Scottish Parliament, 16 June 2005

415 contributions from 72 members. The official report.

Official Report 16 June 2005

Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2775, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill.

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

Reoffending is corrosive. It tears at families and neighbourhoods, erodes public confidence in criminal justice and saps the efforts and energies of the police and all who work hard every day in our courts, community justice services and prisons. People who offend and offend again clog up our courts and fill up our prisons, often on short sentences. They distort the criminal justice system, which requires more and more effort and resources simply to catch and secure them when those energies and resources would be better used to challenge them to return to law-abiding lifestyles.

In Scotland in 2002, two of every three convicted offenders had at least one previous conviction. Six out of 10 offenders who were released from jail in 1999 were convicted of another offence within two years and one offender in every two who were released from jail in 2001 was returned to jail within two years. That is simply unacceptable, but it is not only about offenders reoffending and being sent to prison again. Of those who received a probation order in 1999, 58 per cent were reconvicted of another offence within two years, while 42 per cent of offenders who began a community service order and 40 per cent of those who were fined were reconvicted for further offences.

Many repeat offenders who end up in prison have already served community sentences, so we must break the cycle of repeat offending. Not only do we need community sentences that work and in which the public have confidence, but we must have custodial sentences that rehabilitate as well as punish. We must have proper sentence management that reduces reoffending and delivers the safer communities that the people of Scotland deserve. Therefore, I am pleased to open the stage 1 debate on the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill, which is another step in our radical reform of our criminal justice service.

The bill creates a new framework for integrated management of offenders in order to reduce reoffending. It will introduce a home detention curfew scheme to help to manage the return of selected low-risk prisoners from custody back into the community, and will further tighten how we manage sex offenders. It will also establish a further deterrent to people who would offend or reoffend: the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will be given powers to recover from offenders the cost of compensation that is awarded to the victims of crime, which will send out a firm message that crime does not and will not pay.

I will address first the new measures for integrated offender management. I am sure that we all agree that we need to get to grips with offenders, particularly repeat offenders, so that they are less likely to reoffend and less likely to keep churning through the system. We know that the current system is not working: the figures speak for themselves and the findings from last year's consultation echo those failings. I have said repeatedly that when we are faced with a challenge such as this, the status quo is not an option, which is why we have listened and are acting. We are providing leadership and intend to provide national direction.

A new national advisory body will be set up to give a national focus to efforts to reduce reoffending because, for too long, too many services have been pulling in too many different directions. Locally, we need better joint working and better sentence management, which is why the bill will place a new statutory duty on local authorities and the Scottish Prison Service to work together in local partnerships to reduce reoffending. It will also establish new community justice authorities, which will bring together local authorities for co-ordinated service delivery, lead local plans for reducing reoffending and be locally accountable and nationally scrutinised.

We must also get to grips more with offenders' return from prison to communities, so the bill will introduce a home detention curfew scheme that will help to manage the return of selected low-risk prisoners from custody back to the community. The scheme will allow certain prisoners to serve the remainder of their sentences differently: in the community and subject to curfews that will be verified by a robust electronic monitoring system. I make it clear that home detention curfew will not be an automatic entitlement for prisoners, but will be considered only for prisoners who pass a robust risk assessment. It can offer a way of helping offenders to rebuild relationships and to participate in employment or training and so help them to settle back in the community while facing up to their criminal actions. Those are all steps that we know can help us in the fight to reduce reoffending.

Events of the past few months tell us that, when it comes to managing sex offenders, criminal justice agencies must be ever vigilant and work ever more closely together if they are to reduce the risk that is posed to our communities and, in particular, to our children. We recognise the proper public concern about sex offenders. We hear that concern and we are continuing to act. The bill will place a new duty of co-operation on chief constables, local authorities and the Scottish Prison Service. It will set up joint arrangements between those services to assess, monitor and manage the risk that sex offenders pose and it will strengthen the sex offender monitoring process by closing a loophole for those who seek to evade the requirements of the sex offenders register.

In March, the First Minister announced a proposal to make all sex offenders who are sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more subject to conditions on their release, on which they would be supervised and liable to recall to prison if they failed to comply. We asked the Sentencing Commission for Scotland for its views on that proposal, but it felt that it could not support our proposal in advance of its wider review of early release. We note that view, but ministers have a duty to protect the public and we believe that it is right to make the change, even in advance of the further work on early release. Therefore, we will introduce the proposal in an amendment at stage 2.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The minister alludes to an important issue. I understand from a Press Association press release that was issued overnight that the Sentencing Commission's chairman, Lord Macfadyen, wrote to the minister saying that, if the Executive was taking that step on the basis that sex offenders posed a greater threat to public safety than other types of offender, the commission was unhappy because it felt that there had to be a consistent approach. I welcome the steps that the Executive is taking—they do not go far enough for me, but they travel in the correct direction—but if that is the Sentencing Commission's view, is there not a strong argument that the Executive should question the whole concept of automatic early release?

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

Members are able to read the Sentencing Commission's letter; it is published on the commission's website. The important point is that we asked the Sentencing Commission to do a number of things: we asked it to examine bail and remand, as members are aware, and to examine the concept of early release, on which it will carry out a consultation at some point in, I hope, the not-too-distant future. Given that we have already signalled our intention to try to do something on sex offenders, it is important that we take that forward. I have heard it said that sex offenders are less likely to reoffend than some other offenders, but we need only consider the consequences of such offending for the victims—whose experiences often leave them with lifelong trauma—to realise that we must do everything that we can to close loopholes.

Annabel Goldie is aware of my concern about ensuring that we get the balance right on general early release in the future. We will do more work on that, but it is proper that we introduce measures on early release of sex offenders in an amendment to the bill so that we can tighten the current legislation. I hope that what Miss Goldie said indicates support from the Conservative party for that measure.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does the minister agree that, although the figures show that sex offenders are least likely reoffend, that is partly due to the difficulty in detecting and convicting them and that it is highly likely that, although reconviction rates for sex offenders might be low, reoffending rates might not necessarily be so?

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

Stewart Stevenson makes a valid point. The possibility that he suggests is one of the reasons why I feel that it is right and proper that we introduce the proposed measures. In some instances, patterns of offending behaviour by sex offenders mean that a considerable time might pass between offences for which they are caught and punished—although that does not mean that they are not necessarily a risk to the public. I stress that that is why we are introducing our proposals.

I mentioned the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. It is important that we encourage offenders to face up to the consequences of their offending behaviour whenever we have the opportunity to do so. Section 13 of the bill will give the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority powers to recover from offenders the cost of the compensation that is awarded to the victims of crime. I believe that, when a crime has been committed and when compensation has been paid from the public purse, it should be possible for the authority to claim that sum back from the offender.

A stronger, safer Scotland needs a criminal justice service that protects the public and punishes offenders, but it must also offer a second chance to those who would benefit from that and who are prepared to take the chance. I believe that the bill will support those aims by creating a stronger system for management of offenders and by reducing reoffending.

I thank the members of Justice 2 Committee, and of course the committee's clerks, for conducting their careful stage 1 consideration of the bill. I followed the evidence sessions with great interest and I have read the committee's report thoroughly. I am glad that so many people who are involved in criminal justice services took the opportunity to come along and present their views. I recognise that there exists a range of views and opinions on a number of issues, which is why it is important that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise them. I believe that the committee did that job extremely well at stage 1 and I have no doubt that it will continue its thorough scrutiny at stage 2. I am pleased that the majority of committee members endorse the principles of the bill, although I appreciate that some members felt that they could not do so. I will of course be considering closely the recommendations in the committee's report, and I will try to respond to them in writing prior to the commencement of stage 2.

I hope that we will have a useful debate this morning. Previous debates have shown quite a degree of consensus in Parliament that the time is right to do something. We must move forward, tighten up the processes and ensure that we have a better system for managing offenders, whether they are in custody or in the community, and we must balance punishment and rehabilitation and keep public safety at the heart of our concerns. That is why I am delighted to move, That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Management of Offenders etc. (Scotland) Bill.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I start by welcoming the aims of the bill. The real question is whether it will make a difference in practice. There is a shared belief, in Parliament and in society, that we must reduce reoffending. Whether we do that is the absolutely key test of sentencing policy and practice. The minister alluded to the fact that in 2000, 30,000 people in Scotland were convicted of crimes, nearly 20,000 of whom were already offenders. As I said during my intervention on sex offenders, that is only the tip of the iceberg because we will not detect all those who reoffend and we will certainly not reconvict all those who reoffend.

It is important that we keep in mind the fact that sex offenders are uniquely difficult to reform. We might be able to put them through programmes to reduce their tendency to offend, to help them detect any return to offending behaviour and to seek the appropriate help, but we are unlikely to change sex offenders from people who have aberrant attitudes to sexual matters into people who have normal attitudes. Generally, however, there is more hope for prisoners.

Are we making progress? Our prisons had, on average, 300 more prisoners inside them in 2004 than in 2003. At £35,500 per year per prisoner, that had better work. At some point in 2004, more than 7,000 Scots criminals were banged up. We must indeed be a lawless nation, although we are clearly not a nation without laws. The bill is yet another attempt to add to our laws, but will it subtract from our prison costs and will it reduce crime? Only Portugal, which has 127 prisoners per 100,000 population, and England and Wales, which have 124 prisoners per 100,000 people, lock up more people than Scotland, which locks up 115 people per 100,000. The last resort, imprisonment, has for rather too long seemed to be our first response.

Imprisonment does, of course, protect society—for a while. If six out of 10 prisoners say, as Oliver Twist did,

"Please, sir, I want some more",

we have to question whether prison actually works. The minister has a target of reducing reoffending by 2 per cent. That is welcome, but I must say that it is modest.

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

I assume that the member has been following the evidence during the Justice 2 Committee's deliberations and is aware of how difficult it is to set a target and to make it meaningful in practice. International experience confirms that. Will the member agree, as I hope he will, that although 2 per cent is the target that has been set, it would be for the proposed national advisory board to consider whether that is the appropriate target for the future, and whether further targets should be set at a later date?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I welcome the fact that there is a target, and I thank the minister for her intervention. I suspect, however, that the target's modesty will continue to exercise us for a while. The bill can deliver its bit, and that is a good enough reason to support it.

I turn to community justice authorities and home detention. My colleague, Tricia Marwick, who is on the case as far as this subject is concerned, will talk in particular about the Colyn Evans case, in which she has a special interest.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Does the Scottish National Party have any concerns about the practical effect of the bill, in that it will let certain convicted criminals out of prison even earlier than is the case now?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The home detention curfew will let people out up to 135 days earlier. If that aids their reintegration into society, reduces estrangement from their families—which is a key element in their remaining part of society—it will be good news. That must be balanced, as I am sure the Conservatives will be aware, against the level of protection that comes from the knowledge that people are banged up away from society. The argument must be about the balance of increased risk and increased advantage. So far, we are quite convinced that the earlier we reintegrate people into society, the greater the benefit will be.

We welcome the minister's change of heart on community justice authorities. She was persuaded by the vociferously expressed opinion of local authorities in particular that she should not proceed with a national community justice authority, but instead go for local justice authorities. The establishment of a national authority would have been seen as yet another centralising move, which would run counter to the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, through which we delivered more power to local authorities to take control and to deliver against local needs. The minister's response to those opinions is welcome.

However, do we need a chief executive and extra staff—however few—to undertake responsibility for all those community justice authorities, given that fire boards and joint police authorities can be managed simply by integrating responsibility for those bodies into the responsibilities of senior local government office bearers? I would have to give a not proven verdict on the current suggestions, but that matter can be addressed as our consideration of the bill continues and is no reason to oppose the bill. We will hear what the ministers have to say on the matter.

Other countries—Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland spring to mind—have structures that bring prison and community offender services together, and we welcome moves to build on that experience. Such structures can improve lines of communication, enhance information sharing and build more coherent and organised structures to help offenders and the community as a whole.

The CJAs must do what it says on the tin. The different cultures, structures and skills mixes of local authorities, police, the national health service, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Scottish Courts Administration and registered social landlords and the vital role of the voluntary sector can be melded to increase effectiveness or—if we get it wrong—merged in a Pol Pot-style year zero situation that will set back the cause of community justice for a decade. I am inclined to believe that we will achieve the former, but we must be alert to the danger of the latter.

Ministers will know that I have been a vigorous critic of the Scottish Prison Service and I share much of the frustration that ministers have experienced with it. The bill may represent an opportunity to do something about its performance.

I turn to home detention curfews. Maggie Thatcher—the Tories should listen up—said that prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse. HDCs might help. Of course, Jonathan Aitken, a former Tory, has some experience of them, so he might give the Conservatives advice about their worth. The evidence from England on whether they work is mixed.

The bill is a work in progress, rather like too many bills that we have seen of late. We can see that at least one minister is finding the ministerial seat quite hot today. My whip will not let me take my jaicket off whatever the temperature.

Alternatives to prison can work, but that is far from automatic. Reform in society is just as important as reform in the criminal justice system, so we have to address societal needs. Finland, with its low offending and incarceration rates, has much to teach us about handling crime and on how and when criminals and countries take responsibility for their affairs and improve their performance.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I make it clear at the outset that I speak in this debate on political issues as the Conservative spokesman on justice, not as the convener of the Justice 2 Committee. However, as convener of that committee I express my appreciation to my colleagues on the committee, our clerks and the various witnesses, including the minister, who came before the committee, for their collective and respective efforts in producing information, collating it and being prepared to debate it so that we could reach a majority committee view. I thank the minister for her kind acknowledgement of the work that was undertaken.

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

Will the member give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Not at the moment.

For political reasons, on which I shall expand in the course of the debate, I was unable to support the majority committee view and dissented from supporting the bill at stage 1 in the committee. I accept that the spirit of the bill is well intended and my party acknowledges that the management of offenders is a vital aspect of our justice system that must be given more time and consideration. If we really want to rehabilitate criminals and deter people from committing crime, they have to know that they will serve a sentence that both reflects the gravity of the crime and gives them the chance to be rehabilitated. I think that Mr Stevenson acknowledges that the question how we achieve those objectives in practice raises serious questions about the proposals in the bill.

