan that the Health Department has since agreed.

However, we must address the board's financial position. Over the past two years, good progress has been made on achieving planned savings against the board's plans. The board made total savings of £13.2 million in 2003-04 and £18.2 million in 2004-05. However, the issue of financial balance has proved to be long running and deep-seated. It is only proper that the Executive expects all NHS boards to sustain a sound financial footing and to meet their statutory financial duties. That is essential in preserving the delivery of high-quality, safe and sustainable local services. Plainly, it is unacceptable for a public body to allow the accumulation of debt that was taken on by NHS Argyll and Clyde. The situation cannot be allowed to continue.

It has also become increasingly clear that the geography of the NHS Argyll and Clyde area precludes effective management by a single health board. It is simply not a natural geographical area for one board. That is why we have discounted the option of retaining NHS Argyll and Clyde, while writing off the accumulated debt. Although a financial plan has been agreed, it is apparent that true recovery cannot take place unless structural issues are properly addressed. I am afraid that, despite the efforts of the current management team, NHS Argyll and Clyde has become associated with failure. I have no doubt that it has become necessary to dissolve the board and to move on, free from the millstone of the recent past. We have therefore agreed to provide £80 million in funding to clear the deficit and to enable the management teams to tackle their new responsibilities, free from the shortcomings of the past.

I assure the chamber that the provision of funding to clear Argyll and Clyde's deficit will not have an adverse effect on health funding in Scotland generally. Of the £80 million that we have decided to make available, £53 million will come from central Executive resources. The remaining £27 million will come from unallocated Health Department underspend that has been carried forward from the previous financial year. No planned health initiatives have been cut back to make the proposal happen.

Rightly, the condition that is attached to this action by my Cabinet colleagues is that financial balance in the Argyll and Clyde area needs to be restored as quickly as possible. As I have reported, NHS Argyll and Clyde has reached agreement on the details of the board's financial recovery plan. I will now look to all three boards to ensure that the plan is implemented on time. They have assured me that, when implementing the plan, they will maximise non-clinical savings.

We recognise that the coming months will be difficult for Argyll and Clyde, but momentum on implementing the recovery plan must not be lost. Spending reductions on the scale that is required in Argyll and Clyde cannot be made without service change, but that should be seen in a positive light. There will have to be change and we should not be afraid of it.

Next week, Professor David Kerr will report on his national review of service change. The review will provide boards with an opportunity to take a truly radical, modernising approach to service provision. However, our approach must be to continue to ask what we can deliver safely and sustainably in our local communities. In this case, there is an opportunity to redesign fundamentally the way in which the workforce is organised and services are delivered in Argyll and Clyde, in order to achieve tangible benefits for patients. There is an opportunity for services in communities in the Argyll and Clyde NHS Board area to become an example to the rest of Scotland of the way in which health care should be delivered in the 21st century, for the benefit of patients.

There is no doubt that tough decisions will be needed. I am sure that the reconfigured boards will need support to take and implement those decisions. Members should be assured that, when the case is made, the Executive will not shirk any action that will ensure high-quality, safe and sustainable services for local people.

I make clear that the proposal to redraw the boundaries is intended to speed up the rate of modernisation in the areas concerned and not to reopen the debate on decisions that have already been taken. That would merely set back the implementation of important improvements in Argyll and Clyde, Glasgow and the Highlands. The proposal is also not intended to signal further structural change. In our view, that would be an unnecessary distraction at this time.

We want effective regional planning to be the norm throughout Scotland. Local people throughout Argyll and Clyde can be assured that patient services will be maintained, necessary health care provision will continue and the services on which they rely will be there for them. We acknowledge that removing the boundaries between Argyll and Clyde and Glasgow may heighten concerns over the future of the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley, given its proximity to the Southern general hospital. Such concerns would be misplaced. The RAH is a valuable resource that contributes significantly to the delivery of first-rate services to local communities. We expect that to continue.

After I have made this statement, I intend to spend the rest of the day in Argyll and Clyde meeting local staff. I recognise that local people and staff will be anxious about the statement. I will tell them that services will go on, people will continue to be cared for and staff will continue to be needed to provide services and care. I know that the three health boards concerned will work together closely to provide certainty to all staff about their future roles and responsibilities as quickly as possible. I expect the boards to take that work forward through the partnership arrangements that are already in place in NHS Scotland. That will ensure that trade unions and professional organisations that support staff are actively engaged.

We acknowledge that there will also be questions over where the redrawn board boundaries should lie. Local communities can be assured that our proposals will be detailed in a forthcoming consultation paper, which will be subject to three months of formal public consultation, commencing in late June. We are determined that it will be a genuine consultation that will take place with the full co-operation of the three health boards. We are keen to hear the views of all communities, staff, unions, local campaign groups and elected representatives. I assure members that we will consider carefully all representations and available information before coming to a final decision. Fundamentally, the situation is about people and services, not bureaucracy, boundaries or borders.

What we have announced today is about securing the future. It is a fresh start with a clean slate. It is about making real and effective change to support first-class health care facilities in our communities.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I am sure that members will appreciate that a considerable number of people wish to ask a question, and it should be exactly that—a question. I would be grateful if members would stick to a question without preamble.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I thank the minister for the advance copy of the statement. The decision that has been taken is probably the only one that could have been made given the sorry saga in Argyll and Clyde, which has culminated in the projected deficit of £100 million and the recent damning report by the Audit Committee.

Why, after 22 meetings between the board and the Health Department, was there a failure to agree a financial plan until only this week? What improvements will the minister make in his department's ability to monitor the finances of health boards adequately in the future? Given his comment that

"Spending reductions ... cannot be made without service change",

what guarantees can he give the public in Argyll and Clyde that they will not suffer further losses of services because of the incompetence of either local managers or his department? Will he assure Parliament that the current senior managers will not be given the same grotesque pay-offs as the previous senior managers received, as that would surely add insult to injury to the people of Argyll and Clyde?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I consider the latter part of that question to be unacceptable as it discusses in the chamber the conditions of service of individual members of the public and trade unions. Shona Robison is reprehensible in her approach and shows a clear lack of understanding of some of the good progress that Argyll and Clyde NHS Board has made, which I tried to explain in my statement. Nonetheless, we reach back to the core of the decision about sustainable services, a sustainable board and a geography that does not meet the needs of the community in the delivery of the service.

I am more than happy to address some of the more rational points of Shona Robison's question. As regards the Health Department, I have said that there will be a complete review of internal procedures relating to the submission, review and agreement of financial plans. That report will be submitted to me by July.

The reason why so many meetings happened, so much consultation took place and so many phone calls were made is that the Health Department was not willing to sign off a plan that was not sustainable. It was a difficult process. Although I accept that we can improve our ways of working, we were not sitting at the end of a phone line not agreeing to anything; we were positively engaging with the board, trying to reassure ourselves that all the resources that were required to do the job were included in the recovery plan and that all the financial aspects of the plan were detailed appropriately for us so that we could sign it off. We could not sign off a recovery plan until we felt that it had some veracity and deliverability. There are still some substantial risks in that regard, but nonetheless we and the new boards can now work with the plan.

It is always our desire to maintain services as locally as possible, but with necessary specialisation, and that will continue to be the case and the driver of our health service in Scotland.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I welcome the minister's statement, as it tackled head on the issues that have plagued Argyll and Clyde for so long: geography and the board's debt. Will he reassure the chamber that the consultation will not take 12 months, as some people have reported, because such a delay would not be helpful?

When he visits Inverclyde royal hospital today, will the minister take time to thank those front-line staff who have delivered an improved service under difficult circumstances? Will he also make it clear to the staff and the wider community that Inverclyde royal hospital has a secure and sustainable future?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The purpose of my visit to Argyll and Clyde today is to do what Mr McNeil suggests. I want to build confidence in the future of services in that area. I want to say that people who were sick yesterday or who will be sick tomorrow or in the future will be cared for by professional staff in a professional way, and I want to reassure staff about their role.

When I visited Argyll and Clyde in the past, I realised that it must be difficult for staff to have every statement that they read about the health board prefaced by the terms "debt ridden" or "financial crisis", with all the negative connotations that such terms have. Wiping the slate clean and ensuring that the debt is removed will give staff an opportunity to build their services for the future. It will give them confidence in the way in which we deliver health services in Scotland and confidence that continued investment will take place. Although I accept fully that meetings with staff will be difficult, it is appropriate that I, as minister, should meet them, listen to their views and hear their concerns.

The formal consultation process will last three months, as set out in the NHS (Scotland) Act 1978, if I remember correctly. We intend to consult, analyse and respond to the consultation as quickly as possible. We propose to start the process at the end of June.

I have been to Inverclyde royal hospital and have discussed these matters. I see clearly a future for Inverclyde royal and I reassure Duncan McNeil that we will sort out all the issues to do with boundaries and boards. However, I foresee that Inverclyde royal will continue to play a significant role in the delivery of services.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I realise that today is not the minister's happiest day in the chamber and it is certainly a pretty desperate day for the patients and staff of Argyll and Clyde NHS Board. I ask the minister about the immediate issues of confidence on the part of patients and staff in that area because it seems to me, from listening to his statement, that sticking one bit of that area on to NHS Greater Glasgow and the other on to NHS Highland is a meaningless solution that is fraught with problems. Would it not be better for the Executive to assume immediate responsibility for the interim administration of the NHS Argyll and Clyde area pending the consultation and—perhaps even more pertinently—the publication of Professor David Kerr's report, which I understood was commissioned to instruct and inform a debate on the future of the whole health service in Scotland?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Professor David Kerr will inform the debate on our health care systems in Scotland, but his report is not about structures; it is about how to deliver the best level of care. That report will be discussed next week in the chamber.

We are not sticking bits anywhere. We will have rational discussions and take rational decisions. We will engage with communities and listen to professionals and everyone else in the area to ensure that we do not stick bits where they should not be. We will ensure that the boundaries fit modern health care services and that patient flows are recognised in any restructuring. In all that I have heard about Argyll and Clyde in recent times, people have mentioned to me the geography of the area, the inconsistencies and different styles of delivery, and the pressures and strains that that geography brings. Add to that significant debt, which has increased over recent years, and we have a problem.

I welcome the member's earlier comments because this is not a happy day. The decision that I have taken has been very difficult for me and my team and this is not where we wanted to be. However, I rest on the decision because it is the right one. It should reintroduce confidence and rebuild services and faith in the community. It will also ensure that neither I nor another health minister face the same difficulties in that area in five years' time. I want to ensure that the results of the decision are carried out properly to sustain services and confidence. We will do that not by sticking bits together but through genuine consultation with clinicians, patients and staff in the community.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Given the considerable pain that is involved in making decisions on Greater Glasgow NHS Board's acute services strategy and the critical stage that we are at in modernising its services, will the minister assure me that today's decision will not be detrimental to patients in greater Glasgow and that there will be no additional management burdens on that board and no additional financial burdens in the short or long term? Will he further assure me that there will be an adequate lead-in time should the consultation lead to a change in the boundary?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I think that I can give those assurances. I have had confidential discussions on this matter with senior managers and board chairs in all areas. I tried to make clear in my statement that I do not see this move as unpacking any past decisions; I believe that these changes, modernisations, reforms and reconfigurations must continue for the benefit of patients and in order to improve our service delivery to them.

As far as any burdens are concerned, I have sought to reassure members that I consider it to be unacceptable simply to reconfigure board boundaries and then have other boards inherit the debt. That is why we have agreed to write off the debt burden. Similarly, with regard to management capacity, I am sure that all boards are capable of carrying out this difficult task on our behalf.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I, too, welcome the minister's statement and seek clarification on a number of points. First, will he confirm that, if the Argyll and Bute area is taken into NHS Highland, patients will not have to travel to Inverness for treatment? There must be recognition of the traditional paths that patients follow for treatment.

Secondly, will the minister confirm that the modernisation of mental health services that NHS

Argyll and Clyde agreed earlier this year will go ahead and that some of the £80 million that he has announced today will be used to fund the development of community mental health services ahead of any closure of institutions such as Argyll and Bute hospital?

Thirdly, does the minister agree that the root cause of the financial difficulties that the board faced was the consistent use of non-recurring funding over a period of years before the new management came in? That funding was used to cover up the board's deep financial problems. Will he assure us that in future the accounts of boards throughout Scotland will be more transparent in their reporting of the use of non-recurring funding?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Before you answer that, minister, I remind members that I asked them at the beginning to be brief and to ask perhaps one question. Mr Lyon, you have held up other members who have been sitting here and who are now not going to be called.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I will do my best to run through those questions and give an adequate response to them.

As far as the boundaries of Argyll and Bute are concerned, it could be said that I am in favour of having as much coterminosity as possible. However, although I genuinely have an open mind about the need for coterminosity with regard to the borders of Argyll and Bute Council, I also take account of the health service statistics on patient flows. I have not closed my mind on this matter and want to hear views from local people and, indeed, from the member before we go out to formal consultation. Mr Lyon should not assume that the Argyll and Bute Council area will be the section of the NHS Argyll and Clyde area that will go to NHS Highland.

The mental health strategy will be rolled out effectively. That said, I cannot make the commitment that Mr Lyon seeks with regard to the £80 million, because that money is required to write off the debt. It is the board's responsibility to ensure that it makes the resources available to deliver the mental health strategy before any facilities are closed.

Finally, we now pay greater attention to the issue of non-recurring funding and it has become more visible on board accounts.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The minister said that local people can be assured that patient services will be maintained. Will he assure local people that existing acute hospital services at the Vale of Leven hospital, Inverclyde royal hospital and the RAH will be maintained? Moreover, given that centralisation or reconfiguration of acute services within an expanded NHS Greater Glasgow would currently be decided at board level, will he take additional powers to ensure that his guarantee today will stand the test of time?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Going into detail on any of those questions would pre-empt the work of the current board and its successors. However, I strongly believe that the Vale of Leven hospital, Inverclyde royal hospital and the RAH have a future in the health service. Indeed, my earlier comments on Inverclyde royal hospital and the RAH make that clear, and I share that view with regard to the Vale of Leven hospital. Services will change; after all, the issue of health and the way in which we engage with the health service are changing. Nevertheless, as I have said, I believe that there is a future for all those facilities in our health service.

On the second question, I do not think that it is necessary to take any additional powers. We will work with the boards and will continue to monitor their activity and engage with them effectively to ensure that the outcome of the consultation that I have announced today—whatever that might be—is delivered effectively in all areas.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

On behalf of the 24,000 people in my constituency who petitioned the Parliament, I whole-heartedly welcome the minister's statement and commend his actions. He has clearly listened to our concerns and has demonstrated that he is prepared to take strong action to protect patients' interests.

I have two very quick questions. First, will he send a strong signal that he expects patients from the Helensburgh and Lomond areas to be cared for by NHS Greater Glasgow? After all, that is what they and their local authority, Argyll and Bute Council, want and, frankly, it is only common sense.

Secondly, will the minister lend his support to the innovative model of integrated care that is being developed by general practitioners, clinicians and nurses at the Vale of Leven hospital, which creates a safe and sustainable future for the hospital by breaking down divisions between primary and acute care?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

On the latter question, I am happy to encourage the continuation of such innovative approaches. We have tried to support the Vale of Leven hospital and will continue to do so while the model is being developed. We certainly look forward to its fruition.

As for patients in the Helensburgh and Lomond areas, I give the same answer to Jackie Baillie that I gave to George Lyon. I am not stuck with using council boundaries as the basis of any decision that I make. We need to consider patient flows and listen to the voice of communities and folk in the forthcoming formal consultation. At the moment, I am simply trying to signal that members should not necessarily assume that my solution will be based on coterminosity. Indeed, my decision might well reflect patient flows and what is best for patients in this situation.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

With regard to Argyll and Clyde, the minister stated this morning:

"Key services have been sustained and augmented for the benefit of local people."

Of course, that is the exact opposite of what has been happening in Argyll and Clyde, as services have been downgraded or lost in Inverclyde and Dunbartonshire. That is why local people have been out on the streets protesting. Will the minister tell me which of the services that have been downgraded or lost at the Vale of Leven hospital and at Inverclyde royal hospital will, as a result of the scrapping of NHS Argyll and Clyde, be returned to those hospitals, which is what local communities demand and require?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Of course, it is the no-change party that always wants no change in health care. However, health care is changing markedly. We want to provide more services in our communities, which is why chemotherapy and other services are being taken out of the acute setting and put into local settings and why specialisation takes place where necessary in the patient's best interests. That is a challenge for all health boards. We want folk to be cared for in their community and some of the work that NHS Argyll and Clyde has been involved in has reflected that positive approach, in which people are cared for where they want to be cared for: in their own communities and, indeed, in their own homes. I am sure that the member would also want to reflect on the fact that NHS Argyll and Clyde has quite successfully met its waiting times targets and has reduced bedblocking to one of the lowest levels in Scotland.

I must say that I do not share the member's analysis. The SNP is a no-change party. It will ensure that patients do not receive the best service and that any outcomes will not be the best ones for them or for their families. Our key driver is that services in Scotland should be provided as locally as possible. Indeed, more than 90 per cent of our services are provided in the local community. As for acute services, they must be highly specialised and ensure successful outcomes for patients.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I, too, welcome the announcement that the £80 million millstone of debt is now being lifted. It has proved a major obstacle to progress and the Executive should be congratulated on making the right decision.

In his statement, the minister alluded to some of the anxieties—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Ms Alexander, do you have a question?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I have indeed. The minister said that anxieties and fears over the future of the Royal Alexandra hospital were unfounded, and that lifting the debt burden would create a platform for better services. I would be grateful if he could expand on that comment.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I think that I can do so. The RAH is and will remain a valuable resource. Because sick people will still require its services, we will still need the people who provide those services to work there. That contribution will continue.

This issue is not about patient care but about a boundary, a line on a map and a management structure. I believe that the RAH has a strong future in the health service in Scotland. The services that we deliver today will continue tomorrow, even though there might a different line on the map.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

NHS Argyll and Clyde has had no credibility for a long time. However, this morning's announcement will mean little unless local people and NHS staff are guaranteed that it is not simply a balance-sheet rearrangement of cuts and closures. I ask the minister to give an unequivocal guarantee that the programme of cuts and closures will be halted while the consultation takes place. I would hate to think—[ Interruption. ] Well, let us hear it clearly. I would hate to think that the cuts and closures would be rushed through in three months and that the Executive would then wash its hands and blame those cuts and closures on a board that had been abolished.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Could we have a question please, Ms Curran?

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

That was it.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am not sure from which planet the member has landed, but she may have missed my opening statement. I do not recognise the agenda of cuts and closures that she describes. We have made historic investments in the health service in Scotland. All that investment is taking place, from the radical changes and outcomes for patients that are making a real difference for them, to the year-on-year above-inflation increases in the health service and the investment in consultants, nurses and doctors, There is no programme of cuts and closures. There is a change for the better for patients. Our health care system has been reconfigured to ensure that services are delivered as locally as possible and are as specialised as necessary. It is not about a hidden agenda of cuts and closures but about taking away up to £80 million of debt from a health board, to ensure that it can concentrate on the future of patients and their care in the community without that millstone round its neck. That is what is important for patients. Let us think about patient care, not debt.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the prospect of a new beginning, but the minister did not make a good start today. The previous dramatic reorganisation was not three or four years ago, as he said in his statement, but 30 months ago, on 17 December. We have heard the same rhetoric today as we heard on 17 December. As for today's announcement, if, as the minister says, the consultation is not intended to reopen the debate on decisions that have already been taken, how can it be called genuine? [ Interruption. ]

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The lights going out on the nationalists? I thought that that had happened in early May, but that is another matter entirely.

This is about ensuring that patient care is at the heart of what we do. The geography of the current structure of the board was, to put it bluntly, not working. People in the local community have pointed that out to me on many occasions, and we must ensure that we put the local community first. We must ensure that we invest and that we give confidence to the staff and management in that community that the care that they provide today will be provided tomorrow and in future. We must ensure that we take away that debt and that pressure, so that we can focus on the patient. However, we must also reflect, as many other members have done, on the fact that the board does not have a sustainable future because the geography does not work. We have made a tough and, as some members have pointed out, difficult decision. It is not a good day for the NHS. Nonetheless, the decision is right and there will be significant positive change in that local community.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I rise to speak as convener of the Audit Committee, whose report precipitated today's statement. The minister has acknowledged the Health Department's share of responsibility in the failure to agree a financial recovery plan and has said that lessons have been learned and procedures revised. Will he tell us how such failures of process, which could affect other boards with deficits, will be avoided in future? Is it possible for the accountable officer, Dr Kevin Woods, to brief the committee on the writing-off of the deficit and the newly agreed Argyll and Clyde recovery plan?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

To take the member's first point about the Audit Committee report precipitating the debate, I have to say that I waited for the report before making my decision public. It was part of the decision-making process in which I have had to be involved throughout this unfortunate set of circumstances. Having made that point, I reassure the member that I am happy not just to have Kevin Woods come along to the Audit Committee to give evidence on the matter but—as the report is due to me in July 2005—to share with the committee our findings with regard to the review of the internal procedures relating to the submission, review and agreement of financial plans in the NHS in Scotland.

Serious Organised Crime

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2824, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on tackling serious organised crime and developing strategic partnerships.

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

We have had many debates in Parliament about crime—debates reflecting the real concerns of ordinary Scots and ordinary communities. Every crime must be taken seriously, but I want to focus on a specific threat, which is the threat that is posed by serious organised crime.

What do we mean by serious organised crime? We live in an increasingly global world. Markets now transcend national borders and multinational corporations are no longer constrained by geographical or political boundaries. Criminal organisations have adapted to that changing world and have evolved into far-reaching international networks that operate in many different countries and have many spheres of interest. Those organisations produce and supply the drugs that blight Scotland's communities and they are involved in people trafficking, customs crime and arms dealing. Those networks have a hand in criminal activity at each and every level, from the poppy fields in Afghanistan to street dealers in Aberdeen; from people-trafficking operations in eastern Europe to prostitution in the east end of Glasgow.

If we are to fight serious organised crime we must target explicitly those who preside over the criminal gangs that are responsible for that crime. We must go after the people who exploit others and who bring misery to our communities. They are the people who sit comfortably in front of their plasma-screen televisions while trusting members of the public have peddled to them bootleg electronic goods. They are the people who sit in designer apartments while the dealers prey on Scotland's most vulnerable communities. Serious organised crime funds the obscenely excessive lifestyle of the men and women at the top—a lifestyle that leads those organised criminals to believe that they can thumb their noses at the police and at the millions of hardworking Scots who play by the rules.

I state once again, here and now, that that is not acceptable. Our police and prosecution services will continue to do everything in their power to put those people behind bars, and we will not stop there. We will seize their ill-gotten gains and we will send out a clear and unequivocal message that whatever the quick return might be, in the long term, crime will never pay. That good work is already under way. In 2004-05, we seized or confiscated more than £3 million-worth of criminal assets. Many more cases are being pursued; another £8 million in realisable criminal assets were identified for potential seizure by the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency between April and October last year. The Solicitor General for Scotland will cover that in more detail later in the debate.

The main threat from serious organised crime continues to come from drugs trafficking. The SDEA is working with the Scottish police forces and other agencies to disrupt and arrest those who are involved in supply, so that we can stem the flow of drugs into our communities. They are having success: in 2003-04, more than 100kg of class A drugs were seized, with a street value of more than £11 million. The total for 2004-05 will be even higher. In just one of many examples, in 2004 a single network was dismantled, which led to the recovery of heroin that had a street value of more than £1.5 million. The four principal members of that network received combined sentences amounting to 73 years.

As well as disrupting those networks at the top level, we are tackling the drugs menace at the distribution end, through initiatives such as Crimestoppers Scotland's drug dealers don't care, do you? campaign. The campaign has so far resulted in 116 arrests and has been responsible for seizures of drugs worth over £133,000. I understand that on Monday, SDEA officers in Glasgow, acting on intelligence that they had received, seized class A drugs with a value of £550,000.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I welcome the news that the minister has been given. She may recall that I have previously suggested that the illegal drugs industry in Scotland is worth some £2 billion a year, based on there being 51,000 heroin addicts and English figures that suggest a cost of £35,000 a year per addict to feed their habits. Will the minister confirm what her view is of the size of the industry and whether, whatever figure she comes up with, given the amount of money that we are managing to seize there is a lot of distance yet to travel?

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

Without putting a figure on it, I agree with Stewart Stevenson that there is a lot of distance yet to travel, which is why I take the issue so seriously and partly why I wanted to have the debate. We need to acknowledge how well we have done, but we also need to acknowledge the continued threat from organised criminal networks and from the fact that they adapt and change over time and move into new areas. We need not only to keep up with that movement, but to be ahead of it.

Organised criminals have other interests that are less obvious than the drugs scene. They often use businesses that appear at face value to be legitimate to shield their illegal activities and launder their shameful profits. We have seen clear examples of that in Scotland in the problems that affect the private security industry. I am pleased that legislation is now in place to regulate that industry, which will help to fight against the unscrupulous criminal elements that have plagued that industry over the years.

Members have heard me say before that criminals do not care about national or international boundaries—unless, of course, one jurisdiction is seen to provide a safer haven than its neighbours. To retreat into parochialism and focus only on what happens in Scotland itself would be a terrible mistake, because co-operation across jurisdictions is of paramount importance. Such co-operation begins in Scotland.

I praise the excellent work of all our law enforcement agencies that are involved in tackling organised crime. Because of the close co-operation between the police and the SDEA, 200 police officers had been seconded to the SDEA by the end of March this year. That is the highest figure ever and has been made possible by the record funding that we are providing to keep police numbers at an all-time high. Together with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, we are committed to continuing the SDEA's role as Scotland's lead enforcement agency in tackling serious organised criminality. That is why we are working towards putting the SDEA on a firm statutory footing with new governance and simplified funding arrangements. I expect to bring proposals on that to Parliament later this year.

It is also crucial that we co-operate effectively at United Kingdom level. The serious organised crime agency will come into being on 1 April next year. It will draw together the existing National Criminal Intelligence Service, the immigration service's responsibilities on organised crime, HM Revenue and Customs's responsibilities for serious drug trafficking and the National Crime Squad for England and Wales.

Much of the success of the SDEA and police in tackling organised crime has been the result of their ability to co-operate effectively with other law enforcement agencies from throughout the UK and around the world. More co-operation will bring about more success. I stress that the introduction of SOCA will take nothing away from our distinctive Scottish policing structure; rather, it will enhance the capacity of Scotland and the UK to respond to international crime.

Our active role in the European Union is also providing clear benefits. The EU framework decisions that are being discussed on mutual recognition of measures that are taken by courts and law enforcement agencies in partner countries are important. The European arrest warrant is a significant development that will speed up the arrest and return of criminals who are wanted for prosecution or punishment. It is a huge improvement on what existed before, which was a particularly cumbersome system that was open to abuse by individuals who were determined to frustrate justice. Europol provides an impressive level of support to the SDEA and the Scottish forces, as it allows rapid exchanges of crucial intelligence between member states on a range of serious organised crime issues, while Eurojust assists with co-ordination, investigation and prosecution of cross-border crime and has improved co-operation between legal systems.

Working within Scotland and beyond, our law enforcement agencies are disrupting the activities of organised criminal gangs and are bringing real benefits to our communities. I am determined that we will take the fight against serious organised crime to the people who are responsible for it—the international criminal networks. That is what the decent majority of ordinary Scots expect. They rightly question why criminals should live comfortable lives that are funded by their illegal activities; I share their outrage and pledge that the Executive will do everything in its power to create a safer Scotland by bringing to justice anyone and everyone who makes a career out of peddling misery in our communities.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that tackling serious organised crime is key to a safer Scotland; recognises that criminal networks operate across local, national and international boundaries; commends the achievements of those responsible in Scotland for bringing to justice those engaged in serious organised crime; supports the Scottish Executive's actions to achieve speedy and efficient court processes, its efforts to ensure greater co-operation with European and international criminal justice agencies and its plans to strengthen the status of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency; commends the success of the Crown Office in recovering £5.4 million since the introduction of the Proceeds Of Crime Act 2002, and will continue to support the sustained efforts of all those involved in disrupting and destroying the criminal networks which profit from inflicting violence and misery on communities in Scotland.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Scottish National Party fully endorses the Executive motion and the minister's comments. She is correct to raise such matters and it is proper for her to do so in her speech.

The world—not simply the economy, but society—has globalised. Crime, as well as labour and capital, are mobile and transnational. Crime is capable of stalking across many lands, so countries need to work together if they are to address it. We must accept that we live in a shrinking world and that crime is therefore much more transnational. Globalisation brings economic benefits and the benefit of international travel but, although we must recognise its fruits, it comes at a price and we must guard against that. A cheque card that is stolen from a Scot on holiday can easily be used for crime and one that is stolen to order in this country can be sent abroad to cause mayhem. A vehicle that is stolen in Scotland, to be put in a container and sent to eastern Europe or elsewhere, can be out the country before the owner has noticed its absence. Businesses and individuals receive e-mails from Nigeria and elsewhere that cause fraud, mayhem and severe loss.

The minister is correct that crime knows no boundaries. Whether we are talking about guns being imported from the Balkans, drugs being imported from Afghanistan or people being trafficked through eastern Europe or elsewhere, we need to accept that the world has globalised and that crime agencies must co-operate. We must also bear it in mind that no country is an island; all countries are interdependent. Even the most powerful nation in the world—the United States of America—must recognise that fact, and not simply because of the terror that manifested itself on 9/11, which showed the USA that it was not immune to circumstances that can ravage places elsewhere in the world, and that no matter how it seeks to secure its borders, there will be difficulties that it will be required to address.

The USA would do well to remember the words of Noam Chomsky—I note that the learned professor was over here recently—on cocaine trafficking. Despite the activities of America's special weapons and tactics teams, Food and Drug Administration, Drug Enforcement Administration and its military, cocaine still enters the USA from Colombia. However, 94 per cent or 95 per cent of the ingredients of the cocaine that is sold on the streets the United States of America are manufactured in the USA then exported to Colombia to be assembled with the basic powder and re-imported to the United States of America. Professor Chomsky made the point that the US authorities are unable to stop the cocaine being flown in and, rather than wage war on campesinos who make a small percentage of the ingredients of cocaine, they would be better to address the problems that exist in their own society. That shows that even the manufacture of cocaine is an international process that transcends countries. It is not simply that the war is in Afghanistan or the problem is in Colombia; the problem is as much in our country as it is those others and we need to work across the board to address that. As the minister pointed out, we need to accept that point in respect of a variety of matters, such as terrorism, fraud and people trafficking.

We must also accept that crime comes in a variety of shapes and forms. A man in a suit is as likely to perpetrate a crime as is a youth in a hooded top. Legislators elsewhere must take on board the fact that much serious crime is committed not by hoodies, but by hoods dressed in dapper Armani suits. Many years back, Woody Guthrie sang:

"Yes, as through this world I've wandered I've seen lots of funny men; Some will rob you with a six-gun, And some with a fountain pen."

It is important that, in addressing crime, we bear it in mind that the problem is not simply a small element of youth, but serious and highly organised crime.

The SNP's amendment recognises the difference of Scottish society. We have to work internationally and transnationally, but we must realise that Scottish society is different and distinct. What works in metropolitan London and what is needed in metropolitan Paris is not necessarily appropriate for Scotland. Lothian and Borders police would tell members that its policing methods for the Cowgate are different from those for George Street and most certainly different from those for Lothian Road on a Friday night or any other night. What is needed in Paris, London or Chicago is vastly different from what is needed in Scotland; how a policeman in Thurso would act is, in many instances, vastly different from how a policeman in Tooting would act.

The SNP accepts that some things are universal—we must always be prepared to accept best practice, wherever it comes from. However, we must acknowledge that our society is different. We have a unique legal system; it might not be the best system in the world, but it is ours. We must be prepared to learn where that system needs to improve and we must recognise and address its faults, although it has served us well through centuries and will continue to do so. Our system has also been moulded and shaped to meet our society's requirements.

Our policing has a different culture. It is very much based upon communities and on policing going upwards. It is also based upon chief constables' being almost sacrosanct; apart from being accountable to the board that appointed them, chief constables are certainly not subject to political interference. We are anxious to ensure that what has served us well in the past should remain. We must ensure the independence of our chief constables and their decisions about what is right for their communities, subject to discussion with the democratically elected boards.