In the limited time that is available to me, I propose to concentrate on the two major aspects of the bill that present problems to me. The first is that the bill is to be enacted within the existing regime of automatic early release from prison of convicted criminals. We know that the public at large are bewildered by automatic early release. They regard it as confusing. Given recent high-profile cases in which persons who were at liberty through automatic early release have committed serious crimes, both the public and victims have good cause to question why the regime continues.

In my party's view it is irresponsible of the Scottish Executive, and unacceptable from the standpoint of public safety, to introduce a bill that contains provisions that will allow persons who have been convicted of serious crimes, but who will already get out of prison early under automatic early release, to get out even earlier.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the member give way on that point?

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

Will the member give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I give way to the minister.

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

Does the member accept that I have made it clear in the information on the bill that I submitted and in the evidence that I gave to the committee that a number of offences for which people had been convicted and imprisoned would not come under the home detention curfew scheme? That point is important.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Yes. I accept what the minister says, but I draw to her attention a comment that the Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, made in 1999 about home detention curfews. He said:

"We have no plans or intention whatever to provide for electronic tagging to facilitate the early release of serious or sexual offenders. Let me make that clear, with a full stop—none whatever."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 29 November 1999; Vol 340, c 27.]

Yet, as we already know from the experiment in England, matters have not proceeded in a positive way.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No—I am sorry.

The Scottish Executive might be able to explain away that strategy. It is, no doubt, driven by a desire to reduce the prison population by seeking to improve the lot of prisoners. However, the Scottish Conservatives consider that the priorities must be the safety of the public and the best interests of victims. It seems to me that neither of those paramount considerations will be protected by the bill.

In short, if the Scottish Executive will not stand up for public safety and victims, the Scottish Conservatives will. I make it crystal clear that we cannot support the bill for as long as automatic early release applies to prison sentences. We are prepared to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to end automatic early release and if the Executive is prepared to support it, we will support the bill.

The other area of serious concern that I had when listening to the evidence that was presented to the Justice 2 Committee by the Association of Directors of Social Work and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is the proposed statutory creation of community justice authorities. A useful co-ordination of activity and co-operation between agencies has been achieved since 2002 by the 14 funding and planning units that were constructed on the basis of local agreement and consensus.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member take an intervention?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am sorry, but I really am pushed for time. I apologise.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

There is a bit of time in hand this morning, so you can have another two minutes if you wish.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

In that case, I will take the intervention.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Ending of automatic early release would mean that there were more people in prison. I have done a quick sum: I think that would cost between £100 million and £150 million extra a year. Does the member think that that is the best way of spending money in the criminal justice system?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I think that that is a question that Mr Stevenson should pose to the public and to victims and their families. My clear impression is that there is huge concern in Scotland about public safety and, equally important, about confidence in our criminal justice system. To me, the political priority of the Scottish Executive has to be to have regard to that fundamental public concern, which is what I am addressing. If the way of addressing that concern is to increase prison capacity, then it is the political imperative of Government to achieve it.

On the existing structures, I would have thought that there was significant merit in allowing the current partnerships to continue because they meet the aspirations of, and provide the necessary flexibility for, different areas in Scotland.

In evidence, COSLA stated:

"structures of themselves will not deliver either improvement outcomes or worse outcomes. It is the ... activity that goes on that is important."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 12 April 2005; c1493.]

That is a sensible observation.

We ask our social work departments to bear an intensifying workload and to discharge an exacting level of responsibility. Much of that is attributable to legislation that has been passed by Parliament. I would have thought that a period of consolidation and assessment would be preferable to imposing further statutory bureaucracy on those hard-pressed departments.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The member talks about a period of good co-operation—which is working well—and about further co-operation and consolidation. We have heard the arguments that say, "Give us a bit more time" and "Give us a bit more money". Despite the time and money, we hear month after month and year after year about cases in different parts of the country where the system, not individuals, is letting the community down. What does Annabel Goldie propose to do about the systemic and systematic failures that threaten communities?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There is a considerable advantage in listening to the views of the people who are working in the sector, which I consider to be authoritative.

It seems to me that when the partnerships to which I referred have been in operation only since 2002 and we have a devolved Parliament, a Scottish Executive and a Justice Department, there is ample opportunity to implement the process of consolidation and assessment to which I referred. There is a clear ability, particularly through Audit Scotland, to test what is happening and then to make any necessary adjustments through administrative change. However, I find the proposed imposition of a statutory framework to be alarming because I think that it will exacerbate problems.

In relation to what Mr Stevenson said, the inescapable conclusion that I have reached is that the Executive's original suggestion—it was subsequently dropped—for a single correctional agency was unpopular and provocative. The suggestion has now been revived, by another name, in little local bits. I have a great deal of sympathy with the view that the estimated running costs of each community justice authority, of about £200,000 a year, could be better used to fund front-line services and to enhance programmes that are already being delivered. For those reasons, I do not find that a convincing case has been made for the creation of those authorities; I dissented in committee from supporting their creation. Unfortunately, the strictures of today's debate constrain the opportunity for extended discussion, but for the reasons that have I stated, my party will not support the bill at stage 1.

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

I welcome the publication of the bill and the debate this morning. I also welcome Miss Goldie's clarification in her speech that she speaks on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives rather than the Justice 2 Committee. I hope that she might instruct her party to remove from its website the headline, "Justice two convenor refuses to support management of offenders bill." That might clarify her position further.

There should be little doubt that one of the biggest factors in the crime rates in Scotland is that people who have committed an offence commit another offence within a relatively short period after their release from custody. The minister outlined the figures this morning.

There is double concern for the communities that have had to put up with a further offence being committed in their area because, although the offender had gone through the justice system then the prison system, the state has in effect failed to rehabilitate that individual. In many cases, it is hard to rehabilitate successfully, as Mr Stevenson said. Often, however, the system actively discourages rehabilitation as a result of long delays in cases being brought to trial and an unfortunately high level of short—in some cases, very short—prison sentences being imposed.

Just as we must ensure that our justice system is transparent, fair and efficient, so we must ensure that it is effective in reducing the number of offenders who commit an offence for the first time and the number of those who reoffend once they have been punished. I am certain that the measures in the bill will help in that endeavour.

In our stage 1 inquiry, the committee explored many of the complex issues associated with the subject and inevitably, given that the bill is about structures, we gave much consideration to inter-institutional issues between social work, the police, the court service, the Executive and local authorities. I do not deny that those issues are important—of course they are—for morale and for leadership at the top of the organisations right through to all the staff who work in their fields, who are often extremely committed individuals doing their best. However, that means nothing to our constituents, who simply want the system to deliver better justice.

Community justice authorities will give a focus to what the Justice 1 Committee asked us to do in its recent report on rehabilitation in prisons, which was to give a clearer definition of rehabilitation, what it means and what is required to make it more effective.

We will fail to reduce reoffending if we continue to deny a greater emphasis on equipping individuals with some of the structure that is missing from their lives and on giving them the skills and support that they have not had. With a statutory duty on all agencies to work together, however, they will do so. It could be argued that, until now, the scene has been patchy. There are some examples of excellent partnership working in Scotland, as I know from my Borders constituency, and many areas are leading in partnership working. However, other areas could benefit from learning from best practice.

I understand that the Conservatives will not support the bill because they believe that the case has not been made for statutory change to structures. That is the ground on which they dissented from the committee's report. David Croft, the governor of Edinburgh prison, said in evidence:

"On the quality of the partnerships, one of the questions asked was why it is necessary to create a structure to make all this work if it is working okay just now. There is nothing in my management experience that contradicts the view that without a structure we will never get anybody accountably delivering anything. I am talking about the size of the present reoffending problem in Scotland. That is where I believe the proposed structure would be a benefit."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 19 April 2005; c 1538.]

Structures are important and they will be effective if we can ensure that all agencies have a duty to work together. The Conservatives seem to oppose that duty. That will not be understood by my constituents or indeed by the communities that the Conservatives claim to represent.

In February, the Justice 1 Committee's report on rehabilitation in prisons quoted professionals as saying:

"There is a sense that rehabilitation deals with recent matters ... [but] some of the people with whom we work have long-standing problems since their early childhood. The 're' in rehabilitate is not an option for many people who have had long-standing problems."

I am aware that the Justice 2 Committee's work on the bill has been limited, inevitably, to the scope of the bill. However, without a proper and mature debate on earlier intervention we will not begin to address the problem.

Paragraph 13 of the Justice 1 Committee's report, which we debated in Parliament, states:

"offenders may never previously have been integrated to society."

I welcome Mr Stevenson's comments about integration into society. Trying to turn away the tide, as the Conservatives seek to do, is neither progressive nor will it be effective.

Although many individual offenders have not integrated into society, it is unlikely that those individuals will not have been known to public agencies such as the police, social work departments, education authorities or the hearings system—all the agencies that will work together in community justice authorities.

Information from the Scottish Prison Service report, "Young People in Custody in Scotland, An Occasional Paper", showed us that 76.2 per cent of all young people in custody had a history of regular truancy; 43.6 per cent had attended special schools; over 9 per cent had reported previous contact with the children's hearings system; over 63 per cent had close friends who were involved in criminal activity; and 52 per cent had at least one member of their immediate family who had served a custodial sentence. Without understanding that such triggers happen early in people's lives, we will continue to be too late to rehabilitate individuals and that rehabilitation work will be much harder when we begin to undertake it. Therefore, the community justice authorities, which will ensure best practice and a statutory duty to co-operate, will build on the work of criminal justice social work groupings rather then undermine them, as the Conservatives seem to state.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The member speaks of a statutory duty to co-operate. Does that phrase not ring hollow with him? Surely co-operation depends on flexibility and that is precisely what we propose should be allowed to happen rather than structures being imposed by diktat.

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

Conservative members cannot argue that the system has to be structured to provide support for the communities that they claim to represent and then deny the fact that the organisations in question—which are paid for out of all our taxes and which work for our communities—should have a duty to work together. When it comes to co-ordinating justice, of course there should be a duty on the police, the hearings system, social work departments and all the other organisations to work together. Frankly, it is ridiculous to say that criminal justice must be more effective, but then not to provide the tools that will enable that aim to be achieved.

Mr Stevenson said that home detention curfews can be a tool to make the rehabilitation of individuals more effective. I support those comments, and I hope that at stage 2 we will build on the evidence that we received with regard to the conditions that can be applied to home detention curfews. For example, there is potential with regard to the alcohol and drug programmes that begin in prison when a sentence is long enough for that to happen but do not continue in the community, or with regard to the individual attending interviews with housing officers and learning about financial management. Structures will be put in place to afford such work to be done and the conditions of home detention curfew can be shaped around the needs of the individual. We can use the structures that are outlined in the bill to provide active support to individuals in our communities. That will make a real difference and the Conservatives' approach simply will not.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We move to the open debate. There is time for speeches of six minutes plus time for a couple of interventions.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

As the deputy convener of the Justice 2 Committee, I support the motion in the name of the Minister for Justice. I place on record the thanks of all committee members for the efforts of the clerking team in supporting us in our scrutiny of the bill.

Given the dissent that was registered by the committee's convener in respect of the committee's recommendation that Parliament agree to the general principles of the bill, I speak for the committee. The Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill aims to reduce levels of reoffending and to improve the management of offenders by greater integration of the work of the criminal justice agencies. The Justice 2 Committee welcomes the bill, because it provides the basis for a more coherent, integrated approach to addressing offending in Scotland.

In 2004, the nationwide consultation on reducing reoffending, "Re:duce, Re:habilitate, Re:form", arrived at a broad consensus in recognising a number of serious deficiencies in the way that offenders are managed; those weaknesses contribute to unacceptably high rates of reoffending in Scotland. The consultation revealed a lack of shared objectives and strategic direction in tackling reoffending; a lack of communication between criminal justice service deliverers; inconsistency in the provision of offender services throughout Scotland; and a lack of accountability for reducing reoffending.

The bill's provisions are not a panacea—they will not in themselves reduce reoffending—but the Justice 2 Committee hopes that the bill, as part of a broader package of reforms, will ensure that local authorities and the Scottish Prison Service focus on consistency, quality and co-ordination. Given that, for example, in the two years from 1999 60 per cent of offenders who were released from prison were reconvicted of other offences, it is imperative that the Parliament acts.

"Supporting Safer, Stronger Communities", which was published in December 2004, was the Government's response to the consultation. The majority of the Justice 2 Committee welcomes the creation of community justice authorities, which are new local government bodies that will ensure the co-ordinated delivery of community justice services by local authorities throughout authority areas. That proposal is sensible. My committee colleague Jackie Baillie will go into greater detail on the issues relating to the creation of CJAs that were explored by the committee and which are outlined on pages 5 to 11 of the committee's stage 1 report.

Section 1 of the bill concerns a matter that is closely associated with the establishment of CJAs; I refer to the creation of an obligation on Scottish ministers—presumably through the SPS—CJAs and local authorities to co-operate with each other in performing their functions with respect to the management of offenders. The Justice 2 Committee believes that good practice dictates that CJAs should encompass a wide membership. Paragraph 79 of our report notes our belief that there should be an emphasis on

"the importance of ensuring an effective interface between SPS and CJAs."

Mr Stevenson alluded to that important element. I hope that the minister will accede to the committee's request and ensure that the SPS clarifies in detail how that will be achieved in practice. That is essential. Such interaction between the SPS and CJAs is core to achieving improvement in the management of offenders.

I am sure that other members will refer to other important and welcome points in the bill, such as the provision to enable the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to recover from the perpetrators compensation that it has paid to the victims of crime—the minister mentioned that in her opening speech—and the improved information-sharing requirement in respect of the assessment and management of the risks that are posed by serious and sexual offenders, which has already been referred to but which I am sure will be referred to again.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Conservatives mentioned the reservations that they incorporated in the stage 1 report. Another committee member, from the socialists, has also expressed concerns. Since that member is not here to raise those concerns, will Bill Butler comment on their validity and take this opportunity to rebut them or agree with them?

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I would not be so impolite. The member in question is not in the chamber. Stewart Stevenson will see from the stage 1 report that the member was concerned about the structure of CJAs, whereas Miss Goldie and the Conservative party are concerned about their structure and the proposal for home detention curfews. As a democratic socialist, I would not presume to speak for a Trotskyist organisation.

Section 11 seeks to introduce a new discretionary power for the SPS to release certain prisoners on home detention curfew, which is a matter of some contention. Such prisoners would be released a short time before they were eligible for automatic release. The issues have been referred to in the debate. Most of the evidence that we heard suggested that there was merit in home detention curfew for certain low-risk prisoners.

I say to Miss Goldie that we are talking about low-risk prisoners, and she should not conflate them and other types of prisoners. The paramount concern for the Government and this Parliament remains the safety of our communities. That is non-negotiable. Therefore, as the minister said in her speech, only certain levels of low-risk prisoners will be eligible. Sex offenders who are subject to notification requirements, prisoners who are subject to extended sentences and, as the minister clarified in her evidence to the committee, prisoners with a history of domestic violence will be excluded and ineligible for home detention curfew. That should be crystal clear.

All releases on licence will be remotely monitored. Time on HDC will depend on the length of the sentence, but cannot be more than 135 days, as Mr Stevenson said. It is estimated that at any one time about 300 prisoners will be on HDC for an average period of 55 days. It should also be emphasised—perhaps this will comfort Miss Goldie and the Conservative party—that the police, in evidence, were generally supportive of HDC in the circumstances that are proposed by the bill. If the guardians of law and order are generally supportive, I hope that the Conservatives will find some way to change their opinion of HDCs.

The Justice 2 Committee believes that HDC is not a soft option and is not, as the minister stressed in evidence,

"a get-out-of-jail-free card or an alternative to a sentence."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 10 May 2005; c 1624.]

The committee by majority is of the view that

"Provided there is robust assessment of the suitability of individual offenders for release on HDC ... HDCs are a welcome option"

as

"part of a package of wider measures."

HDCs are not a cure-all, but the committee by majority believes that they will provide a measured, coherent option and better management of offenders in an attempt to reduce reoffending, which is what the bill is all about. That is the serious business of the Parliament today. We should not succumb to the temptation of soundbites that conflate serious issues. That is to be deprecated.

The Justice 2 Committee believes by majority that the provisions of the bill are positive and that, in consequence, the general principles of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill should be agreed to.

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

The bill allows for the establishment of community justice authorities; seeks to place an obligation on ministers, local authorities and community justice authorities to co-operate; provides powers to intervene where there is a failure on behalf of the local authority; and at sections 9 and 10 seeks to establish joint arrangements for the assessment and management of sex offenders. To the outside observer, it seems to be a dry and technical bill that is mostly concerned with process, but it has the potential to put in place mechanisms that could prevent a repeat of the tragic circumstances that occurred in Tayport in January.

Last week, Colyn Evans was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Karen Dewar, who was 16 years old. She was strangled, mutilated, and her body dumped in a rubbish skip and set on fire. Colyn Evans is now 18 years old. He came to the attention of social work, the police and the children's reporter when he was 10. Between the ages of 10 and 16 he committed 14 offences, six of which were sexual offences. Of the sexual offences, five related to shameless or indecent exposure. He was never placed on the sex offenders register.

Fife Council and Fife constabulary produced their own internal report on the day that Colyn Evans was sentenced. They examined their involvement with Colyn Evans and admitted that there were shortcomings in communications and written procedures, but concluded that the murder of Karen Dewar could not have been predicted. What could have been predicted, because there were two psychiatric reports to say so, was that Colyn Evans was at high risk of reoffending.

In October 2002, Colyn Evans was reported for an attack on a young boy, and in November 2002 he was reported for indecent exposure to a 31-year-old woman. In April 2002, he was placed in Geilsland residential school, where he was expected to take part in an intensive programme but did not co-operate. Before he was returned home, a report concluded that he was still at high risk of offending. That report was never submitted to the hearing in April 2004, when he was discharged from his supervision requirement. He was given a flat in Tayport, round the corner from Karen Dewar. The police were never formally advised that Evans was in Tayport. Social work asked the police to carry out an assessment. That assessment was never done, but no one asked why. There were two further incidents in Tayport before Karen's murder, but despite police involvement they were not linked to Evans's previous offences.

Fife Council and Fife constabulary's internal report reveals a catalogue of failure—failure to communicate within authorities, failure to communicate between authorities and, most important, failure to protect a young woman and a community. I often say how lucky we are in Fife to have a local authority, a police force and a health board that all share the same boundaries. Margaret Mitchell says that what we need is flexibility. Flexibility does not work. That flexibility failed Karen Dewar. If communication and joint working cannot happen naturally in Fife, which has those huge advantages, it cannot happen anywhere in Scotland, unless there are statutory obligations on authorities to work jointly.

On Friday, I wrote to the Minister for Justice asking for a full, independent inquiry into the Colyn Evans case.

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

I am aware of the letter that Tricia Marwick and some other MSPs wrote to me. This morning, Tricia Marwick has again, very concisely, outlined many of the concerns that were raised in the report prepared by Fife Council and Fife constabulary. I spoke to Ms Marwick just before the debate to indicate that I have sent letters this morning to the conveners of the justice committees and the Education Committee, explaining that I have asked the Social Work Inspection Agency and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary—which are independent of ministers but which, crucially, have an understanding of the systems—to scrutinise the Fife report, to work with Fife Council and Fife constabulary to expand that report, to look in more detail at some of the issues that have been raised and to come back to us with their findings. Ministers will then meet the chief constable and the chief executive of Fife Council to consider what further lessons may be learned.

I have asked my officials to examine in more detail the crossover between the youth and adult justice systems to see whether there are any lessons that can be learned, particularly in relation to young people who have committed sexual offences. I am concerned about consistency in the way in which such local inquiries are carried out. It was right and proper that Fife Council and Fife constabulary undertook that inquiry. There are more issues that need to be resolved, so I have asked my officials to consider drawing up guidelines to ensure that such inquiries—if any should be required in the future—are undertaken in a consistent manner.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for your indulgence in allowing me to put that on the record.

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

I very much welcome the minister's short statement, and I thank her and the Minister for Education and Young People for agreeing that an independent inquiry should be set up. That will bring comfort to Karen Dewar's family, who felt dissatisfied with the conclusions of the report from Fife Council and Fife constabulary. There must be the fullest inquiry, and I hope that the inquiry will look at the whole history of Colyn Evans, including the period when he was at Geilsland residential school and his failure to co-operate. If the inquiry is conducted quickly but fully, the lessons that are learned from it could inform the bill at stage 2 and stage 3, and the bill will be better for that. For the sake of a community and a family, the lessons must be learned quickly, so that other communities and families will be protected.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Like many other members, I welcome the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill. I believe that, by bringing a renewed focus to tackling offending and improving co-ordination, the bill will provide a sound basis for reducing the number of people who are convicted of a further offence.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the scale of the problem that we face. In Scotland, between 1995 and 2000, of those who were released from custodial sentences, up to 66 per cent—that is two thirds—were reconvicted within two years. It is because of that scale that I am, frankly, astonished that Annabel Goldie and Colin Fox are opposed to the bill. In answer to Mr Stevenson's oblique question, I suspect that Mr Fox is away starting a revolution, while Miss Goldie is undoubtedly trying to quell one in the Tory ranks—what strange bedfellows!

However, although structural change in the absence of policy substance is never the answer, I think—unlike Annabel Goldie and Colin Fox—that community justice authorities have a key contribution to make, largely because they are set in a much wider package of reform, with ministers clearly taking a strategic approach to tackling reoffending across the criminal justice system. Although it is acknowledged that the proposed structural reforms will not, in and of themselves, reduce reoffending, they will provide us with solid foundations on which to build.

I, for one, am persuaded by comments that were made by one of the committee's witnesses, who said that, although existing criminal justice relationships may indeed work well,

"It is probably too important to be left to chance ... many of the good relationships that exist are based on good will and a willingness to work together professionally. If good will does not exist and there is no requirement to form a relationship and to agree on targets, objectives and areas to work in partnership, the chances are that it might not happen."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 19 April 2005; c 1537-8.]

Let us not, as the Tories would do, take any chances. Community justice authorities will ensure that we do not simply rely on good will to promote some Tory notion of flexibility.

Perhaps Miss Goldie has forgotten last year's national consultation on reducing reoffending. I shall remind her of it. A general consensus emerged about the key weaknesses in the existing system. At that time, we were told that there were no shared objectives, no strategic direction, little communication, lack of communication between criminal justice service providers and inconsistency in the quality and range of offenders services across Scotland. That is not to diminish the work that is undertaken by some criminal justice social work partnerships. I know that the partnership that covers my patch in Dunbartonshire is excellent, but the picture is not the same across Scotland. We need better consistency, better co-ordination and better quality in some areas.

If the Tories' desire is to listen, I would welcome an acknowledgement that the status quo is not working.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

If the partnership in Jackie Baillie's neck of the woods is working well, is not there a case for using that example to find out what is happening and for using that information to replicate that work throughout Scotland—something that we fail to do in this Parliament—rather than saying that one size fits all, which is effectively what the bill does?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

If Margaret Mitchell had spent any time on the Justice 2 Committee listening to the evidence, she would not have made that comment. The Tories on the Justice 2 Committee have ended up doing what they all do so well. It reminds me of the behaviour of a small child. Basically, they know only one word, which they repeat several times, and that word is "no". We have yet to find out what the Tories actually think. I would welcome further interventions if I thought that we would hear the Tories setting out their proposals, but I suspect that they will remain sedentary.

I want to focus on two issues that were raised with the committee, the first of which concerns the ministerial powers of direction and intervention. I confess to the chamber that there was genuine confusion in the committee. We thought that we knew the difference between the power of direction and the power of intervention, and who the powers were aimed at, but we were confused. We were not alone; there is still uncertainty among stakeholders. I know that the minister intends that the power of direction will apply only, as set out in section 2(10), to community justice authorities, but sections 5 and 6 give ministers a power of direction to require action in the event of failure, either by a community justice authority or by a local authority.

It is fair to say that there is concern among local authorities about the scope and intention of those powers. Although I welcome the reassurance that the minister gave to the committee, I urge her further to clarify the matter. In particular, sections 5 and 6 refer to the exercise of power if there has been failure and it would be useful to know what circumstances would constitute failure. The minister indicated that any power of direction would be exercised following guidance. I assume that section 2(10)(b) will need to be amended to enable the Scottish ministers to provide wider guidance and I hope that such an amendment will be lodged at stage 2.

I ask the minister to consider two other matters before stage 3. First, will she consider ensuring that the power can be used only following an order that is subject to affirmative resolution by the Parliament? Such an approach would provide greater transparency and opportunity for scrutiny. Secondly, will she consider the possibility of including in the bill reasonable limits on the use of the power, in relation to the power's scope and purpose and the time and nature of any intervention? I acknowledge that that would be difficult, but such a measure would reassure stakeholders of the minister's intentions.

Finally, I echo Bill Butler and say a few words about the interface between the Scottish Prison Service and the community justice authorities.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Please be brief.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I accept that it is difficult for the Scottish Prison Service to work with 32 individual local authorities, but the service will need to make a considerable effort to engage meaningfully with CJAs. The SPS is a single national system, but CJAs will inevitably be much more local. The committee was astonished to hear that basic information was often not exchanged, despite positive work in link centres. We heard of examples in which the police and local authorities were unaware that prisoners had been released into the community, so it should come as no surprise to the minister that the committee believes that there is considerable scope for improving the collection and sharing of basic information.

I look forward to considering some of those points with the minister at stage 2. In the meantime, I urge the Parliament to support the general principles of the bill.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Green members welcome the bill—we very much agree with its general thrust and principles. We congratulate the Justice 2 Committee on its work so far and wish it well in the work that it will do on the bill in the future.

Members might expect me to mention the Airborne Initiative, but I will do no more than thank the minister for the detailed letter that she sent in response to my criticisms of the Executive. The matter rests there, although I still have reservations.

If we take the view that high-tariff offenders are the most in need and if we acknowledge that such offenders do the most damage to their communities, we must surely accept that in the long run it is worth investing the most money in that section of the prison population, to try to enable them to adapt to life in the community.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I accept what the member says about long-term prisoners and the problems that they cause in society. However, the bill's purpose is surely to consider offenders who serve short sentences in prison for low-level offences, so that they are not allowed to progress to commit more serious offences, as some do as they proceed through what is in effect a criminal career.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Indeed. I listened carefully and with considerable interest to the speeches of Jeremy Purvis and Tricia Marwick and I thoroughly concur with their observations on the necessity for early intervention. My experience on the children's panel taught me that early intervention is absolutely necessary. Twenty years ago, Lord Scarman said that there can be no criminal justice without social justice; the children's hearings system attempts to provide an element of social justice for young people. Despite the continued carping about the children's hearings system from the Conservative benches, the system's only problem is the fact that social work in Scotland remains underfunded. The situation would improve if we could put more funding into social work and associated institutions that help children, such as Barnardo's, which the Parliament considered yesterday in an extremely instructive debate. Early intervention is essential.

I am particularly impressed by the idea of community justice authorities. I draw the minister's attention to a speech that Baroness Vivien Stern gave to the Howard League for Penal Reform last year—I am sorry, I should have declared an interest at the start of my speech: I am a member of the Howard League for Penal Reform. I will give the minister a copy of Baroness Stern's speech. The minister is indicating that she already has a copy—perhaps I sent it to her—but I will quote from it nevertheless, for the instruction of other members. Baroness Stern described a community justice centre in one of the poorer areas of New York:

"It is a good class building, a former school, in a very disadvantaged area, of redundant docks, public housing ... The Centre is run by the District Attorney, the local prosecutor. It contains a low level court (a problem-solving court). The judge is a judge, and a community development manager, and a local personality who gives away prizes at the local school fetes and community events.

Also in the building is an education centre, a childcare centre, the office of the drug treatment, mental health and other community organisations. Legal services for that disadvantaged community (eg housing rights, repairs) are provided there by lawyers. There are cells under the court like any proper courtroom. There is a mediation service. Quality of life classes run every hour as an alternative to a fine for a small anti-social act. There are community service organisers."