We must also ensure that our law is paramount and that our legal system prevails. Clearly, we must be prepared to co-operate not just with extra-national jurisidictions but with the jurisdictions elsewhere in the United Kingdom. However, as I say, we must always bear it in mind that our legal system is unique and distinct because it is for our distinct and unique society. It has served us well and it will have to develop and evolve and take on board ideas from others nations, but it must be paramount. We must ensure that new agencies and structures do not try to force the proverbial square peg into a round hole and that they allow our system to develop as best suits our society and the way it wants to address a global phenomenon.

I move amendment S2M-2824.1, to insert at end:

"notes, however, that, whilst co-operation with other bodies both elsewhere in the United Kingdom and abroad is vital, Scotland has a unique legal system and a distinctive policing culture that is community-based and independent from political interference and therefore that the Scottish legal system and Scottish Law Officers must always be responsible for, and in control of, operations in Scotland and the representation of Scottish views and needs abroad."

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There is a lot in what the minister has outlined today that is commendable; Conservatives welcome the efforts to seize the ill-gotten gains of criminals and plough them back into the communities that have been damaged. Similarly, we welcome the Executive's efforts to work with European and international criminal justice agencies to catch more big-time criminals. We have no difficulty in supporting those aspects of the Executive's motion.

I am also pleased that the minister is talking about strengthening the SDEA. A good first step would be to rename that organisation more accurately. I wonder how many members of the public have any idea that the Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency deals with much more than drugs; indeed, it deals with some of the most serious crime in Scotland. Perhaps its previous name—the Scottish Crime Squad—was more fitting.

That technicality aside, I remain worried about the impact on the SDEA of the new serious and organised crime agency; I think that Kenny MacAskill alluded to that. I have one or two questions for the minister that I hope will be addressed later on in the debate. I am still not clear how the SDEA is expected to interact with the new body, because the new body will also be present in Scotland. I am also interested to ascertain whether the minister anticipates having regular meetings with the Home Office to ensure that she and her colleagues are not left out in the cold.

Another way in which we should clamp down on criminals and on drugs entering the country is by improving policing at our borders. I notice that under Labour only 11 of Britain's 35 main ports are manned 24 hours a day. My party would establish 24-hour security at Britain's major ports of entry and we would establish a British border control police force whose sole job would be to secure Britain's borders. There is anxiety about security of entry at the moment, and there are issues that impinge on the sort of serious crime to which the minister referred.

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

On a point of clarification, is the Conservative party proposing that there be checks at every port of entry in the United Kingdom? That is clearly not what their UK spokesman said during the election campaign.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No—I said the major ports of entry. I also said that there would be a British border control police force to enforce security at our borders.

Serious and organised crime cannot be considered in isolation from the everyday criminal activity that occurs in too many of our Scottish communities. The final clause of the Executive's motion states that it

"will continue to support the sustained efforts of all those involved in disrupting and destroying the criminal networks".

Surely one of the best ways of doing that is to increase police presence in our streets. Visible policing does not just deter and detect crime; putting police back in our communities would restore trust between the police and the people whom they serve, which would encourage individuals to come forward when they have useful information.

The minister mentioned Crimestoppers. Prior to 2003, I remember supporting that pilot scheme in my area because it was highly effective. It also demonstrated that there is public good will out there to help with nailing criminals.

As New York has demonstrated—I have mentioned this many times—concentration or emphasis on community policing is not unique. A similar success story occurred in Massachusetts—a highly industrialised area that suffered heavily from economic deprivation, drug crime and gangland activity. The city of Lowell was perceived to be dangerous and unwelcoming, so Superintendent Edward Davis decided to follow the New York example. The result was a reduction in crime. In 2001, Superintendent Davis made a speech to the Institute of Economic Affairs during which he explained the reasons for his success as follows:

"We don't solve crime because we are smart or scientifically astute. We solve most crimes because someone tells us who did it."

Those are wise words and the Executive could do with learning from them.

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

I understand Miss Goldie's continued interest in what is happening in New York and she will, from my comments, be aware of what I learned on my visit there. Does she accept that one of the ways in which the police and other authorities in New York have tried to tackle their problems is not necessarily by seeking to increase the number of custodial penalties but to have quick, visible and effective community reparation that communities are part of?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I do not think that there is an issue between the minister and me. I emphasise that the key seems to be the presence of police in communities where they can engage with the public. How we thereafter incorporate a raft of sanctions or solutions is consequential.

An increased police presence in our communities would do a lot to reconsolidate the public's confidence and willingness to assist in solving crime. If it remains easy for serious offenders—the Mr Bigs—to get bail, many witnesses will be too scared to come forward. That is the sad reality. I suggest that the Executive's attitude to fighting crime is a top-down approach: solve the big crimes, catch Mr Big, get the headlines and the little crimes might not be noticed. I disagree with that approach. We need a bottom-up approach, which I suppose is the justice equivalent of "look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves". Only if we follow that path will we be able to cut crime.

That is why my party believes in more accountable local policing. When we proposed our idea that the convener of the police should be locally elected, Mr Henry was very dismissive. His colleague, Mr McNeil in Inverclyde, was not quite so dismissive for reasons that I fully understand. There is a feeling of disengagement between communities and the overall policing strategy.

It is little comfort to the individual who is trapped in a crime-ravaged community that big-time dealers and persistent criminals are the guys who are clamped down on. As Superintendent Davis suggested, the best way to catch the big guys is for someone to pass to the police the information that is needed. In the current climate of fear of criminals and distrust of the justice system, that will not happen.

I move amendment S2M-2824.2, to leave out from "the Scottish Executive's" to end and insert:

"actions which will create an efficient court process; backs the Scottish Executive's efforts to ensure greater co-operation with European and international criminal justice agencies; believes that the status of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency should be strengthened and therefore hopes that it will not be undermined by the creation of the Serious Organised Crime Agency; commends the success of the Crown Office in recovering £5.4 million since the introduction of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, continues to support the sustained efforts of all those involved in disrupting and destroying the criminal networks which profit from inflicting violence and misery on communities in Scotland, but believes that crime will continue to blight too many Scottish communities until there is an increased police presence on our streets coupled with a zero-tolerant attitude to crime."

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

There is a lot of common ground this morning, particularly in analysis of the problem. We live in a United Kingdom—to the chagrin of my SNP colleagues—and in an increasingly interdependent world. Of course, that brings great benefit, as Mr MacAskill said. Communications are easier, travel is quicker, and the world seems to be smaller. With all the benefits that that brings, there are those who take advantage of it; serious and organised crime knows no borders. That means that for the Scottish Parliament, a balance is required between the need to ensure that we have legislation in Scotland that suits our circumstances, and the cross-border interest in issues such as immigration, organised crime and customs. Although we make decisions that might well differ from those taken south of the border, it would be ludicrous to have divisions and discrepancies. Criminals who operate across the UK will be the first to look for gaps in co-operation, fault lines in legislation or loopholes in police powers. A criminal organisation that is based in Glasgow or elsewhere in Scotland will set itself no boundaries round the globe, never mind within the UK. Increasingly, crime has an international dimension.

I will cover a matter on which Liberal Democrats are in absolute agreement with Labour coalition colleagues, and then I will touch on an area where there is disagreement. The Scottish Parliament considered the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, which the Westminster Government was taking through the UK Parliament. I had hoped that a service level agreement would be drawn up on the functions that are to be carried out by the SDEA as an agency for the serious organised crime agency.

In my view, if the relationship between SOCA, the police, the SDEA and ministers is to be effective, we will need a transparent and accountable relationship between the Scottish ministers and SOCA's sponsor department, the Home Office. I know that there has been progress in that area.

I am pleased that we are working towards a first in the UK, with a law-enforcement campus at Gartcosh in North Lanarkshire. The innovative plans for that campus aim to bring together the SDEA and a number of partner agencies. That represents a logical progression to the SDEA's existing task-force approach to tackling serious organised crime.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does Mr Purvis agree that it is important for the relationship between politicians and law enforcement that policy be set by politicians, while all operational matters should be left to the law enforcers?

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

That is, of course, the overall framework, but the member will be fully aware of section 11 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, which allows ministers to intervene in police matters if

"it appears ... to be expedient in the interests of public safety or order that any police force should be reinforced or should receive other assistance".

In that context, I agree with Stewart Stevenson.

There is a clear separation between Labour and the Liberal Democrats on one important subject. The former Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett, launched the UK Government's identity card scheme in 2003 with this promise:

"An ID card scheme will help tackle the crime and serious issues facing the UK, particularly illegal working, immigration abuse, ID fraud, terrorism and organised crime."

Among the frequently asked questions on the Home Office's website is:

"Won't an identity card be attractive to fraudsters and organised criminals?"

The answer is:

"Yes just as current identity documents are. This is why we will have strengthened identity checking procedures, biometrics and improved physical security measures both for existing identity documents and for identity cards."

The ID cards in themselves will not be effective without additional physical security measures, as the Home Office has said. It is certain that the massive information technology project that would be required, which would take years to plan and more years to deliver, would need to cover millions of people, would cost billions of pounds and would be technologically out of date even before it came into operation.

One technology expert, Peter Dorrington, who is head of fraud at the private software company, SAS Institute, a company that has worked with UK police forces, the UK Government, blue-chip companies around the world and the United States federal Government, was highly sceptical of the cards. He said:

"These are going to be incredibly attractive to organised crime groups. If you have one of these, and know that banks and governments are going to take them as a trusted form of identification, then the potential to commit fraud is massive. If a criminal can successfully obtain or generate a smart card with stolen or bogus data the world becomes their oyster.

What this means is that the value of these cards on the black market will be many times greater than the current passport. Typically a passport will go for anywhere between £500 and £5,000 on the black market. These ID cards will go for considerably more than that."

The Liberal Democrats are very pleased with the progress that we are making in Scotland to tackle serious and organised crime and with the development of strategic partnerships, which is already producing results. In March this year, half a million pounds of heroin was seized at Waverley station. Let us not be distracted, however, by an illiberal, expensive, ineffective and potentially dangerous ID card scheme.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Given the fact that 99.995 per cent of transactions, by value, are electronic and do not involve physical money, can the Solicitor General tell us what computer skills and resources are available to her and the prosecution service to deal with crime in the major areas where money moves through the system?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

rose—

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

It has been said that the law should not pretend to punish everything that is dishonest because that would seriously interfere with big business. I say that in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek way, not because it is entirely wrong but because I believe that it is our responsibility to interfere in crime wherever it occurs. What might be more accurate is my belief—which appears to be contrary to the view of the Minister for Justice, given what she said earlier—that we cannot consider the view that crime does not pay to be even remotely true. Crime is one of the biggest businesses in the world today and we must interfere with it. I am glad that the Scottish Executive recognises that and has set itself the task of confronting that reality. Organised crime is truly global and we must look beyond our borders if we are to tackle it effectively.

During the recent general election campaign there was a great deal of discussion on immigration. Had there been a reasoned debate on the matter there is much that could have been addressed, but this morning we have an opportunity to consider one dimension of the immigration debate. Migration from disadvantaged or troubled areas of the world to more stable and affluent countries is a multifaceted global phenomenon and it creates great opportunities for serious and organised criminal involvement. Organised immigration crime comprises both people smuggling and human trafficking; the distinction between the two is that in the case of human trafficking the intention behind the facilitation is to exploit the migrants when they reach their destination.

The indications are that human trafficking takes place on a much smaller scale than people smuggling, but the nature of human trafficking is such that it is harder to identify. It is clear that human trafficking relies on the frequent use of intimidation and violence, which arguably makes it the more acute threat and one that Scotland's criminal justice system must make a priority. Scotland is not immune to the problem, so it must be tackled by the strategic partnerships to which the motion refers. Criminals involved in serious and organised crime, whether they trade in people, drugs or other commodities, are adept at exploiting weaknesses in the system. Such criminals show flexibility and speed in responding to the efforts of law enforcement officers to combat their crime and in countering improved detection capabilities.

I am particularly concerned that traffickers often recruit migrants specifically into the vice trade. That usually involves deception and the exploitation of the lack of opportunities that are open to women in the source countries. The use of violence to control both trafficked prostitutes and sweatshop labourers is widespread and must cause us great concern. In the case of women who are trafficked for prostitution there are extreme forms of coercion, which usually involve physical abuse and rape by the traffickers. Violence is likely to be present from the point at which the woman begins working as a prostitute and most victims are forced to become addicted to hard drugs such as heroin. They become dependent on both the drugs and the trafficker. Victims of trafficking are a particular concern because they continue to be exploited by serious and organised criminals once they are in Scotland. I hope that the minister will pay particular attention to the problem.

Many of the serious and organised criminals who are involved in immigration crime are also involved in other serious and organised criminal activities, such as class A drug trafficking. There is evidence of illegal immigrants being used by serious and organised criminals to facilitate other serious and organised crimes—for example, they are used as drugs couriers. Serious and organised criminals also use illegal immigrants to commit various types of organised low-level crime when they arrive in the destination country. When that happens in Scotland, it shows us how a global problem becomes a local issue. I am glad that the ministers gave a strong indication this morning that they intend to tackle the problem.

In any debate on crime, we must have a sense of perspective about what needs to be done and what can be done. From what we have heard this morning, the ministers have got that balance right and I wish them well with their efforts in tackling the problem.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am sure that we all agree that we owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women who work in the eight Scottish police forces, the SDEA, HM Revenue and Customs, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the court system and other law enforcement agencies. They are in the front line of the fight against serious and organised crime.

Since its launch in June 2000, the SDEA has achieved considerable success in the fight against drugs. In its report for 2003-04, the SDEA said that since its launch its efforts had resulted in the arrest of 736 people, the seizure of more than 1,300kg of class A drugs and of more than 7,700kg of class B drugs and 333 disruptions to criminal networks. I am sure that we all welcome those achievements.

The SDEA's approach to serious and organised crime is increasingly founded on the implementation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The seizure of £5.4 million as outlined in the Executive's motion is welcome but, as I am sure that we all realise, that is only the tip of a very large iceberg. I wish Crown Office staff well in their attempts to seize the maximum amount from criminals that they can. However, I understand that the amount that can be retained in Scotland is still capped. That cap should be lifted and all money and assets that are seized here should be retained and used in Scotland.

Hitting criminals where it hurts is an extremely important development in tackling serious crime and in showing the public that the phrase, "Crime doesn't pay" will become reality. Justice must be seen to be done by the communities that are most affected by the criminals.

Earlier this year, we debated a Sewel motion to allow Westminster to legislate for us in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. All but the Executive parties opposed that motion for several reasons. One reason for opposing the bill was that the Parliament should defend the separate Scottish legal system, which other legal systems should not ride roughshod over.

We agree absolutely that close cross-border co-operation is needed between different legal jurisdictions in the UK, but that applies equally to legal systems outwith the UK. Whether the justice services of England, Wales and Northern Ireland or of the Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands and Belgium are involved, close co-operation is vital. However, it is not necessary or desirable to create overarching bodies that overrule those individual and separate legal systems.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the member give one tangible example of a system that was ridden roughshod over?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

It is inconceivable that Ireland or Holland would allow a different legal system to rule over its legal system, yet the creation of a so-called UK supreme court and a UK federal bureau of investigation will do just that here. Those are two tangible examples.

Ensuring public safety is the number 1 priority of any Government and that duty requires Governments to tackle serious crime. However, I disagree with the Government in London when it tells us that introducing identity cards will tackle serious crime and terrorism. It is clear that ID cards do not work. Most countries of continental Europe have ID cards, but they suffer from serious and organised crime at an equivalent level to us or at an even higher level.

Spain has ID cards, but they did not prevent the terrible bombings in Madrid. ID cards have not stopped Spain's problems with drug trafficking from north Africa. Does anyone honestly believe that ID cards will deter serious criminal gangs from going about their business? I certainly do not think so. If ID cards are such a useful tool, why does the USA—the most security-conscious country in the world after 9/11—not wish to introduce them? That is because it knows that ID cards do not work.

Adequate resources are crucial in the fight against serious crime and our police and other arms of the justice system could do with more resources to assist them in their work. That is why it is nothing short of supreme folly to spend billions on ID cards instead of where that money is most needed. We should spend that money on putting more police on the streets to protect the communities that are suffering from those crimes. We should invest in, rather than cut, organisations such as the customs and excise service.

We agree that we need to prioritise the tackling of serious and organised crime, but that does not mean trampling over our unique legal system, creating a UK FBI or wasting billions on ID cards.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

One of the most important strategic decisions that our Labour Government in Westminster and our Scottish Executive have made is to recognise that highly organised crime has changed. In doing so, they have encouraged the establishment of law agencies and the passing of laws that give us the tools to fight organised and serious crime.

The freedom of movement of people, capital and goods and the use of modern-day technology have taken crime to a level that we can barely imagine. Our most notorious criminals are no longer local. They are different. They are devious and sometimes very clever people who move from country to country. Serious crime operates transnationally.

That is why the establishment of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency was important and why it should be strengthened, as the motion and one amendment say. I, too, support the proposal to move to Gartcosh, provided that the agency's role is strengthened in the operation. If Government departments should be value for money, we have heard that the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency and our Crown Office, among others, have shown that they are delivering.

For a small country, Scotland has done extremely well in taking serious and organised crime seriously. We are the largest user of Europol and we have a strong voice on the European and international stages. Crucially, we have shown professionalism in the use of covert intelligence methods that has brought the nation credibility. We have standing in the world on that. We are a serious player in understanding the importance and the nature of organised crime and we have shown that we will take bold steps in our laws, such as the adoption of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, despite comments that that act might be contrary to the European convention on human rights. The Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill, which has passed stage 2 and will soon be discussed at stage 3, also shows the type of law that we are prepared to put in place.

The national hi-tech crime unit, which is part of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, is in its infancy but has already shown that it has the capability and the covert ability to review the trafficking of children through the internet and links to child abuse that is happening and causing worry in Scotland. Recently, a 54-year-old man was arrested for indecent exposure and a contravention of section 6 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 for grooming-type activity towards girls under 16. That arrest was the result of a task force operation by that unit.

All the evidence suggests that Scotland must build on its successes. Opting out of the international scene is not a choice for Scotland; we can only go forwards. I will advance two reasons for continuing to support the SDEA's work. We know that serious crime is operating in a new dimension. It is important to understand the impact of organised crime on legitimate business. Illegitimate business threatens our legitimate businesses, so that is one reason why the agency is important. Criminals can deliver a deal in one country, move assets to another country and even involve a third country or another continent. That is the behaviour to which we refer. We must send the message to lower-level criminals that we are capable of challenging the highest-level criminals, that we will remove their assets and that we will jail them, so lower-level criminals should not aspire to such behaviour.

Michael McMahon referred to people trafficking. The United Nations estimates that 4 million people are smuggled worldwide for trafficking and slavery. In Italy, 200 trials are being held for people trafficking. When women are bonded to a slave master, their families would be harmed if those women reported the crime to the police.

If ever we need to be reminded of the scourge of drug misuse in our communities, we can read yet another study, which the University of Glasgow published this week. The study shows that 62 per cent of women drug users have been physically abused.

It is important for us as politicians to talk about the capabilities, the laws and what we must do transnationally, but we must always make it clear why we put resources in place. The communities that we represent need law enforcement as well as other parts of the strategy to make the system truly work.

I support the Executive's motion. I also support 99 per cent of the SNP's amendment and I am not sure what the difference is. Stewart Maxwell talked about protecting our legal system, but I fail to understand the relevant concern. Even the Tory motion contains little with which I would disagree. Why can we not just all agree that there is nothing wrong with the Executive's position? Given the importance of the issue, we should all just get behind the Executive motion.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The closing section of the Executive's motion reads:

"and will continue to support the sustained efforts of all those involved in disrupting and destroying the criminal networks which profit from inflicting violence and misery on communities in Scotland."

That laudable sentiment, with which we can all agree, brings to my mind the comments on the regulation of the private security industry that the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents submitted to the Justice 2 Committee during its consideration of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. Although the association welcomed the bill, its submission stated:

"Nevertheless, ASPS wishes to emphasise again the Licensing Authority's need to take into account legitimate intelligence information/non-conviction data in assessing an individual's fitness to hold a licence."

Members will know that the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 belatedly extended the provisions of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to Scotland, but they should be under no illusion as to the scope of the dubious activities that are entered into by some private security firms.

My interest in the regulation and control of the rogue element within private security companies dates back over 10 years to when, as a councillor on Renfrew District Council, I chaired the inquiry into the activities of a private security company that was established and maintained by public money. In considering the company's performance on council contracts—which I will leave to one side for the minute—it became clear that the company had secured more than £1 million in housing contracts without proper tendering procedures. However, the real eye-opener was the fact that the company and some of its associates engaged in activities such as employing workers who were on state benefit, creating phantom employees for whom wages were drawn in cash and fabricating time sheets to cover work that was said to have been carried out by phantom employees. I witnessed how one guy used different signatures—apparently he had three—depending on who filled out his time sheet for him. The council paid an hourly rate for work that was never done, but that did not seem to matter because sites went on fire or were vandalised only if people did not agree to the provision of security in the first instance. Of course, with that level of corruption, the local drugs dealers were fully involved, peddling their wares from selected sites.

Although the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 has now emphasised the need for integration and co-operation throughout the UK and beyond, at that stage in time the reality was somewhat different. The company to which I refer operated with a degree of impunity that one might call immunity. The Department of Health and Social Security knew about the cash-in-hand payments, but it took no action. The Inland Revenue knew about the cash withdrawals to pay the wages of the phantom workers, but it took no action. The police knew of the involvement of the local drug dealers but took no action. Despite an horrendous report from the liquidators that pinpointed criminal activity and spelled out the fact in words of one syllable, no one was ever charged, far less convicted. The firm enjoyed protection all the way to the top.

Although the Security Industry Authority has powers that help it to combat and exclude some unsavoury individuals from participating in parts of the private security business, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that all the angles have been covered. The fear culture continues. In certain areas, pressure is exerted on some businesses and individuals, especially builders, to employ a private security firm. Many companies choose to pay. They are secure in the knowledge that they are paying through the nose, but they know for a certainty that their site will be trashed or be the location of the next unfortunate fire if they do not pay. Such additional costs to business could rightly be termed extortion. In addition, there exist cartels of private security firms that carve up some areas of our cities to operate monopolies. They have no need to guard any site; the sign outside does that job. Unfortunately, some firms are still able to use arm's-length companies to reward their criminal cronies for services.

The need to take into account legitimate intelligence and non-conviction data should not be limited to private security firms but should also apply to other licensed activities. Local authorities are ill-equipped to root out illegal activities in the trades that they are required to license. Instead, they rely on convictions and formal police objections. As MSPs, how many of us have been approached with reports that some taxi companies, or individuals who are involved in that trade, deal in drugs? I do not say that every individual or company in the taxi or private-hire business is involved in dealing drugs, as that would be absurd. There are many good operators, owners and drivers out there, but they too know the score. It is fair to say that there is significant concern that individuals with close connections to criminal elements are building up significant interest in the taxi and private-hire business. In some areas, they also control local bus services. They dictate when services stop running and when those who live in some of our most deprived areas will need a taxi if they are to venture out.

Ill-gotten gains have been laundered through legitimate businesses and have been used to acquire and expand legitimate operations. If we are to take seriously the sentiment that is expressed in the latter part of the Executive's motion, perhaps those issues require further investigation and real partnership working.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

The Minister for Justice was right to emphasise that measures to tackle organised crime are central to our aim, which is shared by members from all parties, of creating a safer Scotland in which communities are not bedevilled by drug dealing, forgery, prostitution, money laundering and small-arms trading. It is up to this Parliament, acting in a co-ordinated fashion both with our Westminster counterparts and with European agencies, to ensure that the police and law enforcement agencies are effectively equipped to meet an increasingly sophisticated international underworld.

Organised criminal gangs are, basically, illegitimate businesses that exist for the sole reason of making large sums of money. They are prepared to go to extreme lengths—up to and including corruption, intimidation and extreme violence—to protect their rackets and to ensure that their businesses thrive and prosper. To protect their investments, such organisations have adopted a range of increasingly sophisticated measures, including modern counter-surveillance techniques and the elaborate money laundering arrangements to which members have referred. Therefore, it is right and proper that Government provides its police and law enforcement agencies with the resources and legislative framework to allow them to deal with organised criminal gangs and to prevent the squalor, despair and death that such gangs cause in all our communities.

As members have mentioned, serious problems are associated with drugs trafficking. For example, the UK's crack and heroin markets are estimated to gross £3 billion per annum. People who become addicted to those drugs turn to crime to pay for their habit. In effect, every £1 that is spent on heroin results in an estimated £4 in economic and social costs. Of course, the cost in misery for communities and for the individuals who are trapped in that twilight world is incalculable.

Our Government and Parliament have recognised the need for new and imaginative ways of meeting that serious challenge. For instance, I believe that we were correct to establish the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. Since its creation in April 2001, the agency has worked in close co-operation with police forces across the UK, with HM Customs and Excise and with our partners in Europe to seek to combat the criminal networks that supply drugs to Scotland. The SDEA has achieved significant success in identifying and bringing to justice those who are involved in drugs trafficking. To date, operations involving the SDEA have seriously dented the profits of those who deal in illicit drugs.

Thanks to our close partnership with the Labour Government at Westminster, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 gives us the ability to seize the assets of drug dealers. To date, operations involving the SDEA have resulted in the seizure of class A drugs with a street value of more than £85 million. Such steady and commendable progress is no cause for complacency but should, nevertheless, be noted.

Alongside the SDEA, the Executive is supporting community efforts to wipe out drugs in local neighbourhoods. Members will be aware of the recent drug dealers don't care, do you? campaign; like many members, I have done my best to publicise that initiative in my constituency of Glasgow Anniesland. The campaign, which is funded with cash seized from drug dealers and run in conjunction with Crimestoppers, asks members of the public to give police any information that might help to track down the dealers and bring them to justice.

Since the start of the campaign, more than 3,500 calls have been acted upon, resulting in 116 arrests and 229 charges brought. I believe that that shows that communities are more than willing to play their part with the authorities in tackling the dealers who blight their areas. Annabel Goldie alluded to that in her speech and she was correct to do so. I believe that such community involvement is welcome, commendable and necessary.

The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 received royal assent on 7 April. I am sure that members will recall the debate in this Parliament in February on the Sewel motion that related to the formation of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. In that debate, the Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson, argued that

"SOCA's creation takes nothing away from the Scottish police service, but enhances the overall ability of the UK and Scotland to respond to international and serious crime",

and that the bill would create

"statutory UK-wide arrangements for the protection of witnesses".

She also said that the bill would

"introduce regulation of the private security industry in Scotland."—[Official Report, 2 February 2005; c 14144-5.]

Those are worthwhile objectives. The minister was right in what she said and the Parliament supported her. The SNP and the Tories were wrong to vote against that motion, plain and simple, and I hope that today they will be big enough to admit their mistake. Given Mr MacAskill's intelligent and considered speech, I remain hopeful, although not foolishly so, that that will be the case.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I hear what Bill Butler says about the regulation of the private security industry, but is it not the case that if the Executive had wanted to deal with that issue by means of a Sewel motion it could have done so in 2001 and had the legislation introduced here four years ago? It was the Executive's prevarication in the matter that delayed implementation.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

That was an example of a highly spurious debating point that does not relate to the case at all.

People in communities throughout Scotland wish to see serious and organised crime tackled in a coherent fashion that will create a safer Scotland. SOCA will play a vital part in the creation of that society. I commend the motion to the chamber and I hope that the Tories and the SNP will show a change of heart.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Like all members who have spoken in the debate, I agree that it is important to tackle serious organised crime in Scotland. Co-operation and interagency working are vital to success in that area, but I would like to focus on one specific crime: the unacceptable and deplorable crime of human trafficking. Other members have referred to that crime, and it is an issue that I have raised before, but it is worth emphasising the extent of the problem.

Human trafficking is a highly organised international crime. According to Home Office statistics, around 800,000 men, women and children are trafficked every year. However, such crime is mainly perpetrated by men against women and children. Around 1,400 women were trafficked into the UK for sexual exploitation in 2000. Human trafficking is believed to be the fastest growing industry in central and eastern Europe and it is having its effect in Scotland.

The Executive is funding research into trafficking in Scotland and that is to be welcomed, because we need at least to try to determine the numbers of people who are trafficked into Scotland. Information gathering is difficult, but it is crucial. We need to ensure effective information gathering and sharing between non-governmental organisations and Government agencies, locally and globally, to gain a greater understanding of trafficking and to ensure that traffickers are brought to justice. That communication is beginning to happen, but it is very much in its early stages. I look forward to hearing about the Executive's progress. I believe that information sharing and interagency working have improved in relation to such serious crime, and that is helping to develop and build up intelligence-led policing that can help to take the onus off the women and children to testify against their traffickers.

The minister will be aware that leading UK charities have recently called on the UK Government to sign up to the new European convention on action against trafficking in human beings. I appreciate that it is a reserved matter, but can the minister tell us whether she has been involved in any discussions on the convention? There is concern that the UK Government will fail to sign up to the convention. The Executive's motion seems to signal that it would support efforts to ensure co-operation with European agencies.

The convention would secure and symbolise a concerted international effort against human trafficking. It would oblige the UK to meet minimum standards for the protection and support of trafficked people and would, therefore, have an obvious impact on the level of assistance that specialist services in Scotland could guarantee they would provide to trafficked people. The period of reflection that is proposed would also enable a supported period within which trafficked people may be able to provide better-quality information, safe from the threats of their traffickers, to assist with intelligence-led policing.

People trafficking is a shameful crime, which requires a concerted and sustained effort by the international community. Scotland must play its role in that effort.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Does Shiona Baird agree that the Executive's proposal to establish a SOCA for Scotland at Gartcosh, thereby bringing all the agencies together, will do exactly what she wants, and that if those agencies work together they will have a greater effect on the issues that she has mentioned?

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

It is important to recognise the importance of the convention. I would certainly like to see the UK sign up to that.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I welcome the commitment in the Executive motion to treat seriously the difficult issue of serious and organised crime. I also welcome the initiatives that have been undertaken by ministers in the recent past to address such crime in a more co-ordinated and structured fashion.

Many of us who represent areas of Glasgow have seen the proliferation of fast food shops, tanning parlours, taxi companies and even petrol filling stations that are probable fronts for the activities of serious and organised criminals. The impact of such activity in the immediate community can be negative. A number of members have identified the ways in which such activity impacts on communities, and I will dwell on those issues in my speech.

There is no doubt that there are lucrative profits to be made from such activities, but they can do substantial damage, both immediately and in the longer term, to the economy of the affected neighbourhoods. Legitimate traders are affected. Glaswegians and people beyond the city have affection for the Barras market in Glasgow, and a visit there is a genuine and unique experience. In recent years, however, the proliferation of counterfeit products, including compact discs and DVDs, and the panoply of individuals associated with that trade have diminished the quality of the experience, not just for local residents but for those who visit the market to experience an element of the city's social history. Those elements make the market an unattractive place to shop, and the way in which those people conduct themselves affects the way in which the police have to police the area.

Local newsagents and food outlets, in Glasgow and elsewhere, are affected by organised crime. When shops are opened up as fronts to ensure that money can be laundered more effectively and they undercut the long-standing traders in the neighbourhood, that can have a long-term detrimental effect on communities.

Many members have identified the ways in which the drug trade is used by serious and organised criminals. We are aware not only of the brutal impact that drug taking can have on drug users and families, but of the fact that, in areas such as my constituency, the need to feed an addiction can lead to the terrible tragedy of women from good homes finding themselves in difficulties and engaging in street prostitution. That can lead to the sort of horrors that we have seen only recently in the newspapers. However, that experience does not affect only those women who are involved in street prostitution. It leads to a devaluing of the immediate neighbourhood in which the activity is conducted and attracts to the community elements and individuals who would not otherwise be there. The knock-on effect of serious and organised crime is that it devalues the communities that we all care passionately about.

The tragedy is that we all, including myself, have an uneasy relationship with the issue of organised crime. Over the years, there have been portrayals of organised crime in media such as television and books. As a child, I remember being fascinated by the biographies of figures such as Capone, Legs Diamond and Lucky Luciano. The glamour of "The Godfather" trilogy is now also represented in the wonderful DVD series of "The Sopranos".