Baroness Stern continued by setting out some of the system's advantages. She states:

"First, this is a system that does not divide offenders and victims ... from the whole community in which they live ... Second, justice is not divided into criminal justice and legal justice"—

indeed, the system operates at all levels, very much as the children's hearings system does.

"Crime is dealt with under the same roof as access to justice services for those who need to get their roofs repaired ... Third, the outcomes are positive rather than negative. The judicial approach is based on the needs of the community and geared to an outcome. The judge tries to solve the problem. Drug treatment can start the day the defendant comes up in court."

The Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill is an enabling bill that will allow community justice authorities to develop along such lines, by uniting social provision and justice provision under one roof. I wish the bill well in its progress through the Parliament.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The Parliament has debated reoffending on numerous occasions. It is clear that none of us regards the status quo as acceptable. However, there seems to be a basic misunderstanding of why the reoffending rate is so high. The reason is quite simple: people who have been in custody have committed either a serious crime or a large number of minor offences. It is therefore inevitable that such people are more likely to reoffend. That should be more clearly understood.

Of course we must do something, but, frankly, the bill is not the answer. The public interest must come first in all aspects of the criminal justice system, but time and again the actions of the Executive leave us with the impression that more consideration is given to clearing prisons than to the public interest.

The proposals in the bill have not been properly thought through. If members are not prepared to take my word for that, they should consider the reservations of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Social Work.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

If Bill Aitken is so keen on responding to public opinion and considering the public interest, he will be interested to know that an NFO System 3 poll two years ago showed that most people agreed that prison has a negative effect on offenders. More than half of those polled agreed that most offenders come out worse than when they went in. The public think that prisons are not the best way of preventing reoffending.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

This is becoming a speech, Mr Harper.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but there was some distortion in the sound at the beginning of Mr Harper's intervention. I will perhaps follow up the matter with him later, privately.

We cannot get past the problems of early release and the message that it sends out to those who are likely to reoffend. That is our principal concern. Let me give an example—I am sure that the minister will agree that it is not an extreme example, but it falls within the criteria that she is proposing. An offender is arrested in somebody's house. He has that person's property ready to be taken away, but no violence is involved. He has a bad record. He is taken to the police station, fingerprinted, photographed, cautioned and charged, and then either is kept in custody or appears on a petition warrant at the sheriff court. After due process, he pleads guilty. The sheriff says that the appropriate sentence, given the offender's record, is 12 months in prison. However, the sheriff reduces the sentence to eight months because of the plea. The sentence then becomes four months because of automatic early release. The minister now proposes that that person would get out after only two months in custody.

The judicial guidelines are quite clear. There are clear arguments in favour of reducing sentences in respect of pleas, although it is arguable whether somebody who is caught red handed in the manner that I described should benefit in that way.

The European convention on human rights makes early release automatic. The person does not have to behave himself in prison; release is automatic. That is quite wrong. As Annabel Goldie said, there have been some high-profile cases—and I understand that many more are in the pipeline—in which people who have been released early have then committed some very serious crimes.

Until today, the minister had been somewhat vague about the categories of people to whom early release would apply. I accept that she has now been a lot more specific. She has stated that sex offenders and violent offenders will not be subject to early release.

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

I suspect that Mr Aitken has missed something if he thinks that that point has been made only today. The point has been made consistently and was part of evidence that was given to the Justice 2 Committee.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

That is as may be, but ministers still have a real problem in this respect. Under article 26 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the minister cannot apply criteria to sex offenders and, arguably, violent offenders that are different from the criteria applied to other offenders. If the minister is not prepared to take my word for it, she should take the word of Lord Macfadyen, who is obviously much more qualified in constitutional law than either me or, with respect, the minister. There is a real problem.

There are attractions in home detention orders, but we have to consider what has happened elsewhere. The criteria in England might not be quite as tight as those proposed by the minister but, in the 18 months following their introduction, 3,748 crimes were committed by people who were subject to the orders. Those crimes included 10 sexual offences and 569 crimes of violence. Does that show that the public interest has come first? If we consider our own local experience, we can see that the figures from the Lanarkshire youth court are a cause for concern. There are many more problems associated with the idea than the minister is prepared to admit to.

As I say, we do not regard the status quo as acceptable. However, any proposals to remedy the situation must make the public interest paramount. The bill does not do that.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

As I am not on the Justice 2 Committee, I have not had the benefit of hearing all the evidence. I will therefore stick to general principles rather than the nitty-gritty on which we have had an interesting debate so far.

I want first to pursue the same line of thought that Jeremy Purvis pursued when he gave various figures about the background from which offenders come. We have to address that issue. Interesting work is being done by people such as those in Strathclyde police's violence reduction unit.

For reasons that we all know about, more offenders come from certain communities than from others. Instead of having well-meaning people like me going along in a suit and telling people in those communities what they should do, we have to help them to do their own thing. A great deal of energy and enterprise often go into crime because there is nothing else worth doing locally. We should nourish and encourage enterprise, whether it is the enterprise of individuals who are trying to make a living in some way or whether it is the enterprise of people who are setting up a co-operative to provide a service that the local community needs. People need help, advice and a little bit of money just to get started. That can allow them to help their communities from the bottom up, if I may use that cliché. We have to set about helping communities in that way.

We also have to help families in which there are clearly going to be problems. We have to get in at the nursery stage, helping the children and the families. Very good work is being done in Denmark and other countries to help the kind of young people who history shows are likely to have problems and to cause problems later on. If children, families and the communities around them can be helped as early as possible, we will prevent a great deal of offending. Logically, the best way of preventing reoffending is by reducing the amount of offending in the first instance. We should make strong efforts in that regard.

Because of a provision inserted by the Parliament into the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, councils have to state in their strategies for dealing with antisocial behaviour what they are doing to provide good recreational, community and sports facilities in their area. I ask the ministers to ensure that that happens and that councils take the provision seriously. Providing good activities for people is one way of helping them not to get involved in bad activities.

In our endless debates on this subject, it has become a cliché to say that short sentences do no good whatever. I know that the minister cannot tell judges what to do, but can something be put in the bill to facilitate discussion between Government and the law industry on short sentences? If short sentences are proved—as I think they have been—to be counterproductive and a complete waste of time, it is surely common sense in a civilised society to do something about it.

It was extraordinarily depressing to read in the Justice 2 Committee's stage 1 report on the bill that there is

"no co-ordinated network of support on release."

The evidence from Dr Andrew McLellan covered very well the wide range of problems that we have to deal with—our Government is still not good at dealing with wide ranges of problems rather than narrow ones. Dr McLellan referred to

"the corrosive effects of addiction, the destructive experience that some people have of education, limited access to jobs and the gamut of issues that are related to poverty."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 3 May 2005; c 1547.]

As I say, if we can deal with such problems in families and communities, that will be of great benefit.

I ask the ministers to ensure that continuing funding is available for voluntary organisations that do good and relevant work in this sphere. In a previous debate, there was a slight disagreement—although not with Cathy Jamieson and Hugh Henry—about the phrase "core funding". If words are the only problem, we can get around that. There must be continuing funding so that people who do good activities can continue those activities without having to temper them to suit the latest whim of the powers that be in project funding. There must be continuing funding on which good organisations can rely, as long as people are satisfied that they are doing good work.

The bill contains many interesting proposals and I look forward to better debates in the future. Perhaps we will have a good stage 3 debate in due course.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I welcome the fact that justice issues have been and continue to be a priority for the Scottish Executive, which reflects the level of concern in my constituency and others about the impact of crime and antisocial behaviour in our communities. We all want to make our communities safer and to reduce crime levels. As part of that effort, an important task is to reduce recidivism.

The Justice 2 Committee's stage 1 report is clear in pointing out that too many people leave our prisons only to reoffend within a short time. It also points out that reconviction rates for offenders who receive community-based sentences are slightly lower. The measures in the bill aim to address those two key points.

As a starting point, we must ensure that all the agencies that deal with offenders work in partnership and in synergy. I welcome the bill's proposal to set up community justice authorities.

Although the committee's report says that there is much good practice among our local authorities and many examples of good partnership and inter-agency working, I agree with its conclusion that there is a need to firm up such partnership arrangements and to put them on a statutory footing. I believe that the proper management of offenders is far too important to be left to informal partnership arrangements.

Safeguarding Communities-Reducing Offending, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service all agree that the establishment of community justice authorities, along with the introduction of a duty to co-operate, will help to create a more consistent and effective system for managing offenders. However, there are significant issues relating to community justice authorities that need to be addressed, such as the number of authorities that should be established and the role of the chief officer. It is possible that the chief officer could be placed in a difficult position. As an employee of a community justice authority, he or she will have responsibility for reporting any failings of his or her employer and/or of local authorities to Scottish ministers, which could be a delicate task.

I note the committee's recommendation that CJAs should "encompass a wide membership". I agree with that conclusion and suggest that broadening the CJAs' membership might help to provide security and support both for councillor members of CJAs and the chief officer.

I do not intend to say too much about the bill's measures to improve the management of serious sex offenders. The need for improved and effective inter-agency working is once again vital and I am pleased that the bill introduces a requirement for all the responsible authorities in a local authority area to establish joint arrangements to assess and manage the risks that such offenders pose. Over the years, there have been too many cases in which sexual abuse—especially of children—has continued because of a lack of information sharing between and, it must be said, within the various relevant agencies.

Like the Justice 2 Committee, I welcome the introduction of home detention curfews as part of a package of measures to facilitate the transition of offenders back into the community. However, like the committee, I recognise that HDCs cannot stand alone; other appropriate support measures will need to be put in place for offenders who are on HDCs. The other side of that coin is that such offenders must take responsibility for their actions and must be aware from the outset that conditions that are over and above the standard conditions for release are attached to HDCs. That point is vital if we are to gain public support for the measure. As Cathy Jamieson said to the committee, HDCs should not be seen as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

There has been broad support for the measures that the bill contains. It is regrettable that Annabel Goldie felt obliged to show her opposition to many of the bill's central proposals by failing to agree to the committee's stage 1 report. To me, those proposals seem both rational and reasonable. The aim of improving partnership working between all the agencies that are involved in the management and rehabilitation of offenders is perfectly sensible—except to Annabel Goldie and the Tories. Perhaps that is why Bill Aitken wrongly criticised the youth court in Lanarkshire, which is widely acknowledged to be an excellent example of inter-agency working that has been bought into not only by the police, the procurator fiscal and social work services in North and South Lanarkshire, but—most important—by the community, which thinks that the court is making a significant difference.

The aim of using HDCs as a bridging mechanism for reintroducing offenders into the community towards the end of their sentence has been welcomed by almost everyone, except Miss Goldie and her colleagues in the Tory party. The Executive is taking a reasonable and balanced approach to tackling offending and modernising the criminal justice system in Scotland. Unfortunately, it seems that the Tories are more intent on using an important issue as a political football than they are on improving the situation; they are more interested in rhetoric than in facing up to their responsibilities as legislators.

I am pleased to be able to support the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill and I look forward with interest to the outcome of the detailed scrutiny of the bill that will take place at stage 2.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I express my regrets to Paul Martin, but we must now move to the winding-up speeches.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Last December, we had a good parliamentary debate on reducing reoffending. As usual, it was the Tories who said that simply scrapping the early-release scheme would solve the problem of reoffending. Annabel Goldie has reiterated that view today. The Tories' position is wrong—the bill will address the problem.

In December's debate, I admitted:

"The current figure of 55 per cent for those sentenced to between three and six months in prison is too high. The figure of 60 per cent for those who reoffend within two years is also too high."—[Official Report, 16 December 2004; c 13018.]

Jackie Baillie cited a figure of 66 per cent, but whether the reoffending rate is 60 per cent or 66 per cent, it is too high and we must tackle the problem. I think that the bill will do just that. The Executive has the policies to do something about the situation and the bill is part of the solution. It is a shame that, since last December, the Tories have offered no practical alternatives and it is disappointing that Annabel Goldie dissented from the Justice 2 Committee's stage 1 report simply because it did not advocate the scrapping of early release.

Whether someone has been in prison for three months or three years when they get out is irrelevant to reoffending; what they need is effective rehabilitation and monitoring on release. The bill represents a significant step forward in the management of offenders and seeks to focus all parts of the criminal justice system on reducing reoffending.

Stewart Stevenson said that the aim of the bill was to reduce reoffending by 2 per cent. The committee's report states:

"The Committee notes that the Executive believes that the Bill could reduce reoffending by 3% and considers this goal to be reasonable."

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The member may not be aware that the Minister for Justice has written to the Justice 2 Committee to clarify that there was a small error in that statement and that 2 per cent is the correct figure. In other words, the report contains a mistake.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I accept that; I did not know that that was the case because I had not seen the minister's letter.

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

I can provide further clarification. It is important that we do not get caught up in the notion that the bill is the only thing that will matter when it comes to the target for reducing reoffending. As I said earlier in the debate, the target that has been set is preliminary and I would like the national advisory board to reconsider it in the future.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

As the minister has said, the bill is a step forward, but we need better joint working.

The Liberal Democrats support the aims of the bill, but if we are to make a significant impact on reoffending, we must use social and economic policies to bring to bear on the lives of offenders a wider range of services, such as those that are provided by housing, health, education, employment and financial service agencies.

In closing the debate for the Liberal Democrats, I will focus on some aspects of the bill that I whole-heartedly support and which will, with hard work, reduce the high levels of reoffending in Scotland to which I have referred. As Donald Gorrie said, short sentences just do not work. Some 80 per cent of the women in Cornton Vale prison are on very short sentences. I believe that the home detention curfew scheme will offer them and many others the chance to get out early, which must be positive.

We have to admit that there are people in our prisons who should not be there. Eighty-two per cent of prison sentences are for less than six months and there is no statutory aftercare or supervision for those sentenced to less than four years. Prison is not working. Twenty per cent of people who are in prison are there for fine defaulting—that is ludicrous. Prison is a place of punishment and reformation for those who have committed the most serious of crimes.