I will dwell on a metaphor from "The Sopranos" that relates to what the debate is about. The morality tale of the conduct of the Soprano family—in particular the head of the family, Tony Soprano—is, in a sense, a metaphor for the debate about serious and organised crime. He runs supposedly legitimate clubs—the Bada Bing club—security companies and refuse collection operations. He even says, euphemistically, when he is interviewed by the police, by his psychiatric counsellor and by his family that he is in the waste management business. That is the kind of metaphor that covers the nefarious activities that are engaged in by Mr Soprano and his family.

The morality tale ends in tragedy, because as it concludes—I am currently on series 4; I will tell members when I get through series 5—I presume that it leads to Mr Soprano's eventual devourment as a result of his conduct and that of his associates.

There is a powerful metaphor. Organised crime is glamorised in the media and its dramatic quality can have an impact even on people like me, but the reality is that individuals and communities are very badly affected by such crime.

If the Executive's activity in recent months—and the partnership that we want to develop with both the UK Government and European Governments to ensure that we work across the European Community and beyond to address the issue—can reduce the opportunities for individuals to succeed at the top end, the consequence as that tumbles down will be a reduction in the opportunities for young men and women to be involved in that sector and in that kind of activity at the bottom end. We must ensure that all the agencies work in partnership to address the issue.

I do not care what the constitutional position is in respect of the debate. I care that agencies talk to each other and that we target areas and deliver so that we can reclaim the neighbourhood near the Barras, the neighbourhood in Glasgow green and the lives and the lost opportunities that drugs and criminal activities claim in too many communities throughout Scotland. That is why I welcome the initiatives that have been undertaken by the ministerial team on justice and the work that is being done across Europe to address the issue. I commend the motion to Parliament.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

As other members have said, the world that we live in is getting smaller and smaller. We are all closer and closer in time to our neighbours. For example, when we phone our insurance broker or—probably more likely—the claims department, we may talk to somebody far away in India.

On 25 May, members of the Justice 1 Committee will spend an hour talking to the Australian justice committee by videoconferencing. We conduct our business in a global manner and it is clear that criminal networks can also operate on the same basis—across national boundaries, across continents and across the globe. The minister and many others have highlighted the issue in their speeches. I will talk later about SOCA and the co-operation across national boundaries. It is clear that national boundaries are a real problem.

The expansion of the internet and its upgrading through broadband mean that it is much easier to contact people. That has led to a new type of crime, from the frauds that have taken in many people through money scams—like others, I must have had more Nigerians contact me with offers to make me rich than I have had Sunday lunches—to the appalling crime of internet grooming. Such crimes have been led by criminal gangs that often have their tentacles into our communities. Michael McMahon described exactly how that operates in his extremely good speech.

If such criminal activities are to be tackled, we must meet them head on and fight them across the UK. The Liberal Democrats have called for a national police agency to fight national and international crime, which would free up local police forces to concentrate on local issues. We have also called for a new national border force to tackle cross-border terrorism, drug smuggling and organised immigration crime.

The establishment of the SDEA has been a great success. That success is, of course, twofold—the agency's role has been not only to get drugs and criminals out of our communities but to identify criminal cash and assets for seizure. The figure that I had was that, in 2003-04, we seized £21 million, but the Solicitor General gave us up-to-date figures that showed that we are on the up, as in 2004-05 we gained £37 million. She also showed that we are having real successes in other areas against organised crime.

Those successes have come from co-operation between organisations. An example of co-operation that is being developed by the Executive is its proposal for what is being called a serious organised crime agency for Scotland—a £40 million agency that will probably be based in Gartcosh. The agency would consist of the SDEA, Strathclyde police forensic science department and a number of other related organisations such as HM Revenue and Customs. Annabel Goldie's amendment states that that would not be a good thing, but I suggest that bringing all the agencies on to one site is exactly what we should do. It is expected that the 200 SDEA staff would relocate sometime between 2006 and 2007. Such joint working can bring only greater success in tackling both local and international crime. The aim must be to show those who are determined to pursue criminal activities that Scotland is not the place to come and practise such activities.

Members will not be surprised that I agree with the sentiments on ID cards that were expressed by my colleague Jeremy Purvis. I am glad that Stewart Maxwell has returned to the chamber, because I also agree entirely with his analysis of ID cards. If Mr Bush is not going to introduce them in America, I would have thought that Mr Blair would have taken that into consideration.

It has been argued that one way of tackling serious and organised crime would be the introduction of ID cards. Of course, Liberal Democrats do not agree with that point of view and we will in due course oppose strongly any proposal by Mr Blair at Westminster to introduce them. ID cards have not proved effective in tackling any sort of crime, and the £3 billion that it is suggested would have to be spent on introducing them throughout Britain would be much better spent on policing and tackling crime at the grass roots. That would have a serious and direct effect on reducing crime and would be a much better way of spending the money.

To keep up with both national and international criminals we must be one step ahead. The establishment of the SDEA is a start and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill was another example of such an approach. The Executive's proposal to have the new serious organised crime agency for Scotland in one place, with all the agencies working together, is extremely positive. I believe that that will provide the opportunity for us in Scotland and the Executive to keep ahead of the criminals and keep ahead of the game.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

It would be wrong to pretend that there is a great division over what we see as the problem that faces us today. We are largely in agreement and there have been some very constructive speeches, which have all have been tinged with anxiety because we recognise that the problem impinges adversely on Scotland's communities.

As we all become more familiar with faraway places and strange-sounding names, which is a good thing, it would be naive to assume that crime would not become more sophisticated and international in its dimensions. When that happens, a number of things are necessary in our response. First, we must recognise that there has to be an increased level of co-operation with police agencies in other parts of the world. It is clear that we must encourage such co-operation.

As the minister and the Solicitor General for Scotland said, we can look at various successes. Drug seizures are well up. The power to make financial seizures, which was introduced under legislation in the Scottish Parliament, has been a great tool in the fight against organised crime and there have been a number of high-profile and successful prosecutions.

However, there is evidence of failure. The pathetic plight of drug addicts is obvious on the streets of our cities and towns. When we consider the street price of heroin, we realise that much of what has been achieved will end up as nowt unless we are prepared to carry on the fight even more vigorously. The number of convictions for minor thefts and prostitution of people who have a habit that they find irresistible is another manifestation of the difficulty. It is also obvious that a number of businesses are fronts for criminal activity. Bruce McFee talked about that in relation to security companies and Frank McAveety mentioned the problem. The story of the pub with no beer in the east end of Glasgow might be apocryphal, but we must ask whether we really need so many tanning salons in Glasgow and other cities. We would be naive if we did not assume that many such establishments are units for money laundering.

Drugs are a major problem, but they are not the only problem. Counterfeit goods represent a multimillion pound scam that is based in areas as diverse as Malaysia, Hong Kong and Dubai. Shiona Baird and Pauline McNeill talked about people trafficking. The importing of women into this country to provide sexual pleasure for very perverted sections of our community is surely one of the most heinous crimes. Another aspect of people trafficking, which we cannot ignore, is the importing of people to this country to live in barrack-like accommodation and be paid £1 a day to carry out hard labour, so that they can feed their families in China and other parts of Asia. The production of bogus credit cards that originate in Pakistan and countries in the middle east is also a problem. The international dimension of all those crimes highlights the necessity of international co-operation.

We must consider what is required. We should consider and build on the success of the SDEA. The move to Gartcosh presents an opportunity for us to acknowledge that we can build on the agency's success only by increasing its resources. The SDEA has been successful, but we must acknowledge that the agency is likely to face growing challenges in the years ahead and we must give it the appropriate support. We must also consider carefully the relationship between the SDEA and SOCA. I do not want to revisit the debate that we had in the Parliament a few months ago, but problems could arise in that relationship. It was rather amusing that when Bill Butler intervened during Mr Maxwell's speech, Mr Maxwell, who had dealt with generalities rather than specifics, was unable to identify specific instances of difficulties. That was not surprising, because he would not be aware of any difficulties. It is obvious that the different set-ups and legal systems will inevitably cause pressures and we must watch that those pressures do not become counterproductive.

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

I reassure members that there will be on-going discussions about setting up the appropriate protocols. Of course, I will maintain close contact with my Home Office colleagues, because building partnerships is the important aspect of the matter, as the motion indicates.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I welcome the minister's reassurance, which will be of comfort to everyone.

We must consider other approaches. As Annabel Goldie said, we must consider policing and the work-up approach whereby small crimes are tackled first, in the hope of cutting off supplies to the Mr Bigs. The Minister for Justice might be surprised to learn that she and I are not at considerable variance in our views on the operation of the courts in New York, which I visited last month. Lessons can certainly be learned from New York, but before we could implement such an approach in this country there would have to be a dramatic slaying of sacred cows, which would be a challenge for the minister rather than for us.

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

It would be a challenge for Bill Aitken, too.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

We must also consider the way in which the police and prosecution authorities are inhibited by the free availability of bail in our courts. A person who has been charged and who is likely to appear in the High Court on an indictment for some of the crimes that we have mentioned should not be granted bail. The number of repeat offenders who are on bail is a major problem, which must be addressed. When one of those offenders is allowed back on the streets, they have the opportunity to suborn or put pressure on witnesses and to cloud the issues in general. We simply cannot allow that to happen and I look to the Executive to propose measures that would combat the problem in the not-too-distant future.

The debate has been largely consensual, as a debate on a matter of the greatest importance to the people of Scotland should be. The Conservatives look forward to the Executive announcing concrete proposals in the months ahead. We acknowledge that crime is a problem for us all and that there are no easy answers to many aspects of the problem.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I welcome the opportunity to debate this important subject. Like Bill Aitken, I welcome the relative consensus that has been reached. The disagreements between and within parties are largely about implementation and detail, rather than broad principles. On that basis, the Scottish National Party will find it perfectly possible to support the Executive motion, while hoping that members of all parties will favour the strengthening of the motion by agreeing to our amendment.

I particularly welcome Elish Angiolini's speech, which touched on the essence of our amendment, because it demonstrated that distinctive and separate contributions must be made by politicians and law officers. It is excellent that law officers make significant contributions to the debate and interact with members of the Parliament, to listen and to inform. Of course, the Scottish law officers and legal system must be maintained at an appropriate distance from political interference. I suspect that any discussion of the matter that we have will be of a minor nature and not of great moment.

I always listen to Bill Aitken with care and interest, although I do not always agree with him.

However, I do agree with his comment that it would be wrong to pretend that there is any great division among members in the debate. I also agree with his call for more co-operation across jurisdictions and police authorities throughout the world. I have a minor disagreement; if Bill Aitken were to search for volunteers in the Parliament and elsewhere to help to return Glasgow to being a city with a pub that has no beer, he might receive some offers of assistance, especially if he is paying.

The work-up approach to which Mr Aitken referred, the Tory amendment's call for a "zero-tolerant attitude" and the references to New York are beguilingly attractive, but the approach might cause genuine difficulties. Zero tolerance had successes when it was implemented in parts of New York, but the difficulty is that, like soap in the bath, crime might simply have been squeezed out, to adjacent parts of the east coast of the United States of America. I do not criticise zero tolerance; I merely put into perspective the inevitable limitations of the approach. However, sacred cows are even now being slaughtered in Delhi, as the authorities in that city try to deal with the serious problems that they cause, so perhaps we should reconsider the things that we hold dear, which might be inhibiting our ability to look afresh at our problems.

It has been suggested that we consider the weed-and-seed approach. I am not staking my personal credibility on the suggestion, but we should think about it, because it offers an interesting way of considering aspects of the criminal justice system.

Clearly, some people must be put in prison. They are so dangerous, and are such significant players in the industry that is criminality, that prison is the only place that allows us to protect society from them.

The view that too many people are in prison is shared. The suggestion has been made that communities could be offered the chance to choose people to take out of prison, who would be accepted into the communities in exchange for the money that it would have cost to keep them in prison. That money would then be spent on community projects. It is an interesting idea. It has the benefit of engaging members of the public in supporting communities and making them safer and clearer of criminality.

Annabel Goldie for the Tories said that we should increase security at our major ports, but that just takes us back to the New York argument. If we make it more difficult for people and things to come into this country through our major ports, they might just come in through our minor ports—or, indeed, through no port at all. A person has only to give one hour's notice, and does not need any permission, before arriving anywhere in Scotland from anywhere in the European Union. That involves only customs; the person does not have to tell immigration. As a private pilot, I can land in any field in Scotland from any country in the European Union without telling immigration first. That is the legal position. I am required only to give customs one hour's notice, which I can give en route. I do not need permission.

Therefore, we cannot solve problems by hermetically sealing boundaries. That approach might lead to improvements, but it will not solve the problems. The key is international cooperation, reaching out beyond our boundaries to work with others of good will who want to tackle international crime.

I have learned something this week. It had slightly puzzled me that hoodies had become a big issue. I knew that farmers were always very concerned about hoodies at this time of year, because they pick out the eyes of newly born lambs and pick over the entrails of dead sheep. To me, a hoodie has always been a variety of crow, but I now realise that hoodies are regarded as a source of serious crime in some urban areas. Therefore, I have become more informed as a result of my preparation for this debate.

The debate reminds us that crime, in economic terms, is a perfect market. In other words, if trading conditions in one part of the criminal industry become more difficult, criminals will simply move to another part. That is why we welcome any efforts to beef up the agencies that deal with the very senior criminals who are responsible for so much misery in society.

Kenny MacAskill said that a lot of manufacturing of drugs takes place in the United States; it is just the raw material that comes from Colombia. I visited Colombia some years ago and it is a quite frightening place to be. I visited a friend who ran a textile manufacturing plant just outside Bogotá. He kept a loaded shotgun behind every door of his house, his wife was not allowed to answer the door on any occasion whatever and he had put barricades at all the corners of the building to prevent ram-raids. He was a person working in a very innocent industry, but his situation typified the fear and difficulties of ordinary people living in a country that has been captured by international crime.

We are capturing increasing amounts of the assets of the wholesalers in the drug industry, and that is welcome. However, if we consider Scottish banks and note that they have a turnover of between £20 trillion and £80 trillion a day but issue just over one thousand million banknotes, we see an obvious difference between the amount of the actual folding stuff that we are all familiar with and the amount of stuff that goes through computers. I raised that issue in an earlier intervention.

Communication is changing in the modern world. When the Greeks sent ships out to their empire, it took three months to get an answer back. The Romans used hilltop signalling; they could exchange a message between London and Rome in a single day. Today we have the internet and we measure communication in milliseconds.

We on the side of good have to be as adept as the criminals at exploiting new technologies. For too long, they have set the agenda; now we must set it. All of us in the chamber must share responsibility and offer support for that.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

This has been a good debate on a significant issue. Many members have outlined the serious threat that organised crime poses not just in some areas but in every Scottish community. We must ensure that our police and our law enforcement agencies are properly equipped to tackle the threat head on, and a number of members have mentioned our legislative and organisational proposals.

Tragically, serious and organised crime impacts on a number of levels. Yes, there are the international aspects, to which I will return; and yes, there is activity within the United Kingdom and across Scotland; but it is when serious and organised crime, operating across national boundaries, begins to impact on local communities that we see the devastating effects. Kenny MacAskill and others have described how things happening in Colombia and Afghanistan can have a direct impact on us.

Human traffickers are often engaged in a range of criminal activities. They deal not simply in the trafficking of humans; they also deal in prostitution, drugs, money laundering and other crimes. Pauline McNeill and Michael McMahon spoke about the human tragedy and the devastation that those activities can cause.

One of the most horrific articles that I have read in the past few years highlighted the problems of many young Albanian girls when they are trafficked into the major cities of Europe. Innocently and naively, sometimes girls had allowed themselves to be taken out of their country for what they had been persuaded would be a better life. But, horrifically, other young girls were being kidnapped and transported out of Albania. Not only were those young girls forced into prostitution in major cities across Europe, but their families back home were threatened. The girls were told what would happen to their families if they did not co-operate.

The article contained graphic and horrific details—for example, about a young girl who escaped and made her way back to Albania but was then re-abducted and sent back out. Punishment was inflicted on young women. So that the criminals could get their way, women had fingers cut off and were beaten and tortured. The article showed just how cruel, malicious and malevolent those criminals were when trying to protect the profits they earned from organised crime.