I hope that the HDC scheme will relieve the pressure on our prisons, although I note that, to be released on the scheme, prisoners must already have served a short prison sentence. As the minister said, they must earn the right to get an HDC. Bill Butler and my colleague Jeremy Purvis outlined which prisoners will be eligible and how they will be eligible. That is clear and it must be welcomed. I would like those currently given ineffective short prison sentences to receive strong restorative sentences in conjunction with the curfews. The scheme has been shown to be a strong link between the support agencies and the Prison Service.

The bill provides for the establishment of community justice authorities, through which, as has been mentioned, councils will work together on a statutory basis to improve the consistency and quality of the service throughout local authorities. The sharing of information and implementation of best practice are also needed. Obviously, there are concerns about the CJAs but, as long as island authorities are respected in any structure, councils will have nothing to fear. As smaller authorities work together, that can only improve practice. Moreover, I suggest that there may not be a huge change in the large urban areas. Ministers will be able to ensure compliance, but I would like an assurance from the minister that that power will not be used lightly—it should be used only after serious problems have been identified and all other avenues have been exhausted.

Finally, I highlight the measures enabling the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to recover assets from criminals. Nothing deters people more from an activity than if the consequences will hit them in their pocket. That is one of the most effective punishments. If someone profits from criminal activities, they should pay the money back. That measure has been successful in England and in Northern Ireland and I look forward to seeing the recovery of millions of pounds from criminals in Scotland.

The bill offers a real chance to create a culture in our local authorities and our criminal justice system of tackling reoffending. In any system, the primary concern is for justice for the victim. That will remain the case, but true justice can be achieved by ensuring that a strong restorative sentence is put in place and that the offender is managed so that he or she does not reoffend. As Robin Harper said, the issue is all about early intervention. I support the bill and encourage members to support the motion, thereby rejecting the failed policies of the Tories and sending a strong signal of our commitment to reduce reoffending.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

There has been consensus in the chamber this morning in so far as everyone wants improvements in the rate of reoffending in Scotland. However, the main proposals in the bill are not the way to achieve that objective. Changing the structure will not solve the problem. That is not just the view of the Conservatives but—crucially—the view that is shared by COSLA and others in the front line of the management of offenders, who stress—

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

Will the member give way?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am precisely 37 minutes into my speech.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Thirty-seven seconds. If the member does not mind, I will make a little progress.

That view is shared by most people in the front line of service delivery, who stress that the emphasis should be on activity that works, rather than on putting in place a structure that is aimed at delivering that activity.

Like my colleague Annabel Goldie—

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

rose—

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

If the member does not mind, I will press on.

Like my colleague Annabel Goldie, I find it difficult to understand why the Executive is so reluctant to allow the existing criminal justice social work units to bed down. Then there could be a proper assessment of how they are working and any future plan would be devised from informed comment, which is a crucial point. Instead, the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition is railroading its way through genuine and reasonable concerns, while proclaiming that its now well-documented addiction to consultation is born out of a desire to listen.

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

The member will have read the evidence that the committee received from Councillor Eric Jackson from COSLA. He said:

"We are saying that the bill is a positive piece of legislation, which we broadly welcome, but it is only part of the answer."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 12 April 2005; c 1494.]

That is exactly what the minister said, and what the Executive coalition is stating.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Equally, the general thrust from the Association of Directors of Social Work was that the existing system is working well and should be given time to bed down. As always in the Parliament, there is a rush to legislate where legislation simply is not needed. This is another example of that, and people in Scotland and in my party are absolutely fed up with it. Now is the time to say that enough is enough.

In short, people in Scotland are being offered the worst of all possible worlds: on the one hand, a Government that claims to listen through consultation and then does nothing; and on the other hand, a Government that acts in a high-handed manner—as with the present bill—without bothering to listen.

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

On that point—

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am sorry, I really have to move on.

Section 9 of the bill states that information is to be shared among all the responsible authorities. That is not only sensible but is being achieved at present without creating the new community justice authorities, whose responsibilities will potentially conflict with those of existing organisations, and which—more important—will incur costs that would be better spent supporting real action to deliver front-line services.

Jackie Baillie and others have asked what the Conservatives would do. We would allocate sufficient resources to ensure continuity of rehabilitation programmes such as literacy and numeracy programmes, drug and alcohol programmes and debt management programmes, which start in prison and which must continue in the community to ensure the greatest chance of a successful outcome.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am sorry; I must press on.

Confidence in the criminal justice system is being constantly eroded by the failure of a sentence to mean what it says. I am baffled that Stewart Stevenson and the Scottish National Party do not appear to have any reservations about the introduction of home detention curfews, which will merely serve to aggravate the problem with automatic early release by releasing prisoners even earlier.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

rose—

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The concerns about home detention curfews do not stop there. To address the point that Bill Butler made earlier, when HDCs were introduced in England, the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, made it clear that he had no plans to provide for electronic tagging to facilitate the early release of serious or sexual offenders. However, as we know, under the home detention curfew scheme in England, people convicted of manslaughter, actual and grievous bodily harm, assaulting a police officer, drug dealing, cruelty to children, sex offences, burglary, robbery and theft have all been released.

While being vague about the specific categories of prisoner who would be eligible for the scheme, the minister has said that sex offenders and violent offenders will not be included. She must now give a cast-iron guarantee that that will be the case. It is legitimate to ask for such a guarantee given the experience in England.

In conclusion, I very much regret that our discussion of this important subject fails to concentrate on the delivery of front-line services, which is an essential aspect of the rehabilitation process.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I begin by referring to Tricia Marwick's speech, which I thought was absolutely excellent. It brought together clearly and concisely the reasons why it is important that we put these structures in place. It is vital, in cases such as the one that she detailed, that we ensure that we have co-operation among all the bodies that members have mentioned. I would have expected the Tories, having listened to Tricia Marwick's speech, to begin to wonder whether they have made a mistake and to change their minds about their opposition to the bill. Clearly, structures play an important part.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

No, not just now.

I am sure that the minister agrees that the bill in itself will not make any difference to reoffending rates; but it will put in place the structures that will allow organisations such as the SPS, local authorities and others to co-operate closely in an organised and structured fashion. That is extremely important. As Jackie Baillie said, the current situation is partly reliant on the good will of those in charge of the various bodies throughout the country. That is fine where we have willing, able and motivated individuals who go the extra mile to work together and to integrate services. However, where that is not the case, we are letting down individuals and the communities that they come from. That must change.

The creation of CJAs will mean that there are bodies that are directly responsible for ensuring that various groups work together, that a high standard of service is maintained and that all groups work together to cut reoffending. It is entirely logical that bodies that deal with offenders, such as the SPS, social work, housing, health, education, employment, family services and other support providers, should all be involved in working together to address offending behaviour. However, it seemed to me and to other committee members that the sharing of information among the various bodies was somewhat haphazard. Therefore, it is crucial that, as soon as the CJAs are set up, all participating bodies ensure that information is shared speedily and accurately across the board. Only then will CJAs have the ability to work effectively.

On balance, I support CJAs, but I have certain caveats. Margaret Mitchell's statement that the SNP unreservedly supports the proposals is not true; we have some issues with HDCs. For example, Stewart Stevenson said earlier that Jonathan Aitken was released on an HDC. That led me to change my mind on the matter; I cannot possibly support such a terrible measure. Seriously, though, unlike the Tories, I can see some merit in HDCs, but only if additional support services are either included as mandatory conditions or available as voluntary options.

There are three standard conditions of the curfew agreement that must be met: the curfew condition itself; the requirement to be of good behaviour; and the requirement not to commit an offence. There is no disagreement about the need for there to be standard conditions that apply to everyone who is released on an HDC. However, the committee felt that, if we really wanted to cut reoffending, there ought to be a package of additional support measures that address an offender's behaviour and which, like the standard conditions, are mandatory. Jeremy Purvis and Karen Whitefield both mentioned that point.

The committee heard that view expressed in evidence when, for example, Sue Brookes from Cornton Vale said that HDCs would be particularly useful for female offenders, to assist stability and allow better access to services in the community, particularly if conditions requiring access to particular services are attached. Those additional conditions would be tailored to suit the individual, as some people would clearly be helped by an additional drug rehabilitation course or a course to help them to deal with their alcohol problems, while others might require help with literacy or perhaps even employment training.

In some cases, it might be felt that there is no need for additional conditions. If that is the case, that is fine. However, each case must be dealt with on its own merits. By making the supplementary conditions mandatory in those cases where that is appropriate, HDCs would be much more effective. There is evidence to support that.

Professor McManus of the Parole Board for Scotland said that the most successful schemes that he had seen were in the United States of America. He said that those schemes

"all started off by pretending that they could work by keeping the person in a house, but every single one of them had to give in and use some form of supervision to assist the person in addressing the issues that come up in the domestic situation and those that gave rise to offending in the first place."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 3 May 2005; c 1551.]

When the minister gave evidence to the committee, she did not seem convinced about the need for additional mandatory conditions and said that it was up to individuals to take responsibility. I agree that people should take responsibility, but one of the problems with the group of people about whom we are talking is that they are the very people who do not take responsibility for their actions. That is why I believe that it is important that we include additional mandatory conditions where appropriate. Over and above the standard conditions and the use of additional mandatory conditions, support services should be available for those who are being released that they can choose to take up voluntarily.

It is rather unfortunate that the Conservatives have had a knee-jerk response to the idea of HDCs. If risk assessments are carried out, only low-risk prisoners are allowed onto the scheme and we ensure that, where it is deemed appropriate, additional mandatory conditions are added to the HDC to address an individual's offending behaviour, HDCs could be the best option for some prisoners. Further, if they help to cut reoffending, they will also be the best option for society and communities.

It is imperative that there is no public perception that HDCs are a get-out-of-jail-free card, which is how some Tory members have described them, and it is incumbent on the Executive to ensure that the use of HDCs is not seen as being a soft option. Certainly, they must not be used as a quick way of cutting prisoner numbers.

What has been said about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is most welcome, although I have some concerns. Mike Pringle said that he would look forward to the millions of pounds that would come back to the public purse. I would welcome that if it happens but, frankly, some of the people about whom we are talking will not pay or cannot pay and the system might not be as successful as we hope that it might be. However, it is absolutely right that we establish the principle that the people who are responsible for offences should pay compensation if they are able to.

I also welcome the fact that the Executive intends to tighten up on sex offenders. That is an important part of the bill and I was glad to hear what the minister said on the subject in her opening remarks.

Before I conclude, I apologise on behalf of Stewart Stevenson, who missed some of the closing speeches as he was called away at short notice on urgent business.

I support the general principles of the bill and feel that, although punishment must always play a part in sentencing, society benefits much more by ensuring that those who commit crime are given the opportunity to see that there is another way. Only by giving them that opportunity can we hope to address the alarming recidivism rate among offenders in Scotland. We must also remember that HDCs are not a get-out-of-jail-free card and remain a part of the sentence. The sentence is not concluded when the offender is released on an HDC; they can be recalled immediately to prison if it is felt that that should happen.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

This has been a useful debate. It is interesting to note that, in the course of the Justice 2 Committee's deliberations, a consensus has developed that we cannot afford to tolerate the status quo, despite the things that the Conservatives have said. Member after member—many of them committee members—has outlined the desperate problems that Scotland has with reoffending. The rate of reoffending is unacceptable and I think that it would be a dereliction of our duty if we failed to take action.

The committee has done a thorough job in attempting to advance a considered opinion on the wide range of issues that are associated with the bill. I thank all the individuals who participated in the process, including all those associated with the committee, for their work.

This morning, we have heard some eloquent, considered, passionate and thoughtful speeches, which enhance the Parliament's ability to do its job. That is why I say, with all sincerity, that I am profoundly disappointed that the Conservatives continue not to be influenced by the quality of the speeches from around the chamber on a range of justice-related matters. I know that there are some thoughtful, intelligent and compassionate people in the Conservative party—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Name them.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Individually, when one talks to them, they reflect intelligent thoughts, but when they come to the chamber collectively, they somehow fail to rise to the occasion. They consistently diminish themselves as individuals, and they diminish their party and, I would argue, the Parliament by not rising to the challenge in the way that other members do. The type of speech that they make contributes little to the process of having a constructive debate.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I know that the minister does not intend to be patronising, as that is not his nature, but surely he accepts that, if the Parliament exists for any purpose, it is for the articulation of views that might be different from those of the Executive and for the advancement of arguments that might be opposed by the Executive and other parties. Surely the proposition that, in this Parliament, it is flawed for a party to articulate a differing view, on the basis of representations that have been made to it by the public, and, in doing so, to create the very debate without which that view would not be heard, is nonsensical. Is the minister seriously condemning that as an unacceptable mode of parliamentary behaviour?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Would that that were what is happening, but it is not. If only the Tories were able to advance some intelligent arguments against what we are proposing and to marshal some evidence and statistics that would prove their case. In many justice debates, I have heard speeches in which members have opposed what Cathy Jamieson and I have been saying but have done so in a measured and thoughtful way. Being opposed to our proposals does not mean that members have to come in and parrot two slogans in a thoughtless manner.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No, thank you.

The Tories are unable to back up and justify their arguments. They diminish themselves and they diminish the Parliament.

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

Does the minister agree that it is a bit strange that although Ted Brocklebank—a member for Mid Scotland and Fife—is as concerned as I am about the Karen Dewar case, the Conservatives cannot understand the need for a statutory obligation for the police and local authorities to work together? If Ted Brocklebank was here, I am sure that he would recognise that if there was such working together we might not be in the situation that we are in.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I must question whether it is acceptable conduct for a member to include a specific reference to a member who is not present in the chamber and so cannot rise and explain his position if required.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I am not sure that Tricia Marwick asked Ted Brocklebank to rise and explain his position, but I take your point. I advise Tricia Marwick to watch out next time she is speaking.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I do not want to go into the point in respect of the individual, but the point that Tricia Marwick touched on is critical. Margaret Mitchell asked why we should not simply allow the co-operation and flexibility that exist at present to continue. Tricia Marwick—in a measured, concise and moving contribution—explained clearly why the status quo is not an option. Even if no other argument was put forward for why our proposals are right, her comments about the need for us to ensure action would suffice. We cannot allow the argument of those who say, "Give us more time and more money," or, "There need to be co-operation and flexibility."

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No, thank you.

We would be failing the public if we did not take steps to ensure that action is taken. The tragic case in Fife and the cases that have taken place in recent years in Edinburgh, Lanarkshire and Glasgow are evidence of the need for us to take action.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Will the minister give way?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Yes, certainly.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Please be brief, Mr Martin.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I have asked the minister before about a number of reviews of housing allocation in respect of registered sex offenders. I ask him, once and for all, whether we will reach a stage at which a policy is in place for all authorities in Scotland in respect of that allocation.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

A number of practical steps have been put in place. In September, there will be an update of the 1999 practice note on housing sex offenders. We are progressing joint training on enhanced risk assessment of sex offenders; we are providing accredited programmes both in prison and in the community; and we are preparing guidance to embed protocols for sharing information in local practice. I hope that Paul Martin will find some reassurance in the fact that those things are being done.

We believe that the argument for action has been made. Therefore, I must agree to disagree with many friends and colleagues with whom I have worked over the years, and Cathy Jamieson is in the same position. We are not prepared to say, "Leave us alone and things will turn out all right in the end." The evidence is not there to justify that.

We will come back on a number of specific points at stage 2. Bill Butler asked for clarity on the interface between the SPS and the proposed community justice authorities. There is on-going work on that and we will provide guidance, but we will return to the matter. Jackie Baillie asked for clarification of section 2(10). This is not the time to give specific commitments, but I say to Jackie Baillie that although we will have further discussions with COSLA on the powers of direction, we will do nothing that will constrain our ability to act effectively if that is required. Some of the points about social work funding were misplaced. More money is going in than ever before. I do not have enough time to go into the other detailed arguments that were made.

In conclusion, the case for action and change has been made. If we take the opportunity that is afforded us, we can make changes and improvements for a difficult section of the population; Stewart Stevenson outlined some of the difficulties very well. The Executive is committed to taking action and I hope that the Parliament will support us in that process.

Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is consideration of a financial resolution. I ask Hugh Henry to move motion S2M-2933, on the financial resolution in respect of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Management of Offenders etc. (Scotland) Bill, agrees—

(a) to the following expenditure out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund—

(i) expenditure of the Scottish Administration in consequence of the Act; and

(ii) increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of that Fund under any other enactment; and

(b) to any payment required to be made by virtue of the Act.—[Hugh Henry.]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question on the motion will be put at decision time.

Identification Cards

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a statement by Tom McCabe on identification cards. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I welcome the opportunity to update the Parliament on the identity card scheme that is being proposed at Westminster. It is not long since the Identity Cards Bill was re-introduced at Westminster, so it is helpful to state our position on the bill and set out how the proposals will affect Scotland.

First, I make it clear once again that the proposals for an identity card scheme are confined to reserved policy areas. It is neither for me nor for any Scottish minister to seek to persuade the Parliament of the merits of the United Kingdom Government's proposals—that is a job for the Westminster Parliament and its representatives. Our role, if Westminster seeks to legislate in ways that might raise questions on areas of policy that are devolved to this Parliament, is to ensure that the devolution settlement is respected and maintained. That is the job that we have been doing on the identity card scheme. We have followed the development of proposals; investigated their implications; maintained a dialogue with Westminster and Whitehall; and, where necessary, worked to influence the shaping of the policy so that Scotland's freedom to make its own policy decisions in devolved areas is protected and sustained.

The Identity Cards Bill does not encroach on devolved matters and therefore it does not need a Sewel motion in this Parliament. I repeat our previously stated position that we are satisfied that the provisions of the bill and the powers that it would create are for reserved purposes only.

Our position on the use of identity cards in Scotland has been clear all along: we do not wish to link them to the provision of devolved services. The bill devotes an entire clause to provisions that state clearly that if we changed our minds on that critical point and wanted to allow the use of identity cards for devolved purposes in Scotland we could do so only by legislating in a specific act of the Scottish Parliament. We believe that there can be no more solid assurance about our approach to the scheme with regard to Scotland.

If and when the bill is enacted, Scots who apply for designated services that are the responsibility of the UK Government, such as passports or Department for Work and Pensions benefits, will face the same requirements as other UK residents.

I also take the opportunity to allay concerns about the proposed national identity register. An individual's information will not be recorded on the register before it has been checked by the enrolment service and there are strict limits on the information that can be held. I hope that we can put behind us the unhelpful confusion that has been generated around identity cards. They are Westminster's responsibility and the bill will not affect how Scots decide about devolved matters.

By contrast, and to avoid any confusion, I take a few moments to draw to the Parliament's attention the work that we are doing to make a positive difference to the people of Scotland by making public services more efficient. We will harness technology to introduce voluntary smart cards, which will enable citizens to enjoy easier, better access to the public services that they want to use. Sometimes, our work in that area is wrongly confused with the issues around identity cards. In fact, the smart cards that we are developing are different in almost every way from the proposed identity card scheme. As we promised in the partnership agreement, we have evaluated the local pilot projects that assessed the desirability of the creation of a national citizen's entitlement card for appropriate public services, taking great care to protect individual privacy.

The cards are intended to improve citizens' access to public services and to allow people to use services in convenient, joined-up ways. The evaluation report shows that 280,000 young people have Young Scot cards, 60,000 of which are smart cards that provide access to education, transport, library, leisure, recreation and retail services; that 50,000 other citizens have a card that provides access to transport, library and leisure services; that a nationally accredited voluntary proof-of-age scheme has been introduced; that pilot testing is complete for cashless catering and library services; and that pilot testing continues for concessionary and integrated transport applications.

In addition, early case studies show an increased uptake of free school meals. In the first pilot school in Dumfries and Galloway, the increase was 20 per cent in the first month, and takings for school meals showed a general increase of £100 per day. Feedback from Dundee identified savings of £20,000 per annum from reduced paperwork in processing concessionary taxi fares and a potential saving of £100,000 by reducing the risk of fraud in the concessionary fares scheme.

Savings are also achievable by local authorities packaging multiple entitlements to services together on a single card, rather than issuing separate cards for individual services. Of course, the citizen benefits from having to use only a single card. We are beginning to turn that idea into reality.

Our next major step is the introduction of the national concessionary fares scheme in 2006. We are working with councils to develop the technology, including smart cards, to support the scheme, for which 1.2 million older people will be eligible.

I stress that the Scottish smart card will not be an identity card. It will be entirely voluntary and will not include biometric data. It has support from all 32 Scottish local authorities and it will allow citizens to use fewer cards than at present. One card could cover a range of services, such as libraries, leisure and transport. Most important, it will deliver better, more joined-up and more efficient public services. Just as important is that any expansion of the card's use to a wider range of devolved services will require the individual citizen's informed consent.

Early indications are promising, but there is much more that we can do. I hope that the Parliament will agree that we should focus on making practical improvements to public services. In doing so, we will take care to be sensitive about civil liberty considerations and to ensure that any extension to the range of services that is available through using the entitlement card will require the individual citizen's informed consent.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The minister will take questions on the issues that his statement raised. I will allow 20 minutes or so for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. I remind members who wish to ask a question that it is indeed a question that they are to ask, not a speech and a question or five questions in one; it is one question.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I will follow that maxim. The minister said:

"The Identity Cards Bill does not encroach on devolved matters".

I understand that some devolved organisations will have access to the national identity register. If devolved institutions such as the police or other organisations that are accountable to the Scottish Executive and to the Parliament can access the national identity register, how can the minister's statement that the bill does not encroach on devolved matters be correct?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I am not aware of how Mr Swinney arrived at that understanding. I have given an assurance about how the system will be used for devolved services. We have never been anything other than clear about the access that the police would have to the identity register. We have said many times that we have no intention whatever of hampering the legitimate work of the police on the detection or prevention of crime or on national security issues. I said that their job is hard enough. We have no intention whatever of hampering them in their important work.

I do not know to which other services Mr Swinney refers, but if he gives me more detail, I will be happy to try to deal with that in correspondence.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

On behalf of Scotland's senior citizens, has the minister sought clarification from the UK Government about the cost implications for them of obtaining an ID card to access their pensions? Does he agree that that must be free of charge?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Such matters are clearly for the United Kingdom Government. As I said in my statement, we have engaged in a series of conversations with it to protect the devolution settlement and to explain our view in Scotland on such matters. I would understand any concern that senior citizens might express if they had to pay a fee to access their pensions. I would be more than happy to make such representations on the member's behalf when we next speak to the United Kingdom Government.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, almost a whole half of which was about ID cards. Will he go a little further on the issue that John Swinney touched on? Given that the minister has been clear about the piece of plastic—people will not use an ID card to access devolved services—and given that the motion that my party lodged and to which the Parliament agreed was about the use of the register by devolved institutions, will he give a clear and simple assurance that in no way and in no circumstances will access to devolved services be restricted, limited or affected by information that is held on the register and is disclosed to devolved institutions?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I am glad that Mr Harvie received the statement, although I am not convinced that he read it or that he listened to what I said, because I just gave exactly that assurance to the Parliament. I also gave such assurances at a private meeting with Mr Harvie a few months ago. At that time, he accepted that assurances were given, but he felt the need for us to make a statement to Parliament and we were happy to comply.

It is not the Scottish Executive's job to write in big letters on a postcard what we are saying. We have made a statement to the Parliament; I think that it was clear and that most members will understand what we have said.

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

Will the minister outline what the relationship will be between the national identity scheme commissioner and devolved bodies that the UK legislation may require to provide information and associated documents—about the residency of Scottish residents, for example—to ensure transparency in that relationship?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I can certainly give the assurance that we want to maintain such transparency. From our point of view, we will engage in discussions to ensure that that is the case as far as we can. I have seen no indication that we will encounter difficulties.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

I am interested in the point that privacy will be regarded at all costs. The minister talked about the introduction of smart cards. Is he willing to list for those who may sign up for smart cards all the organisations and departments that will have access to the computerised information? For example, my five-year-old came home with a smart card from primary 1, which has all his information on it. The voluntary element is not great. If I do not want him to have a smart card to access services, what is the alternative? I would like to know where the information is, how it got there and how it ended up on his smart card.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

The alternative is simple: if any citizen, irrespective of their age, does not want to use a smart card, they will access services conventionally.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The minister has said expressly that the Executive does not wish to link ID cards to the provision of devolved services. Will the much more restricted use of ID cards in Scotland mean that the cards will cost less in Scotland?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

People in Scotland are citizens of the United Kingdom. They may require a form of identity card in connection with a passport, for instance. An identity card and a passport may be the same document in the future. As citizens of the United Kingdom, people in Scotland should share the same burden as people in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the voluntary smart card be separate from or amalgamated with the national concessionary fares scheme card? In either event, will we still have the concessionary fares scheme in 2006?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I will deal with the second question first. Our firm intention is to have a national concessionary fares scheme in 2006—that is a fundamental plank of the partnership agreement programme. There are parties in the Parliament that are rather jealous of that intention, but what happens depends on how people present themselves to the electorate, and some of us have more success than others in that respect.

On how the smart card will be used, citizens have always required some form of photographic identification to access concessionary travel. An important aspect that a parliamentary committee has rightly highlighted is the concern about the potential for operators to use fraudulent practices to increase their income through concessionary travel. We want to ensure that access to the benefit is as wide as possible for the citizens of Scotland, but we also—rightly—want to ensure that public funds are used vigilantly. Smart card technology will be important in ensuring that we pay the appropriate amount for the delivery of services. Lest anyone should introduce additional confusion to the debate, I stress again that people who want to access free concessionary travel have always been required to prove that they are entitled to that benefit. Individuals would understand that requirement.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Will the minister clarify the relationship between what he has described and proof-of-age cards, about which there have been various proposals? Following the Parliament's consideration of licensing and smoking laws, there have been various proposals for voluntary or compulsory proof-of-age cards. How would those fit in? If the Parliament goes ahead with compulsory or voluntary proof-of-age cards, will they be covered by the smart card or will they be a separate issue?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

As I said in my statement, we see great benefits in citizens being able to access as many services as possible with one card, and we see considerable benefits in the smart card also being used as a proof-of-age card and, in effect, becoming the Young Scot card. An important fundamental principle is involved. All such things are done with the informed consent of the citizen, irrespective of their age, and therefore individuals can make choices on all those initiatives.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I ask him to focus on the designated services that are the responsibility of the UK Government, but that Scots will require to access. In particular, will he give an indication of the potential cost to businesses in Scotland that will be incurred by the installation of the sophisticated equipment that is necessary to read cards in order to allow employers to check the entitlement of employees to work in the UK?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

That is very much a matter for the United Kingdom Government. Earlier, I said that our interest is in protecting the devolution settlement and the interests of people in Scotland. In the light of the powers that are available to the Parliament, I ask Mrs Mitchell to consult her Westminster representative—who will probably be a Labour member of Parliament—on such details.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I direct the minister's attention to paragraph 1 of schedule 1 of the Identity Cards Bill, which is on personal information. That paragraph states:

"The following may be recorded in an individual's entry in the Register—

(a) his full name;

(b) other names by which he is or has been known;

(c) his date of birth;

(d) his place of birth"

and so on. The minister will probably know a few Scots who work in London—perhaps his colleagues. There are also Scots who live in Scotland. In issuing identity cards, how will that data be verified before being placed on the national identity register, given that Scottish data that are owned and controlled by the Scottish Parliament will require to be verified? Is it not true that, contrary to what the minister said, there will be implications for devolved areas?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

It is pretty bold to say that the information is owned and controlled by the Parliament. I do not necessarily agree with that and do not think that Scotland's citizens would like to think that we own and control that information.

I know a considerable number of people who work in London around the Palace of Westminster—I even know the alleged leader of the Scottish National Party, although why he is leading that party down in London is a mystery to me, as it is to everyone else in Scotland.