Stewart Stevenson and others have spoken about how sophisticated many international criminals are becoming. Every time there is a major technological or financial advance, we can be sure that the criminals are buying expertise in the technology to use it for their own advantage. As other members have highlighted, many criminals have front organisations—the so-called legitimate organisations—to hide the nefarious activities that are going on behind.

It is incumbent on us to ensure that we are equipped to deal with such criminal activities. We must ensure that we have the best available experts in financial scrutiny. As the Solicitor General said, we are doing that, not only for her department, but for the SDEA. We need access to the best accountants and lawyers; promotion and support for the best police experts; and the best electronic and surveillance equipment and computers to allow us to deal with the issues. However, we also need a legislative framework that supports that activity, which is why we have been determined to advance, slowly but surely, our work on the law. For example, in co-operation with our colleagues at Westminster, we have legislated on the proceeds of organised crime. We have also passed laws to protect victims, to ensure speedier access to justice in our court system and to ensure that we develop partnerships within Scotland and the United Kingdom to tackle serious and organised criminal activity.

We are addressing the matter seriously but, as several members including the minister have said, we cannot be complacent, because the criminals are determined that, every time that we make an advance, they will make a further advance in response.

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

Much high-tech crime is perpetrated against legitimate businesses. As the Solicitor General said, considerable expertise on security measures exists in the financial sector. Will the Executive ensure that it works closely with not only other security agencies, but the private sector, which in many cases is the victim of such crime?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Absolutely. Regular discussions are held with a number of organisations—we need to learn from, support and co-operate with them. Anything that can be done to our mutual advantage will certainly be done.

I will pick up on some of the specific points that have been made. Jeremy Purvis's point relates to Kenny MacAskill's comment about accepting best practice, from wherever it comes. Kenny MacAskill went on to make a plea that we ensure the independence of chief constables. I fundamentally agree that local operational decisions should be left to the police. However, that slightly contradicts what Annabel Goldie was driving at when she suggested that politicians should decide how policing should be carried out locally. That would not be acceptable.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No, I do not have time.

In response to another question, the minister answered Annabel Goldie's question about how the SDEA will operate. I give the assurance that regular ministerial meetings have been and will continue to be held with colleagues at the Home Office. Annabel Goldie and other members, including Bill Butler, mentioned the work of the drug dealers don't care, do you? campaign, which had a significant buy-in from local communities—that was what made it successful. That shows that the public will respond if they are given the opportunity to do so.

Stewart Maxwell completely missed the point about the operation of the proposed serious organised crime agency and failed to answer the questions that were posed on that. He also made some spurious points about the proposed supreme court—we are not trampling over our unique court system. We have said clearly on the record on more than one occasion that SOCA may carry out activities in Scotland in relation to an offence that it suspects has been or is being committed only with the agreement of the Lord Advocate. The safeguard is built in.

We had a strange contribution from Bruce McFee when he intervened on Bill Butler. I know that there are big debates about the future of the SNP and independence, but Bruce McFee has taken that a step further.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No.

Mr McFee criticised us for not introducing a Sewel motion in 2001 in relation to the regulation of the private security industry, but the reason why we did not do so was that we were consulting on a separate regulatory body for Scotland—obviously, Bruce McFee did not want that to come about. The reason why we later moved to a Sewel motion was that our investigation showed that there was a case for a UK-wide regulatory body. There is a first time for everything.

The debate has been good and several interesting points have been raised. I welcome the broad commitment that members of all parties have made to reinforce and make progress on our determination to tackle serious and organised crime in Scotland.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE — General Questions

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it supports the retention of auxiliary fire units. (S2O-6729)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The Scottish Executive greatly values the contribution that volunteer firefighters make to the protection of their communities. We have provided generous funding to the Highlands and Islands joint fire board to support its programme to develop many of its auxiliary units. However, the determination of the appropriate levels of fire cover is primarily a matter for the fire board.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister ensure that any downgrading of or changes to local auxiliary fire units throughout the Highlands that relate to road traffic accidents, heather and moor fires and other community-safety issues are met by the support of the other emergency services and ministers? We must ensure public safety and we must recognise the commitment of volunteer firefighters and the time that they give to support and protect neighbours and other people in their communities.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I have already put on record our recognition of the contribution that volunteer firefighters make, but I repeat that decisions on the issue are for the local fire board. No one can doubt the Executive's commitment to the fire services in the Highlands and Islands. Between 2000-01 and 2003-04, the Highlands and Islands fire brigade received £8 million in capital consent from the Executive. In 2004-05, we provided a £1.8 million cash grant for general use on capital projects and a further £1.15 million for the board's buildings upgrade programme. This year, 2005-06, we will provide a further £1.8 million cash grant for general use and £0.75 million to assist with building upgrades. There has been a 50 per cent increase in grant-aided expenditure between 2000-01 and 2005-06. We are putting in the money, but how that money is used is a matter for the local fire board, although we expect the local decision makers to take into account the points that Mary Scanlon has raised to ensure public safety and security throughout the Highlands and Islands.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I recognise the excellent job that is done by the local firemaster in the Highlands and Islands and by the fire board, which is led by Councillor Slack. However, does the minister accept in principle that it is absolutely essential that the auxiliary units continue to be able to combat outdoor fires in Scotland and that their work is vital to the communities that they serve? Does he also recognise the importance of the role of tackling road traffic incidents and that Newtonmore auxiliary unit should continue to perform that service? Will he urge the firemaster to consider that case once again?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

That question is a bit like the one that Roseanna Cunningham asked me last week on the funding of local mediation services. The SNP needs to make up its mind on how it wants the relationship between the Parliament and local decision makers to operate. Does it want the power of subsidiarity, under which local decision makers make local decisions locally, or does it want the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament to make decisions and then dictate to the local services? When SNP members have cleared up their thinking on that issue, they should come back and tell us, but until such time they should let the local decision makers get on with it.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to improve rail links to Scottish airports. (S2O-6740)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Scottish Executive supports projects to deliver new rail links to both Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. We are also taking action to improve rail services to Glasgow Prestwick airport and we have established a Prestwick rail improvement group.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister will be aware of the dramatic and continuing success of Prestwick airport as a gateway for visitors to the country. Prestwick has a rail station but lacks an express service to Glasgow to satisfy demand. Given that the minister has established the Prestwick rail improvement group, will he give an undertaking to address sooner rather than later the infrastructure constraints that are preventing the development of an express service between Paisley Gilmour Street and Glasgow Central station, which will affect the Glasgow airport development?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Yes. I am determined that the capacity issue should be tackled and that we should improve capacity not just for the rail link to Glasgow Prestwick airport, but for rail services to the whole of Ayrshire and down the coast. It is important that that work proceeds as quickly as possible. It is a key part of the Glasgow airport rail link proposal and the work associated with it will allow for that additional capacity.

It is interesting that the transport spokesperson for the SNP—Fergus Ewing—described the Glasgow airport rail link proposals as a waste of money. It would be interesting to know the SNP's position on the issue, because the Glasgow airport rail link is about more than simply the link to the airport, important though that is. It is about improving the capacity on the line, which will bring significant benefits to Ayrshire and Prestwick airport.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I welcome some of the minister's comments in response to Adam Ingram. Prestwick airport is a vital hub for Scotland, but, in relation to accessibility, my constituents in the Dunlop and Stewarton area are restricted to one train an hour. Will the review examine at long last the possibility of a dynamic loop that would link us to Glasgow as well as to Prestwick airport?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The work of the airport working group will be targeted on the specific concerns of the airport users. The owner of the airport, the rail company, the Executive and some of the key carriers who operate out of Prestwick are involved in that work, but I would like to address wider issues than simply those to do with the airport. I mentioned the improvement of services from Glasgow to the south and the west. That is important to me. We have new rail powers and we will be considering a number of strategic projects to invest in over the next decade or so. That work will include the positive and constructive suggestions that Margaret Jamieson and others are making about new rail projects.

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

Given the proposals for the Edinburgh airport rail link and the progress on the Borders railway, does the minister agree that there is now the prospect that the heart of my constituency in the Borders will have a direct, fast and regular rail service to Edinburgh airport, which would make a big difference to the community that I represent?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The detail of the services that will run on the new Borders line has still to be agreed, but we are determined that the line will be constructed. The great thing about the Edinburgh airport rail link is that it is a station on the main line, which will allow access to the airport from Glasgow, Inverness, Aberdeen, the east coast main line and, in due course when it is built, the Borders rail line. The opportunities for the future are exciting and will benefit all parts of Scotland, including the Borders.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Question 3 is withdrawn.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made with the implementation of the community ownership housing programme. (S2O-6781)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Seven local authorities—Argyll and Bute, the Western Isles, Inverclyde, Renfrewshire, Stirling, Edinburgh and Highland—have joined the Executive's community ownership programme. Subject to the wishes of the tenants involved, the transfers will result in a further 80,000 homes transferring into community ownership.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I am sure that the minister will recall fondly his visit to the Western Isles in December, during which he visited one of two excellent new housing developments that are currently being completed in Stornoway—incidentally, those houses would not have been built had it not been for the positive and direct intervention of the Scottish Executive. On community ownership, will he assure me that his department will continue to work with the committed and dedicated housing officials in the Western Isles, so that they can ensure that a ballot of tenants in the islands can progress as quickly as possible? When a positive result is secured, our communities can begin to address with urgency housing shortage issues in the Western Isles.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I recall that visit fondly. Since then, I have taken a close interest in the matter and have been absolutely determined that some issues of detail should be resolved very soon. I guarantee that the ballot will go ahead in the not-too-distant future. That will be of enormous benefit to the Western Isles. When I went there, I announced the £15 million support package from the Executive, but over and above that will be the writing off of £38 million of historic housing debt. That is a splendid deal for the people of the Western Isles.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To what extent have existing whole-stock transfer organisations met their business plan new-build completion targets?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

My answer referred to the local authorities that are new to the programme, but, as we know, there have been three others, from which we expect £2 billion-worth of investment over the next 10 years. I recently met representatives of Glasgow Housing Association, which I imagine Linda Fabiani has in mind. Last year, it delivered an investment programme of £110 million, including 10,252 new central heating systems, the internal upgrading of 3,300 homes and the external improvement of 4,400 homes.

This year, the investment programme will increase to £135 million.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it can take to ensure that private housing developers put in place measures to guarantee that open spaces in private housing developments are adequately maintained. (S2O-6759)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

My understanding is that in many cases developers ensure that the title deeds of properties that they sell contain burdens that make provision for the maintenance of common areas. The development management scheme, which is to be introduced under the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003, will give developers a model set of title conditions that they can adopt or adapt as necessary.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am sure that the legislation mentioned by the minister will make a difference in some areas, but I know from experience and from speaking to other members that the situation throughout Scotland is unsatisfactory. Many owners find out too late that they are tied into factoring arrangements that do not work but which are difficult to get out of. Some local authorities are arranging with developers to set up maintenance schemes. Will the minister examine the schemes that are operating in the North Lanarkshire Council area, for example, to see whether they can be implemented throughout Scotland?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I am sure that my ministerial colleagues who deal with planning matters will examine those examples closely. The commitment in the partnership agreement to

"review planning guidance to set strong minimum standards for including public open space in new developments"

will be taken forward through the review of national planning policy guideline 11, on sport, physical recreation and open space. A report is being finalised and we expect it to be published later in the summer.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given that Highland Council charges 40 times the annual maintenance fee to adopt ground maintenance, may I just put on record my view that it would be helpful if details of ground maintenance charges and responsibilities were included in the purchasers information pack under the Housing (Scotland) Bill?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am not sure that that was a question, but I will allow the minister to answer if he wishes.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I am sure that my colleagues who are dealing with the Housing (Scotland) Bill will consider that suggestion. However, that cannot take away from the responsibility of those who buy houses to check the title deeds properly. There is an issue about what local authorities do, but, as I said in answer to an earlier question, local decisions are a matter for local decision makers.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Will the minister also take the opportunity to regulate the property factors who are responsible for maintaining many of the developments throughout Scotland to which Cathie Craigie referred?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

We will look closely at the issue of property factors, some of which work better than others. Over the years, a number of worrying examples have been highlighted that warrant scrutiny. Careful consideration will be given to the matter.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many young people have been charged with riding motorbikes while under age in each of the last three years. (S2O-6731)

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

In the years 2001 to 2003, the number of offences of driving a motor vehicle without a licence in which the offender was aged under 17 was 320, 460 and 395 respectively. Offences relating specifically to riding a motorbike while under age cannot be identified separately in the available statistical information.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Will the minister tell us what action is planned to tackle the nuisance and danger that is caused in many communities by inappropriate use of motorbikes? What are the risks of that behaviour both to the riders and to the public?

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

The member will be aware that new powers under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 can be used to deal with people who cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public through antisocial use of vehicles on or off public roads. The first vehicle seizure, which involved a motorcycle, has taken place in Fife. I put on record my thanks to Fife constabulary for the hard work that it has done—it has issued in excess of 30 warning notices, which are the first step towards implementing the power of seizure. I understand that Grampian police have issued eight warning notices.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it has taken to help to secure the short-term future of Ferguson Shipbuilders, Port Glasgow. (S2O-6743)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Scottish Ministers are regularly apprised of the issues affecting Scottish shipbuilders and are regularly in contact with the industry and United Kingdom ministers to promote the interests of the Scottish industry. The Scottish marine steering group, which is chaired by Scottish Enterprise Glasgow, includes Ferguson Shipbuilders and meets to discuss matters affecting all Scottish shipbuilders and to promote Scottish Enterprise Glasgow's Scottish shipbuilding strategy. Support has been provided to Ferguson's through the enterprise agencies and has focused on skills training and business improvements. Ferguson's has benefited from publicly procured contracts in the past and is currently doing so through the vessel that is under construction for the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I thank the minister for the action that he has described. At the moment, Polish shipyards have in excess of 3 million tonnes on their order books. Ferguson's is chasing a Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency order of less than 5,000 tonnes. That order is vital to the company's survival and to its workforce of 400, but is of no significance whatever to Poland. Is it not the case that the Executive has the power to place the work with Ferguson's and that all that is missing is the political will to do so?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I recognise the figures that Bruce McFee cites. However, he will understand that, under European Union procurement rules, Scottish ministers do not have the power to direct that he suggests that they have. He is doing a disservice to people by raising that possibility, which does not exist.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I do not agree with the minister. I remind him that last week I handed the First Minister an open letter on the issue. The letter, which was passed to me by the senior shop stewards and workforce at Ferguson's, was signed by numerous local businessmen and churches. Why must that highly skilled workforce and management go down on its collected bended knee for orders to build Scottish ships, which will be crewed by Scots and patrol Scottish waters, and whose construction will be funded by Scottish Executive money? Let us have a positive decision for Ferguson's and stop demeaning its skilled workforce. We need some backbone here in our back yard.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There is no demeaning of the workforce, to which I pay tribute for the work that it has done. Trish Godman has engaged extensively with the issue and has expressed and pursued the interests of her constituents. I have already explained to Bruce McFee the position under EU procurement rules. We are aware that allegations have been made that there is no level playing field and that unfair advantages have been given against EU rules. I assure the chamber that ministers have pursued all those allegations rigorously and will continue to do so.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I take a brief opportunity to congratulate an Edinburgh-based company, Ocean Power Delivery Limited, for having just won the world's first commercial wave energy contract, proving Scotland's potential in renewables technology. [ Applause. ]

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1646)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am happy to concur with Ms Sturgeon's remarks, and I welcome her recognition of the considerable efforts that we in the coalition Government have made to support renewable energy development in Scotland. I hope that the success of Scottish companies will be testament to that.

I have no immediate plans for a meeting with the Prime Minister, although I expect to meet him in advance of the G8 summit in July.

I take the opportunity today to thank all members of staff in the Parliament and the Executive who helped to organise such a successful conference in the chamber on Monday. It reflected well on Scotland, and I hope that we will continue to have all-party support in the weeks ahead as we not only prepare for the G8 summit but, more important, seek to influence its decisions and be part of the movement to make poverty history.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I echo those remarks.

In a similar vein, is the First Minister aware of a report in today's edition of The Courier that suggests that the cost of policing the G8 summit might be as high as £100 million? Will he tell us whether that is in any way an accurate estimate and, if not, will he confirm what the cost of policing the summit will be?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I can confirm absolutely—and I regret if this was not done to The Courier yesterday by our offices—that the report in today's edition of The Courier is inaccurate. That cost is not true and unless circumstances change in an exceptional manner over the next few weeks, the cost of bringing the G8 summit to Scotland will be nowhere near £100 million.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It is interesting that the First Minister did not answer the second part of my question. I asked him to confirm what the estimate of the cost will be. I know that he knows the answer to that question because the Executive's website says:

"Executive officials ... have informed the Treasury as to how much they think the policing costs will be."