On the data, the enrolment service will control the way in which anything is entered on the national identity register and strict protocols will ensure that only appropriate information is inserted in it.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

As we have reached the end of the debate before the time that is set out in the Business Bulletin and before we are due to start the next item of business, I suspend the meeting under rule 7.4.1 of standing orders until 11.40.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE — General Questions

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what research has been commissioned in Scotland into the causes of mental health disorders and, in particular, any links with cannabis use. (S2O-7142)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The Scottish Executive has supported a range of research into the causes of mental health problems, including studies of genetic and early-life risk factors for the development of problems later in life, but it has not commissioned any research specifically into cannabis use as a possible cause of mental health problems.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I thank the minister for her frank response but express a little disappointment in it. Is she aware that a respected academic in Scotland, Professor Neil McKegany, was recently invited to the United States of America by the Unites States director of national drug control policy to discuss the health dangers of cannabis? That threat is taken very seriously in the United States. Given that Scotland does not want to seem to be behind the United States, does the minister think that it would be appropriate for us to consider invoking the skills of Professor McKegany, so that he can advise us on the illegal use of cannabis in Scotland?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

My initial response was not intended to imply that we are not aware of some of the research that suggests links between cannabis and mental health problems. Miss Goldie will be aware that the core message of our know the score campaign is that all drug misuse is dangerous. She may also be aware that the Home Secretary has asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to consider all the new evidence for links between cannabis and mental health problems and that in September it will make recommendations on the classification of cannabis. This is a reserved matter, but we will study the council's advice carefully, in case it has implications for our policy.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it is making towards the establishment of forest crofts. (S2O-7175)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I have asked for an interim report on options from the forest crofts steering group following its meeting on Monday next week. I will publish a further report and recommendations later this year.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the minister's commitment to forest crofts, which give great opportunities for rural development. Does the minister agree that, given that the majority of Forestry Commission land lies outwith the crofting counties, it would make sense for the draft Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill to allow for the creation of new crofts outwith that arbitrary line, in order to maximise the potential of forest crofts?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I will read with interest responses from people outwith the crofting counties to the consultation on the draft Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill. I am aware that on the island of Arran there is a significant body of opinion that it would be helpful for the community to move in the direction of establishing forest crofts. The critical point is that we are seeking to give communities the opportunity to have more say over the use of the land on which they live. Eleanor Scott will be aware that on Monday the Forestry Commission Scotland will launch its national forest land scheme, which will enhance opportunities that were created by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Keeping it in the family, I call Rob Gibson.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am unimpressed by the urgency with which the minister is pursuing this matter. The statement of support for forest crofts was made six months ago, but the first meeting of the tripartite group will not take place until Monday. Will the minister indicate how the timetable for introducing forest crofts can be dovetailed with the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill, so that we can have an idea of whether there will be more than one form of forest croft because of existing law?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Mr Gibson should be aware that Monday's meeting is the first at which all the parties that are now involved in the steering group will get together, but that the core members of the group—the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, the Forestry Commission and the Crofters Commission—first met on 7 March. Monday's meeting is not about starting work but about expanding the work that is being done by including in the steering group both Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Crofting Foundation, to represent the views of working crofters. We are treating the matter as significant. We recognise the logic of progressing it alongside crofting reform and new opportunities for forestry land to be used for affordable housing, which will be the subject of the announcement that will be made on Monday. I hope that Mr Gibson will agree that that is a coherent agenda of improved opportunities for rural and crofting communities.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will make a decision on the location of the headquarters of sportscotland and what criteria it used in assessing each application. (S2O-7121)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The matter remains under active consideration by ministers, but I regret that I cannot be specific about when an announcement will be made. The criteria that are being applied to inform our decision are as recommended by the Executive for all relocation reviews. Those involve a first stage that balances socioeconomic benefit with business efficiency equally, followed by a second stage that focuses on the economic and financial appraisal of options.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Given the decision that was made late in the summer of last year about the development of national facilities for sport, it is crucial, owing to the uncertainty that is faced by the staff concerned, that final decisions are made about the location of the HQ. Does the minister agree that it would be fitting for the HQ to be located within a national athletics sports arena in a city that has invested heavily in sport and in an area that faces the greatest challenge to health and well-being in Scotland? Does he agree that the boost that the HQ would give to the regeneration of the east end of Glasgow would also benefit sportscotland?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

As Parliament would expect, Mr McAveety makes a persuasive case for the part of Glasgow that he represents. All I can say is that these matters are under active consideration. I take his point about the uncertainty that is being experienced by staff and I assure him that the staff will be the first to know about the decision.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Mr Watson is stuck in traffic, so question 4 is withdrawn.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-16433 by Peter Peacock on 18 May 2005, whether it will publish responses to the consultation on the draft Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill on 5 July 2005. (S2O-7146)

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

As confirmed by Peter Peacock, in his reply of 18 May 2005, all non-confidential responses to the consultation will be placed in the Scottish Executive library on 5 July—20 working days after the closing date of 7 June. The responses will also be on the website by 12 July.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Does the minister acknowledge that there has been a substantial groundswell of representations in support of the retention of school boards? Does he also acknowledge that, in 2004, the Executive republished the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 with a new foreword, which sensibly endorsed school boards and stated that they are in a unique position as a mechanism for the two-way flow of information between parents, schools and education authorities?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Of course school boards are unique, because the statute does not allow any alternative. The purpose of the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill is to increase parental involvement. There have been a substantial number of responses to the consultation—more than 1,000. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, some responses have stated that school boards in their current form should be retained, but others have argued for change. The Executive will consider all the responses over the summer and publish its response in the autumn.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The minister will be aware that, as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, many of the responses that are currently being circulated to MSPs are very supportive of school boards. Can the minister reassure members and parents that, whatever form parent involvement takes, it will have a statutory basis so that parents feel that their voice is heard and, more important, acted on?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Yes, indeed. We will ensure that the arrangements are improved because, as Mary Mulligan may know, at any one time only 1 per cent of parents are involved in school boards. It is our intention to broaden that to include more parents, so that the views of more parents will assist the development of education in Scotland.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The minister said in his earlier answer that the objective of the bill is to "increase parental involvement" in the management of schools. Although strong claims are being made by parents and school boards for the retention of school boards, what specific mechanisms will the minister put in place to guarantee that whatever comes out of the bill will lead to an increase in parental involvement?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

We make every effort in the draft Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill to increase parents' involvement. The details of how we will do that have been set out in the draft bill, but we will consider all the responses that we received during the consultation period, which has just ended. For example, as Mr Swinney says, we will consider how parental involvement in the management of schools can be enhanced. We will publish our proposals in the autumn.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has a policy on responding to inquiries from MPs about individual constituents in respect of devolved matters. (S2O-7147)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

All letters from MPs or MSPs on devolved matters are seen and replied to by ministers. Those that relate to operational matters are replied to by the Scottish Executive agency concerned.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I agree with that approach. Does the minister agree that constituents look for whichever elected representative they approach to address their individual concerns about government, irrespective of whether it relates to a council, Holyrood or Westminster? Does he share my concern that the Home Office has refused me an answer to a question that I raised on behalf of one of my constituents, on the ground that the issue is reserved? Will he, along with his colleagues, make representations on behalf of us all to have that new practice reversed?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Ministers here are responsible and accountable for the areas under their responsibility. I reiterate the point that our responsibilities are to reply—and we do—to all letters that we receive from both members of Parliament and members of the Scottish Parliament.

The matter raised relating to Westminster is one for the Government at Westminster. It is not for me or any other minister in this place to tell it how to run its business; I would not expect Mr Adam to suggest that it was. All that I can do is commend to him my own policy: I speak to my MP and he takes the matter up.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Does what the minister has just said mean that there is no agreement between the Executive and Westminster departments on a consistent approach to dealing with constituency correspondence from the other legislature? Like Brian Adam, I have had great difficulty in dealing with matters when my constituents have raised reserved issues. I have not received a very satisfactory response.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I can only repeat that our approach to the issue is as I have described. We respond to letters from members of Parliament and from members of the Scottish Parliament. Mr Pringle may know that, for example, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Work and Pensions provide a ministerial response to letters from MSPs. However, those matters are an issue for a Government in a different place.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive what support it is providing for people living with Asperger's syndrome. (S2O-7094)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The Scottish Executive is working to improve services across health, education and social care agencies for people with Asperger's syndrome and their families. Our programme of work is improving awareness and understanding of Asperger's syndrome and other autistic spectrum disorders and it will give people quicker access to diagnosis and the supports that are appropriate to individual needs.

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

Does the minister agree that it is very important to give high-quality support to people who are living with Asperger's syndrome, such as my constituent Morna Edmond, who approached me on the subject? Such support is important as it helps people with Asperger's syndrome to live full and enriched lives. Will she also ensure that the Executive raises awareness among all general practitioners about Asperger's syndrome and that people who are living with Asperger's syndrome are part of that information awareness programme?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Absolutely. We must continue to raise awareness. We have been appointing autism co-ordinators in different regions of Scotland—the Executive has funded a co-ordinator in the Borders. I would be pleased if Jeremy Purvis and his constituent would work with the co-ordinator in the Borders to supply information and support to GPs. His constituent understands the issues as a sufferer of Asperger's, but also as someone who does not have learning disabilities and is keen to be involved.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to increase the level of public participation in the running of the NHS. (S2O-7105)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Public engagement is important in planning for NHS services and ensuring that the NHS is responsive to the public's needs and we are already doing a great deal on that. We have legislated for a statutory duty on NHS boards to involve the public, have established the Scottish health council and are setting up local advisory councils. We are setting up community health partnerships, each of which will have a public partnership forum. We will take forward the recommendations on public engagement and involvement in Professor David Kerr's report. In addition, this summer, I am holding annual reviews in public with all NHS boards. That is a substantial and far-reaching programme to continue and enhance public engagement in planning for and delivering NHS services.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

The minister will be aware that my proposal for a member's bill on direct elections to NHS boards is published in today's Business Bulletin . I hope that its resubmission will attract signatories of my previous proposal on the same matter as well as new signatories and I commend it to members. Will the minister indicate how the Executive is minded on the resubmitted proposal, which would extend direct democratic accountability and involve public participation?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I would want to consider that point once I have had a chance to examine Mr Butler's bill fully. As I indicated in my first answer, substantial pieces of work that are being undertaken in the health service will ensure that patients and the public are involved in determining how we organise our health service. In addition, senior elected representatives from each local authority are included on NHS boards, the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Act 2004 has ensured public involvement and the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 has ensured NHS participation in community planning. I argue that we ensure that the public's voice is heard on many issues, but I look forward to Mr Butler's bill with interest.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry, I do not have the question here. [ Interruption. ] To ask the Scottish Executive what help has been offered to producers in remote areas and islands to market their cattle and sheep. (S2O-7153)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The answer to the non-question is that, since 2001, the Scottish Executive has provided well over £500,000 towards beef and lamb marketing projects, resulting in a total investment of £1.2 million in remote areas and the islands.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for his non-answer. The sheep might be prepared to accept what he says but, to be frank, we in the Opposition do not like answers that leave many farmers and crofters in the lurch. We have asked the minister in the past about help with livestock transport costs and have had no answer. Will he reflect on the fact that we need to know how it will be made possible for farmers and crofters to continue to produce sheep and cattle in remote and island areas for the long term?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Rob Gibson is drifting away in his non-supplementary. I am sure that he is aware that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, the Minister for Transport and I are heavily engaged in determining how we produce a scheme that is satisfactory for the transport of northern isles livestock. It is not a question of our not having any ambitions or wishes to do so. As Rob Gibson is also aware, other representatives have approached the European Commission on that matter. We are committed to ensuring that the arrangements—not only the specifications of the vessels that might provide the transport, but the level of support—are adequate and appropriate to ensure that farmers and crofters in remote island communities will continue to be able to trade their livestock on the mainland.

NHS 24

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to create local call centres for NHS 24. (S2O-7145)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

As members are aware, the interim report from the independent NHS 24 review group that was set up in February was published on 2 June. The report makes recommendations for changes to improve the operational performance of NHS 24 and noted that NHS 24 was already developing better ways of delivering services to callers, including the setting up of mini-centres.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does the minister agree that local delivery will always be better than remote delivery because local delivery draws on local knowledge? Many of the villages in my constituency have names that do not appear on the Ordnance Survey map and confusion can arise because of that. Will the minister give us a date when some of the mini-centres might come into operation and start to serve local needs?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

There are some good examples in the Highlands. Highland NHS Board, the Scottish Ambulance Service and NHS 24 are planning to collocate staff providing out-of-hours services in Inverness. Good progress is being made with those plans. The aim is to benefit patients in the Highlands and Islands through that better co-ordination of out-of-hours services. It is also a matter of maximising local knowledge, to which the member refers.

There are some occasions when services are best provided locally, but there are other occasions when they are best provided on a national basis. Those are difficult decisions for us all to take, but I share the member's view that local mini-centres will make a positive impact in the provision of NHS 24's services, which are vital.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1721)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I expect to meet the Prime Minister at the G8 summit in July.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I remind the First Minister that the future of Ferguson Shipbuilders in Port Glasgow, one of only three shipyards remaining on the Clyde, and the jobs of the 300 people who work there depend entirely on its winning a Scottish Executive contract to build fisheries protection vessels. Will the First Minister tell his fisheries minister to stop dithering over the matter and instruct him to award that lifeline contract to Ferguson's now?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am obviously a bit restricted by the rules of procurement and tendering in going into all the details of the case, but I can assure Ms Sturgeon that we are examining the tenders for the contract very carefully. In particular, we are looking at the evidence that has been presented to us—and not just recently—on the actions of the Polish Government and Polish yards and the evidence that we took to the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Transport last October in relation to similar claims.

The only dithering that has been going on in relation to this issue has related to the contracts for fisheries protection vessels. I remind Ms Sturgeon that the last time we gave Ferguson's a contract for a fisheries protection vessel, her front-bench spokesperson Richard Lochhead said:

"Our fishermen will be holding their heads in their hands when they learn Ross Finnie has spent almost £8 million on a brand new boat to keep them in their place."