I ask the First Minister to share that information with taxpayers, who will be expected to foot the bill. What is the estimated cost of policing the G8 summit?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I think that I have explained this in the chamber before—I regret it if Ms Sturgeon has not understood fully the answers that I have given in the past—but I am happy to try to explain again. The final cost of bringing the G8 summit to Scotland will depend on the level of security that is required, given the assessment of the threat to the summit at that time. Basic costs obviously require to be met to ensure security around whichever airports are used and the transportation and accommodation of those supporting the delegations. Critically, there will be an assessment of the costs of both police and other security support for the summit. In total, those costs will be finalised around about the time of the summit. I am sure that they will be reported afterwards, and people will have the chance to assess that it was all—I hope—worth it.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The First Minister still fails to answer the question. There is an estimate; that estimate has been given to the United Kingdom Treasury, so why cannot it be shared with Scottish taxpayers? It seems that he wants to dodge that question for reasons that are not immediately apparent to me or, I am sure, to anybody else.

However, will the First Minister answer the following question? I understand that the UK Treasury has agreed to contribute £20 million towards the policing costs. If it turns out that the cost is considerably higher than £20 million, as all the indications suggest, will he give an absolute assurance that council tax payers will not be left to foot part of the bill? In those circumstances, will he demand that the UK Treasury ups its contribution for what, after all, is a UK event?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Can I be absolutely clear that—[ Interruption. ]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There is a range of potential estimated costs for the organisation of the summit, some of which will be met directly by the United Kingdom Government and some of which will be met directly by the Scottish Executive. Within those costs, we will ensure not only that we make good use of the £20 million that has been promised by the UK Government in addition to the resources that we already have from it for such events, but that we will use those other resources that we have not had to use in Scotland in recent years because of the consequentials that arise from the UK Government organising events of a similar nature in England. On this occasion, because of the exceptional nature of the G8 summit, we have received £20 million over and above the contribution that we receive each year in our budget from the UK Government for organising such events.

I state yet again in the chamber that, although we will not give any council in Scotland a blank cheque for expenditure in advance of an event, we will ensure that councils in Scotland are properly recompensed for costs that are associated with organising the summit and supporting those who attend it.

I have to say that, given the importance of the issues that will be debated at the summit and given the importance of bringing the world's top table to Scotland, the Scottish National Party's ability to revert to an introverted, insular and inward-looking position and to be concerned about any potential for the odd penny to go astray in Perth and Kinross Council or Angus Council is depressing for Scotland. Nationalist parties the world over would be delighted with the opportunity to have the world's leaders on their nation's doorstep. We in the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat party—and maybe even members in the Conservative party—are delighted that those leaders are coming to Scotland: I wish only that the SNP, too, was delighted.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the First Issue—[ Laughter. ] Sorry. For the first issue, I would like to ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1647)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Because of my visit to Malawi, next week's meeting of the Cabinet will be chaired by the Deputy First Minister. I suspect that my colleagues will be delighted by that news because if I am not in the chair, the meeting might be shorter than usual.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I thank the First Minister for his answer. I am sure that taking the helm again—perhaps for the last time—will be a useful swansong for the Deputy First Minister.

I suggest that the Cabinet could consider the issue of energy at its next meeting. As the First Minister knows, the Royal Society of Edinburgh has launched an inquiry into energy issues that affect Scotland. Given that nuclear power meets half of Scotland's electricity needs and makes a major contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, how does he think that we can meet both our future energy needs and the Government's own CO2 emissions targets without making a commitment to, at the very least, maintaining current nuclear generating capacity?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As Ms Sturgeon herself pointed out, we have seen in Scotland our companies' increasing capacity to engage in the renewable energy market and the fact that renewable energy generation in Scotland is increasing year on year and is likely to increase substantially in the years to come. The Executive has not ruled out any future for nuclear power in Scotland; however, we have said quite clearly that any such future must be preceded by a clear decision on the management of radioactive waste. That position is reasonable and is in Scotland's best interests. In the long term, it allows us to keep our minds open, and in the short term, it sends out a very firm signal to the nuclear industry and the UK Government to deliver on the management of waste. At that stage, we will decide whether Scotland needs any more nuclear power.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I suggest to the First Minister that, regardless of whether we build new nuclear power stations, the waste issue must be dealt with. He will be aware that the recent report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Scottish Affairs said:

"It is ... vital that decisions are taken now, to obviate the possibility of, quite literally, the lights going out in Scotland in the foreseeable future."

Why is the Scottish Executive pretending that the answer is large-scale wind farm developments that many local communities the length and breadth of Scotland are fiercely opposed to when local communities and local workforces at Torness, Hunterston and Chapelcross would welcome new developments on those sites?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We are not ruling out development on those sites. While the new Conservative shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr James Gray, may wish to abolish the Parliament and replace our decisions with the decisions of Scottish members of Parliament, until he is in a position to carry out that threat, it is possible for this Parliament to take a different attitude, a different opinion and a different decision from those that might be preferred by the members of Parliament who sit on the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster. On this issue, we take a different attitude, and we believe that it would be wrong to make a decision that would add to the level of nuclear waste that exists in Scotland until a decision on the future management of that waste has been made to our satisfaction. We intend to maintain that policy.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

The First Minister will be aware of this week's sad announcement by the Hoover Candy group to enter into consultation with staff over the future of the remaining 88 manufacturing jobs at the Hoover plant in Cambuslang. I am sure that he will agree that that announcement is a bitter blow to the loyal employees, past and present, who have worked tirelessly for Hoover Cambuslang for almost 60 years and who, ironically, have greatly increased production at the plant in recent months. Will he assure me that the Executive will do everything in its power to assist those manufacturing workers in Hoover, whose jobs are at risk?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We are extremely disappointed at the announcement. Executive ministers have worked hard in the past two years to secure the jobs that remained on site at Hoover in Cambuslang. It is disappointing to hear that a subsequent decision has been made to move that production elsewhere. We will continue not only to work with the company to secure the research, development and service jobs that remain important in Cambuslang, but to make available the considerable services that have been successfully employed elsewhere in Scotland to assist any workers who lose their jobs as a result of the announcement.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Will the First Minister join me in extending the condolences of the chamber to the families of those who lost their lives in the Solway Harvester tragedy in January 2000, in the light of the collapse of the trial against the owner of the vessel yesterday in the Isle of Man on the ground of insufficient evidence? Will he explore, perhaps with the Solicitor General, any possibilities that might still exist to assist those families in bringing about the closure on this tragic issue that they so desperately seek and which now appears to be denied them?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

All ministers—and I am sure all members—would want to associate themselves with Alex Fergusson's remarks and to share the expression of condolences to those families, who are still grieving for the loss of their loved ones when the Solway Harvester went down those years ago. While it would be wrong of me to comment on the outcome of the trial, I would be happy for the Solicitor General to respond to any representations that Alex Fergusson may wish to put directly to her—that may be a better route than pursuing the matter through me. We are still awaiting publication of the report of the marine accident investigation branch and although the Executive and the Parliament do not have direct responsibility for vessel safety and safety at sea, we may want to make some observations when the report is published.

Colin Fox (SSP, 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-1658)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no immediate plans to meet formally with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

On Monday, Bob Geldof stood here in Parliament and outlined the role the G8 plays in perpetuating poverty in Africa. [ Interruption. ] Bless you.

Does the First Minister agree that those Scots who believe that the G8 is

"a complete and utter disgrace"

and an affront to the human dignity of the peoples of Africa should be able to protest at the Gleneagles summit in July? Does he believe that it is right that the tens of thousands of Scots who share Bob Geldof's scepticism should be denied their democratic right to march in peaceful protest?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No one in Scotland—as long as they are not a threat to the security of the state, and I suspect that the people to whom Colin Fox refers could never be described as that—will be denied the right to demonstrate peacefully in advance of or during the G8 summit.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

The First Minister said "or during". A few weeks ago, the Parliament voted on a Scottish Socialist Party motion to reiterate its support for the democratic right to march in peaceful protest in Scotland, but decisions have been taken to set up road blocks and exclusion zones to prevent such a march from happening. The First Minister knows that that is the case. Who took those decisions, and does he agree that it is for the Parliament to decide on such matters in order to protect the right to march peacefully in Scotland? Does he further agree that the current position is the worst of all possible worlds, as the right to assemble has been granted but the right to march has not, which creates the possibility of a dangerous, frustrated and tense situation?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Colin Fox made an interesting remark at the end of his questions. I hope that it was not intended as a threat of dangerous activity—or activity that could at least be damaging to Scotland's reputation—around the summit. It is essential that people in Scotland, which is a democratic country, have the opportunity to assemble and march, but it is also absolutely right that we and all parties—including the Scottish Socialist Party—should be behind the summit and that we should respect and support the determinations of the chief constable and others on what is best for the safety and security not only of those attending the summit, but of Scotland during the summit.

There will obviously be opportunities in advance of and during the summit for Scots and people from other nations to march and put their views to those who are attending the summit, but we in Scotland will also organise the summit in an orderly fashion. If Mr Fox had been listening on Monday, he would have heard Bob Geldof say that the best way to respect poverty, suffering and death in Africa is to respect the right to march peacefully, not to encourage or fail to condemn any violence, intimidation or dangerous activity.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the First Minister what contribution devolved nations like Scotland can make to the global effort to make poverty history. (S2F-1648)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We can support the national and international efforts of the United Kingdom Government. We can help Scots and Scottish organisations to provide practical assistance to developing countries. We can also raise awareness while adding our voice to the legitimate call for worldwide action to make poverty history. We will do all of those.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I agree with the First Minister that those are the issues. The genuine anger that Bob Geldof voiced in the Parliament on Monday should motivate us all to insist that the G8 address the problems of poverty, disease, debt and trade injustice that blight the lives of millions in Africa.

I ask the First Minister that, in the assistance that is to be given to Malawi, particular attention be given to supporting women's participation in economic, political and social activity, as advancing the cause of women is likely to be the most effective way of delivering change.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is the view of Governments and many voluntary organisations throughout the world that women in Africa can play a particularly important role in strengthening governance and representation, improving the delivery of public services and growing local economies. That will be true not only in Malawi, but in other countries that will be affected by the decisions of the G8 summit that will take place later this summer.

The scale of the challenge that faces us in supporting those who live in Malawi is considerable. I hope that, as well as visiting next week and supporting the efforts of those who already work on the ground there, we will, in weeks to come, be able to turn our collective imagination to playing a part in supporting the improvement of Malawi's education services, health services and local economies and to doing something to turn around the fact that the life expectancy of the average citizen of Malawi is almost exactly half that of the average citizen of Scotland. That statistic, which I learned this morning, should have an enormous impact on us all. It is a damning indictment of the 21st century and I hope that we will help to do something about it.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Although I fervently hope that the people of Perthshire do not get caught in the middle of a row about finances—or, indeed, a row about a protest, which, if it happens, I hope is peaceful—those attending the G8 are indeed precisely the folk who can really make poverty history. I know that the First Minister will have listened carefully to what Bob Geldof said, and I congratulate the First Minister and the Presiding Officer on inviting Bob Geldof to this Parliament. How does the First Minister personally propose to lay down the challenge to the leaders of the G8 on Scotland's behalf?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have been happy to be doing that since January and I will continue to do so increasingly in the weeks ahead. I think that I speak for the vast majority of members of this Parliament when I and others call for considerable and proper action from the G8 in supporting the efforts to make poverty history in Africa and elsewhere.

Both Mr Geldof and other speakers on Monday outlined the considerable challenge that faces not just Scotland but, more important, the UK Government, as president of the G8, in challenging and getting support from the other seven countries for the efforts that have been outlined. The issue definitely has more resonance and support in the United Kingdom than in any of the other G8 nations. The British Government is clearly ahead of the other G8 nations in its demands and support for action. Through international Scottish contacts as well as through our voice here in Scotland, I hope that we can help to raise awareness of the issue and ensure that, throughout the world, pressure is put on the other seven leaders to ensure that they support Tony Blair and the Government's efforts at Gleneagles hotel in July.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Although I support the sentiments outlined by Des McNulty, the First Minister will be aware that I wrote to him a fortnight ago to say that although there is terrific support in Edinburgh for bringing the G8 here—for which I give my congratulations all round—there is a residual and legitimate concern, as voiced last night by Donald Anderson, the leader of the City of Edinburgh Council, that Edinburgh might have unfairly to pick up the tab. The council leader has said that the cost of barriers and of any clean-up— which we hope will not be excessive, although that might occur—is not negotiable and he would like to know who is going to pay for it. Can the First Minister enlighten us?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As I said earlier, we will not write a blank cheque for any local authority that is involved. Even at this stage, we cannot properly assess the likely costs in Edinburgh because the final arrangements for what might take place in the days leading up to the summit have not been clarified by those who might be organising those events. However, we will provide proper compensation to local authorities for the relevant costs that they have to incur as a result not just of the G8 being in Scotland but of the events and activities that will undoubtedly happen in the run-up to the event itself.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what the implications of the Queen's speech are for Scotland and the Scottish Executive. (S2F-1655)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Where the proposals outlined in the Queen's speech affect the responsibilities of this Parliament, ministers will outline the implications and our response to MSPs through the normal Parliamentary procedures.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The First Minister will know of the proposed establishment for a commission for equality and human rights under the UK Equality Bill. Does he agree that the continuing practice of detaining children in Dungavel immigration removal centre is difficult to reconcile with any concept of human rights? Is he aware of the critical report on the practice that was published earlier this week by Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons for England and Wales? Will he tell the Prime Minister that children who have committed no crime are entitled to the same rights and liberties as anyone else? Will he also tell the Prime Minister that he will put the full resources of the Scottish Executive at the disposal of HM Government in supporting any moves that it might want to make to end the detention of children behind high metal barriers in Dungavel?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is important to recognise that since last summer, considerable progress has been made at Dungavel in reducing not just the number of children held there—there are none at the moment—but the length of time that any children are held there. That is to be welcomed, and I am sure that there is cross-party support for that.

If there is no alternative and if children are being held at Dungavel—for a very short period of time—because their families are being held there, it is important that appropriate services and support are available to them. The report of HM chief inspector of prisons for England and Wales made it absolutely clear where the responsibility lies. She recognises that the support given through our agencies and by local authorities has been available at all times. Indeed, the United Kingdom Government's immigration agency must ensure that the appropriate support is used effectively in each and every case.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I draw the First Minister's attention to the commitment in the Queen's speech to introduce a bill on behalf of Rhodri Morgan and the National Assembly for Wales to establish an old people's commissioner for Wales. In light of that, will the First Minister now commit the Scottish Executive to supporting my proposed member's bill to establish an old people's commissioner for Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As regards the care standards against which establishments and services can be measured, and given the establishment of the care commission itself, I hope that Alex Neil will recognise that we in Scotland were ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom in establishing proper investigatory procedures and standards for the care of old people in Scotland. I urge anyone with concerns about the care of individual older citizens to use the avenues that are available to them.

As Alex Neil knows, we are currently considering our response to his proposed member's bill. We need to consider our response alongside those other avenues that are currently available for older people in Scotland with respect to the establishment of standards and the investigation of complaints. We will of course inform Parliament, in the proper manner, when any decision has been made by ministers.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I wish to ask the First Minister about an issue that, his ministers have told us, was awaiting the Queen's speech. Although it is clear that no Sewel motion will be required on the proposed identity cards bill, the First Minister will recall that the Parliament voted for a statement on the intended use of the database. We are familiar with the Executive's line on identity cards, but I am asking about the use of the database by the devolved institutions.

We were told that such a statement could not be made until the UK Government had made its position clear through the Queen's speech, but that has now happened. Therefore, can the First Minister tell us when his Executive will comply with the will of Parliament and, under rule 13.2 of standing orders, ask the Presiding Officer for permission to make such a statement?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I can confirm that, as promised, Mr McCabe will make a statement on the identity cards bill and on the way in which it will affect the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Parliament. He will do so before the summer recess.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

I welcome the indication in the Queen's speech that Westminster's regulation-making procedures will be examined. As the First Minister knows, the Scottish Parliament's Subordinate Legislation Committee is examining our procedures, and legislation will result from that work. Will he indicate how ministers at Westminster will liaise with the appropriate minister here to secure the best advantage for both Parliaments?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have not been involved in those discussions directly, but I will be happy to ensure that the appropriate minister responds directly to Sylvia Jackson on that issue as soon as possible.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister how the ending of the European Union working time opt-out will affect the Scottish economy. (S2F-1651)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The opt-out clause in the EU working time directive has not been abolished.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The First Minister will be aware that Labour and Liberal MEPs voted in the European Parliament to bring about the ending of the working time directive opt-out, despite the wishes of the Labour-controlled British Government. Will he accept my support for the United Kingdom Government on the issue? Will he commit his support to the UK Government on the issue today?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The British Government is perfectly capable of representing itself, but I am sure it will be delighted to have the support of Phil Gallie. Mr Gallie has already heard my views on the way in which European regulation can be too prescriptive, not just for the UK but for us here in Scotland.

There is a proper role for Europe-wide legislation in key areas but that legislation needs to take account of the fact that there are sometimes different circumstances in different parts of the Community or even within member states. I welcome the on-going negotiations and the fact that the European Parliament's decision earlier this month was not a final decision but is only part of the process. I hope, however, that Mr Gallie and others will not use the issue to bash the European Union—it is a serious issue that requires serious debate and which will have, I hope, a constructive conclusion. The EU remains an important institution not just for mainland Europe but for us in the British Isles too.

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

On a related point, the First Minister will be aware of the many freight transport operators in the Highlands and Islands who cannot complete their journeys to central markets within the reduced working time limits, which will increase operational costs and considerably reduce profits. Will the First Minister argue for a relaxation of the EU directive in remote and rural areas of Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

My understanding of the matter is that, in terms of the European Union's enforcement of obligations on member states, the UK Government eventually agreed to implement the directive at the stage at which it had little choice but to do so, but that the Secretary of State for Transport and Scotland confirmed to the Westminster Parliament that he would be prepared to review the situation after a year and make further representations to the European Union if that was required. I am not absolutely certain that that is his current position this week, but that was certainly the position when I last spoke to him about the matter. If that is the case, we will continue to pass on any representations or concerns that might exist here in Scotland about the rigid implementation of the position as it is outlined.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE — Health and Community Care

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the list of chronic conditions qualifying for free prescriptions will next be revised. (S2O-6752)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The partnership agreement review of prescription charges for people with chronic health conditions and young people in full-time education or training will provide an opportunity to review the current list.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I thank the minister for her reply and, indeed, for her helpful letter of 15 May, which I received after lodging the question.

Will she give particular consideration to including on the list people whose cancer has been eliminated following treatment, but who—because of damage to their immune system or for other reasons—retain a number of lifelong conditions that require them to remain on medication? Such people fall well outwith the boundaries of the present free prescription scheme. I would like to be able to assure the considerable number of constituents in that position who have approached me that they might have the opportunity to fall within the scheme's boundaries at some time in the not-too-distant future.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am delighted that the member was pleased to receive his response from me.

As the member knows, the medical conditions that confer exemption from prescription charges were selected on the basis that their treatment requires regular prescribed medication and that they are easily recognisable as being lifelong and life-threatening conditions. The same arrangements apply throughout the United Kingdom. Since the introduction of the list, there has been no consensus on the need to make changes to it.

As the member will know, we regularly receive representations from individuals and patient support groups that advocate the provision of free prescriptions for people who suffer from a variety of medical conditions, including cancer. Because of the number and diversity of the conditions involved, ministers have taken the view that they cannot justify singling out a particular condition for addition to the list. However, in Scotland the arrangements for receiving free prescriptions on medical grounds are being re-examined under the terms of the Executive's review of NHS prescription charges.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Is the minister aware that, last week, the Royal College of Nursing annual congress voted by 93 per cent to campaign for the outright abolition of prescription charges? I am sure that that gives the minister an idea of the strength of feeling on the issue. Is it not time that the Executive accepted the case for the outright abolition of prescription charges instead of extending the exemption categories and thereby leaving tens of thousands of people still unable to get their prescription medicine because of the £6.50 charge?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I do not agree that there is widespread support for the abolition of prescription charges that Colin Fox's bill—the Abolition of NHS Prescription Charges (Scotland) Bill—proposes. The consultation that Colin Fox issued was sent to 85 organisations, of which 30 responded. In addition, responses were received from only one member of the public and one community pharmacy.

The vast majority of concerns about prescriptions that are expressed to the Executive relate not to the principle of charging, but—as Stewart Stevenson's question suggested—to calls from certain groups for a particular set of conditions to be added to the list of medical exemptions. It is notable that some of the responses to Colin Fox's consultation suggested that the categories of exemption and the list of medical conditions that confer exemption should be reviewed. The partnership agreement review will address those concerns and suggestions.

If prescription charges were completely abolished, we would lose some £45 million a year, which represents around 5 per cent of the cost of providing community pharmacy services. That would be offset by little more than £1 million in administrative savings. The abolition of prescription charges would have a significant effect on national health service resources, would put more pressure on general practitioners' time and might add to the cost of medicines, as patients who pay the charge at the moment might visit their GP more often to get free prescriptions.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

How on earth can the minister possibly justify a situation in which a chronically sick person can be charged more than £6 for a prescription, when a comparatively healthy person such as me gets free prescriptions just because I happen to be over the age of 60?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

As I said, we recognise that the current rules for medical exemption are perceived to be inequitable. That I why we are committed, under the partnership agreement, to reviewing prescription charges for people with chronic health conditions and young people in full-time education or training. As I said, the first phase of the review is already complete. We are now moving towards a full and wide-ranging consultation. I hope that the member will respond to it.

Let us not forget that the current arrangements are designed to protect people who have difficulty paying for their prescriptions. At present, 92 per cent of prescribed items are supplied to the patient free of charge and around 50 per cent of the population is entitled to free NHS prescriptions.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it is ensuring the improved delivery of health care in remote and rural areas. (S2O-6737)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

When I speak to the hard-working professional staff in our health boards that serve rural areas, I am always impressed by their commitment, flexibility and innovation. I lived in a rural area myself for 25 years. It is right that boards and their staff take the lead in planning and delivering improved services to the people who live in their areas. The Executive is able to support those efforts by providing record levels of investment, which are allocated to boards using a formula that takes account of the effect of population sparsity on the cost of providing services.

The member may also be aware that Professor David Kerr's group, which is expected to report shortly, will examine specifically issues around the delivery of health care in remote and rural areas. I look forward to hearing his recommendations.

I will quickly give some current examples of service improvements. Telemedicine is being used to network local community hospitals with hospitals in Aberdeen and Elgin and to offer patients more convenient access to eating disorder clinics at community hospitals in Banff and Buchan with the support of expert staff in Aberdeen. It is also being used to link Stornoway, Benbecula and Inverness to provide a specialist dermatology service to patients. New and enhanced chemotherapy units are in operation at community hospitals in Moray, Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, and surgeons are travelling to Orkney and Shetland to provide convenient, local cataract surgery for residents. To help to save the lives of heart attack patients, ambulance paramedics are being equipped with echocardiogram machines and clot-busting drugs in the Grampian, Borders and Dumfries areas, and general practitioners are being trained to provide clot-busting drugs in Shetland and the Uists.

An important new initiative, which is aimed at developing new training courses, will help to prepare specialist doctors and nurses to work in remote parts of Scotland. The work will be led by Andrew Sim, who has just been appointed as the first professor of remote and rural medicine at the University of the Highlands and Islands Millennium Institute and is based in Stornoway. Professor Sim will take forward projects in education, training and research, which will include the development of courses that are aimed at—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Minister, I remind you that you are to give an answer to the question and not a statement.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Yes. So, overall, our aim is to provide services in remote and rural areas that are as local as possible and as specialised as necessary.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for that rundown on the Executive's health policy.

I am sure that the minister will agree that, wherever possible, it is best to care for terminally ill patients near to their relatives and in their home communities. Not only is that humane but it also provides nursing care jobs where they are much needed. Therefore, to help remote areas such as the Isle of Barra, will the minister ensure that a definite start date is agreed for building the hospice unit that is proposed at the modernised St Brendan's hospital in Castlebay by 2008 at the latest?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Obviously, the detail must be given by the local health board. That said, the provision of hospices is hugely important to people wherever they live in Scotland, and the Executive supports that. The member will have to get the information from the local health board. If it is at all helpful, I would be happy to give him some aid in getting it.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given that Highland NHS Board benefited greatly from the Arbuthnott formula whereas Argyll and Clyde NHS Board did not, will the Executive reassess the per capita spend on patients in remote and island communities in Argyll as part of the consultation process to ensure that NHS Highland is not faced in future with the severe financial pressures that NHS Argyll and Clyde faces at the moment?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

As the minister announced this morning, the consultation over the next few months will consider boundaries. The member may be aware that a new committee, the NHS Scotland resource allocation committee, has been formed under the chairmanship of Professor Karen Facey to improve and refine the formula. There is no intention to revisit the formula during the consultation on NHS Argyll and Clyde.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The minister will be aware of an innovative project in Pitlochry, in my constituency, to establish a combined facility incorporating a new community hospital, a nursing care home and a general practitioner surgery. Regrettably, the care home provider, the Church of Scotland, has withdrawn from the project at a very late stage. Will the minister assure the community that Tayside NHS Board intends to press ahead with the new community hospital, regardless of the care home provision issues that need to be addressed?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am aware of the Church of Scotland's recent decision not to proceed with the care home places in the new premises. However, I am encouraged by the fact that NHS Tayside has made it clear that the health care elements of the project will go ahead and that the people of Pitlochry and the surrounding area will have the new community hospital and GP premises that they have been promised in the past. I understand that, following the Church of Scotland's withdrawal, NHS Tayside is exploring with alternative providers the possibility of including care home places in the project.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Is the minister aware that GP practices that serve the most rural and remote areas in Scotland receive four times the amount of additional payments per patient than do practices in the most deprived areas? That information was recently highlighted in a letter from Professor Graham Watt, professor of general practice at the University of Glasgow.

The minister will also be aware that six years ago, the Arbuthnott report "Fair Shares for All?" concluded that the Scottish Executive Health Department should make health care inequalities a priority with a view to formulating a modified model for resource distribution. Has any progress been made on the issue?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

As the member knows, the Arbuthnott formula takes account of the influence of deprivation and remoteness on health care needs and supports the broader aims of achieving social justice and tackling inequalities. Indeed, that was one of the reasons for setting up the Arbuthnott review. I have pointed out that the NHS Scotland resource allocation committee has been formed, under the chairmanship of Professor Karen Facey, to improve and refine the formula, although I repeat that the formula already takes account of the influence of both deprivation and remoteness on health care needs.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I note that, in her response to Rob Gibson, the minister mentioned the use of telemedicine, particularly with regard to the link between the islands and the dermatology department at Raigmore hospital in Inverness. I wonder whether the minister is aware of my meetings with the centre for rural health, which has expressed concern that telemedicine should play a greater part in delivering medical services to remote and rural areas. Are there any plans to roll out such services?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

As I said, we feel that telemedicine is hugely important. We expect that, when Professor Kerr reports later this week, he will make significant points about health care delivery in rural areas and might well touch on telemedicine.

A number of telemedicine initiatives have been set up in NHS Highland. For example, a precursor to a picture archiving system allows X-rays to be digitised and transmitted from a number of sites across NHS Highland to Raigmore hospital for review. Moreover, the computed tomography scanners at Belford hospital and the proposed CT scanner at Wick are to be linked back to Raigmore hospital.

Although I have mentioned teledermatology, I point out that a system of teleorthodontics has already been set up for Western Isles patients. Furthermore, a telepaediatrics system is being introduced that will link remote sites, Inverness and Glasgow to review paediatric patients who have cardiovascular problems.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it is making in dealing with autism. (S2O-6790)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The Scottish Executive is working to improve services across health, education and social care agencies for children and adults with autistic spectrum disorders. We are undertaking a programme of work that will improve awareness and understanding of autistic spectrum disorders among professionals and families and give people quicker access to diagnosis and interventions that are appropriate to individual needs.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is the minister satisfied that sufficient specialised support is currently available for autistic youngsters? Provision of support among the various health boards appears to vary.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Of course, the early and accurate diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder is absolutely essential if children and their families are to get access to the supports that they need. Currently, we are providing funding to NHS Education for Scotland to develop information and training for general practitioners and primary care staff. We are also providing funding to the Scottish Social Services Council for the development of autistic spectrum disorder skills qualifications for social care staff. It is hugely important that social care, education and medical staff work as part of an inter-agency team to support pupils with autistic spectrum disorder in schools. We believe that the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 will provide that inter-agency working for youngsters who suffer from autistic spectrum disorder.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Is the minister aware of the excellent work that is being done in our schools to improve services for young people with autism, which is being delivered by her ministerial colleagues with responsibility for education? Leaving aside the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and the code of practice on additional support for learning, which is currently before the Parliament, is she aware of the involvement of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education in inspecting services for young people with autistic spectrum disorder in education throughout Scotland? I think that an announcement was made last year, but work was due to start in April this year. Will she bring the Parliament up to date with progress on HMIE's inspection programme? In particular, will she comment on whether educational services such as speech and language therapy—which are delivered by health boards or health authorities and so come within her remit—are subject to inspection by HMIE as part of that welcome programme?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

As the member says, HMIE will carry out an inspection of educational provision for children and young people with autistic spectrum disorder throughout Scotland. He was accurate in saying that the programme started in April this year, and it will continue until March 2006.

The inspection will follow an integrated model and will build on current HMIE inspection work. It will include consideration of the full range of therapy services where they impinge on education, which is important, and will consider pre-school and training issues, how far children and young people with ASD are included and can engage with more socially equipped peers and how teachers and support staff are supported. HMIE will report in the summer of 2006.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action was taken at a national level to promote breastfeeding in Scotland during national breastfeeding awareness week. (S2O-6787)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The Executive supported a number of activities during breastfeeding awareness week 2005. Through NHS Health Scotland, we ran the breastfeeding television campaign and circulated associated promotional posters to each national health service board for use in its local activities. Local activities were supported by the national breastfeeding adviser, who visited a range of boards during the week. I was delighted to visit Forth Park hospital in Fife, where I had the honour of presenting Fife NHS Board with its United Nations Children's Fund baby-friendly certificates and met and talked to health professionals and breastfeeding mothers.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I welcome the action that was taken last week. However, the minister knows that, despite significant progress in Scotland in recent years, the national breastfeeding target that was set more than 10 years ago has not been met. Will she say what action will now be taken to revise the target and the current breastfeeding strategies to galvanise future progress? Will raising awareness of the legal protection that mothers now have under the Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Act 2005 form part of that strategy?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

As the member accurately says, the national target that was set in 1995 that 50 per cent of mothers should be breastfeeding at six weeks by 2005 has not been met. However, data that have been collected through the child health surveillance programme show that the rates rose between 1999 and 2004, although they did so much more slowly than they were expected to.

The member is right—we have much more to do. Given the fact that breastfeeding rates have not increased as much as had been expected, it is an opportune time for us to take a fresh look at our approach to supporting breastfeeding nationally and locally. I am keen to work closely with the member specifically on the information leaflet that sets out the legal requirements on people to ensure that they provide facilities to enable women to breastfeed, and I look forward to continuing that work.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I ask the minister to comment on the importance of breastfeeding in the context of the Scottish Executive's wider policies on food and nutrition.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

We are completely committed to supporting and promoting breastfeeding as the most appropriate form of infant feeding in the early years. That links in with our wider policies on nutrition. We are developing a national infant feeding strategy, which will involve a wider range of bodies in supporting that valuable health-promoting behaviour. We must ensure that it is an issue not just for mothers and health professionals, but for all family members, local authorities, schools and many other groups and individuals. We must work closely with the organisations that work with pregnant mothers and parenting groups to ensure that, in addition to breastfeeding, we have advice about healthy weaning and infant feeding.

Environment and Rural Development

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We now move to questions on the environment and rural development. Richard Lochhead, who was to have asked question 1, is not here.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action is being taken to meet air quality obligations under EU directives. (S2O-6742)