The last time we awarded a contract to Ferguson's, we were condemned by the Scottish National Party. The Government is determined to deliver for Scottish shipbuilding and to ensure that we have fisheries protection vessels in place.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I suggest that the First Minister raises his game. The work on the vessel has been commissioned by the Scottish Executive. The question is: will the work go to Poland or will it go to Port Glasgow? Is it not the case that the Executive has been told repeatedly that the Polish yard in question is being subsidised? It won a contract over Ferguson's last year with a bid that would not even cover the cost of the materials, for goodness' sake. I remind the First Minister that, thanks to the SNP taking action, the European Commission is now so concerned that it has launched a formal investigation into the Polish yard. What is it going to take to make him come down on the side of a Scottish industry, a Scottish shipyard and Scottish jobs? To quote Trish Godman—one of his own MSPs—why will he not show "some backbone"?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Not only is there plenty of backbone here, but there has been lots of action to try to ensure that Ferguson's not only wins the current contracts that are out to tender but, as in the past, has further contracts awarded to it, despite the opposition of the Scottish nationalist party. It is wrong to imply—as was done around the time of the visit to Brussels to which Ms Sturgeon alludes—that the problem could in some way be solved by transferring responsibility for the vessel that we are discussing from the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to the British Royal Navy, the British Government and the Ministry of Defence.

After the visit to Brussels, the SNP leadership called for us to reclassify the vessel as a grey vessel—in other words, a military ship. That would mean that it would pass into the hands of the Ministry of Defence, rather than the Scottish Parliament. That would also mean that Scottish fisheries protection was no longer considered the responsibility of this devolved Parliament, but was instead handed back to the Ministry of Defence and the British Government.

The SNP cannot have it both ways on this. I absolutely welcome its support and the support of any other party in the Parliament for the efforts that we have undertaken not only to help Scottish shipbuilding but to ensure that anybody who breaks the law and distorts state aid rules anywhere in the European Union is dealt with.

The SNP's intervention, although perhaps late, is very welcome to us. We should be acting on an all-party basis. At the same time, we need consistency, not hypocrisy. We need honesty for the workforce at Ferguson's, not rubbish that would lead it up the garden path and lead to the yard getting no contracts at all in the future.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The First Minister has just confirmed that there are many ways in which the Scottish Executive could have given the contract to Ferguson's by now; instead it has chosen to do nothing. Does he begin to understand the urgency and seriousness of the situation? Does he know that while he politicks, more than 100 jobs at Ferguson's have gone, that a further 21 will be lost two weeks from today unless the contract is awarded and that many more will follow? As even the local Labour MSP said yesterday, "we cannot wait." The contract should go to Ferguson's right now.

I suggest to the First Minister that instead of cowering in a corner in case someone in Europe gives him a row, he should take the decision and make it clear that if it is challenged he will defend it. That is called standing up for the national interest. Why will he not do it?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Miss Sturgeon's only two solutions to the issue are either to hand over responsibility to the Ministry of Defence, which would allow shipbuilding yards the length and breadth of Britain as well as yards in Poland to compete afresh for the tender, or to break the law, as she is now suggesting. That is utterly irresponsible. The best way to deal with any allegation of law breaking elsewhere in the European Union in relation to contracts is to have it investigated properly. That is what we called for—not in April, in the middle of an election campaign, but last October, when we first approached the European Union and, of course, the British Government about the issue. That has been, and will continue to be, our consistent approach in response to any evidence that has come either from Ferguson's or elsewhere. We are determined not only to stick to the law but to ensure that others elsewhere in the European Union stick to the law too. We are also determined to ensure that Scottish shipbuilding has the best chance possible, rather than condemn the Executive—or anybody else—for awarding fisheries protection vessel contracts to Scottish shipbuilding yards, as the SNP did not that long ago.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The First Minister has just confirmed that, all along, it has been the SNP that has come up with possible solutions and the Scottish Executive that has done absolutely nothing. Is he not aware that all Ferguson's shipyard wants is fair treatment and a fair go? While he dithers, jobs are being lost. Will he take a decision now in favour of a Scottish industry, a Scottish shipyard and Scottish jobs? Will he take that decision and defend it? Will he stand up for Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I repeat that the last time that Ferguson's got a fisheries protection vessel contract from the Executive, the SNP said that people would hang their heads because it was such a disaster for Scottish fishing. The SNP opposed that contract. It cannot now come in late—six months after we first raised the allegations—and claim that it is being consistent.

I welcome the SNP's conversion. I want this to be an all-party effort. I want to ensure that in this Parliament we stick together, we promote Scottish shipbuilding and we tackle those elsewhere in the European Union who, it has been alleged, have broken the rules. Let us be consistent about it and not say one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

As is my practice on such issues, I will now call the constituency member, Trish Godman.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Like the First Minister, I will take any support for Ferguson's, even if it is from Johnnys-come-lately. I point out to the SNP that the reason why we are having this discussion is that when Andy Kerr was Minister for Finance and Public Services—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question for the First Minister.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

When Andy Kerr was Minister for Finance and Public Services, at my pushing and shoving, he moved the money forward so that the ships could be built this year, and not next year, as planned originally.

Does the First Minister agree that we have to have complete confidence in Ferguson's workforce, as I am sure everyone in this room has? Will he assure me again that the Scottish Executive does not put Scottish companies at a disadvantage with regard to its interpretation of EU procurement rules and that it will do everything in its power to make sure that the order comes to Ferguson's? This is my final plea to the First Minister. The decision has to be made as soon as possible.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We are well aware of the urgency of the situation and Trish Godman's consistency in raising the issue. We are also well aware of Ross Finnie's and Andy Kerr's efforts to ensure that the work might be available should Ferguson's succeed at tender.

However, we have to be honest. We cannot give preferential treatment to one company, whether it in Scotland or anywhere else. We have to ensure that the tender process is carried out legally and properly. If there is an allegation that the process has been handled improperly elsewhere in the European Union, or for that matter, here in Scotland, we should—as we have done—demand that the European Commission investigate that allegation.

The rules have to be implemented fairly, properly and consistently, and that means that we have to implement them in that way too. Although we will do all that we can to secure a future for Scottish shipbuilding in all the remaining yards in Scotland and to ensure that there is fair play in the award of the contract, we cannot put one company at an advantage ahead of any others in a tender process that has already begun—otherwise, we would be breaking the law, and that would be wrong.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1722)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I hope that there will also be further discussion of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill. I remind the First Minister that on 10 March this year he told me:

"I believe that the early release of prisoners without condition is unacceptable to the people of Scotland and needs to be reviewed sensibly and in a judicial context."—[Official Report, 10 March 2005; c 15236.]

How does that square with the Minister for Justice's announcement that the Executive is to end unconditional early release of sex offenders on short-term sentences in advance of the publication of the report of the First Minister's own Sentencing Commission for Scotland, particularly in light of the comments made by Lord Macfadyen, the commission's chairman, that there is no justification for doing so before the review is complete?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The case for doing so is absolutely crystal clear. Although we seek advice from the Sentencing Commission, we are not duty-bound to accept it. We set up the Sentencing Commission to advise us on sentencing, but ultimate responsibility for sentencing lies with this Parliament and with the Executive, which reports to the Parliament. We will continue to take the actions that we see are required, but we will do so in a measured way, taking the advice of the Sentencing Commission as we go along.

In relation to sex offenders, I am not sure where Mr McLetchie's question was pointing—in different directions at the same time, which is perhaps a more familiar refrain from the SNP. However, if he is saying that we are right to end the early release of sex offenders, he should say so and he should welcome the Minister for Justice's announcement. If he is saying that we are wrong, he is contradicting everything that he has said in the chamber over the past few months.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Of course I welcome the wholly inadequate measure that was announced this morning as a tiny step along the road to a policy that, as the First Minister is well aware, we on this side of the chamber have been advocating for the past six years.

However, the truth of the matter is that today's announcement by the Minister for Justice is simply about tinkering with the conditions under which people are let out of jail. It will not keep people in prison conditions, which are necessary to protect the public. If the First Minister is prepared to ignore advice from the Sentencing Commission on the matter, why does he not just forget about the Sentencing Commission, as we have urged, and adopt our principled position of ending automatic early release for all categories of prisoner? Will he and the Executive finally accept the strength of the argument for doing so and support the amendment that we will lodge at stage 2 of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill to end automatic early release for all? Then there will be no more get-out-jail-free cards in Scotland.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There are occasions when laws need to be made in a hurry, but there are also many occasions when bad laws can be made in a hurry. We have made absolutely clear our commitment, not just in relation to the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill, to end automatic early release for sex offenders and, ultimately, for other offenders. However, we will do so sensibly and properly and we will think through the implications.

We will ensure that our prisons retain for longer periods of time under tighter conditions those who are a most serious threat to people in the local community, while creating new arrangements for those who are not a physical danger in the local community but who have been sentenced for other reasons. We will ensure that they are properly rehabilitated so that when they get back into society they do not turn back to robbery, vandalism or other crimes, but become useful members of society. That is what this morning's debate was all about.

It is entirely possible that the Scottish Conservatives missed the point, which is that, through the management of offenders, we are determined to reduce reoffending in Scotland. We are determined to ensure that we have tighter and better sentences for those who are serious sexual, physical, violent offenders. However, we are also determined that other offenders are brought back into the community in a way that ensures that, in the years that follow, they are less of a problem for the other members of the community than they were in the past.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Brief question and answer, please.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The First Minister should be aware that the public do not miss the point. They are well aware that in recent times some appalling offences have been committed by prisoners who were let out of jail early by the Scottish Executive. Frankly, the First Minister's arguments become more illogical by the minute. First we need a sentencing commission; now we do not. He told me previously in this chamber that decisions about early release should not be taken on the hoof—yet he has just taken a decision on the hoof. He told me that we should not have knee-jerk reactions on the issue—except when it is his knee that is doing the jerking. Will he finally take the action that is necessary to protect the public by ending automatic early release, or is the real truth behind today's announcement of yet more conditions that, in reality, the Scottish Executive has absolutely no intention of ending automatic early release?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I know that, historically, the Scottish Conservatives have a listening problem, but I hope that Mr McLetchie hears what I am saying for the umpteenth time in this chamber. Automatic early release will be ended, but we will do that properly, taking into account all the appropriate factors, and we will do so urgently in relation to sex offenders, where there is a legitimate concern in the community that needs to be addressed.

Through the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill, we will make sure that, because programmes have failed in Scotland in the past, in future programmes are in place to ensure that people do not reoffend and that they have either the skills or the change in attitude that is required to make them more productive, useful and successful members of society after they have seen through their sentence. Through a comprehensive programme of reforms, we are determined to ensure that we have tougher and better sentences for violent and sex offenders, and that the vast majority of other offenders are put on a path that makes them better members of society.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Colin Fox is sick, so question 3 falls. I therefore call Frances Curran for one question.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

I want to ask the First Minister about the comments that were made yesterday by Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National Party. Mr Salmond insisted that SNP-controlled Perth and Kinross Council and Tayside police withdrew permission for a march and rally at Gleneagles under pressure from Charles Clarke, the Westminster Home Secretary, who, I remind this Parliament, has no power over Scottish local government or policing. Will the First Minister condemn the decision taken by an SNP council, apparently under direct pressure from Westminster, and will he intervene as First Minister of Scotland to ensure that the democratic right of the people of Scotland is upheld in our own country?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Where do I start with that? First, let us be clear that everybody should stop passing the buck when they have decisions to make. Perth and Kinross Council has a decision to make. It should make its decision, defend it in public and stop blaming anybody else for it.

Secondly, we should ensure that any demonstrations that are organised in Scotland around the make poverty history campaign, in advance of or during the G8 summit, should be organised properly, organised with the responsible authorities and organised in a responsible way. I know that Frances Curran is irresponsible—that is part of her party's policy—but I thought that it was irresponsible of Alex Salmond to do what he did yesterday, when he tried to make this an issue between London and Perth, urging changes that would allow people to demonstrate in a way that might not be appropriate locally.

We all need to be responsible. People need to have a voice and to express that voice in the democracy that we have here in Scotland and in the UK in a way that will have an impact at the summit. There is also a necessity to protect local people, to ensure their security and to allow their business to be conducted in an orderly fashion. Getting that balance right is a job for us, in relation to provision across Scotland, for the chief constables in Tayside and Edinburgh and for Perth and Kinross Council. If the council wants to do what it has proposed, it will have my full support.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

There are two urgent constituency questions that we can dispose of briefly. I call Fergus Ewing.

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

I raise a constituency question, of which I have given the First Minister notice. He will be aware that, this week, Lochaber was dealt a crushing blow with the threat to Arjo Wiggins paper mill in Corpach and the possible loss of 130 jobs. There is a consultation period of 90 days, however, and I invite the First Minister, as a sign of the Scottish Executive's commitment, to arrange for the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning to meet next week the directors of the company, in order to ensure that every possible measure to avert the closure—whether by diversification, a new purchaser or other means—is found.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am sure that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will be happy to do that, and he may already have made that offer. What is more important than simply having meetings is that we act as quickly as possible. Executive officials and officials from Highlands and Islands Enterprise were engaged with the company on the issue on Tuesday. It is a serious issue for the local community, and I understand that those officials will also be going to Paris next week to meet the company's management at that level. We are already actively engaged in the matter. The Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will be happy to have discussions with the company's management, but we must ensure that we also act quickly.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Does the First Minister share my concern about the proposed closure of the Carrongrove paper mill in Denny, which is one of the largest industrial employers in the area, and about the fact that the closure announcement was made without any prior consultation with the workforce or their trade union? In view of the fact, last year, Carrongrove generated sales revenue of £26.2 million and operating profits of £1.62 million, will the First Minister do everything possible to stop what looks like a shabby asset-stripping exercise? In particular, will the Scottish Executive contact the chief executive of Inveresk plc and trade union representatives of the workforce to explore every possible alternative to closure and to offer the workforce all possible assistance and advice?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Again, the ministers with responsibility for enterprise and their department will be happy to investigate those specific points with a view to providing any assistance that is required. It is regrettable that, in this instance, the company did not, as I understand it, make the effort to consult with anybody locally in advance of the announcement. Although everyone in the chamber is aware that, from time to time, Scottish companies or international companies that are based in Scotland restructure, we must be in a position to help local employees with any restructuring process, to help them into new jobs or to acquire new skills, or to help new owners to take over plants. We can do that only if the companies that are making such decisions co-operate with us, and I urge the company in this case to make every effort to do so over the coming weeks.