Scottish Parliament, 20 April 2006

313 contributions from 76 members. The official report.

Official Report 20 April 2006

Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4252, in the name of Rosemary Byrne, on a statutory right to drug treatment and rehabilitation.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

The motion calls for a radical rethink of drug treatment and rehabilitation. It proposes the provision of a statutory right to access services within seven days of a person's seeking help and a move away from a criminal justice-oriented approach and towards one that involves health and social care. It is time to recognise that drug addiction is a health and social care issue, and that treatment and support are the means to reduce crime. The average heroin user is estimated to steal around £160,000-worth of goods and cash each year in order to buy drugs. The former Lothian and Borders chief of police, Tom Wood, who is now the Edinburgh drugs tsar, says that the majority of housebreakings committed in Edinburgh are down to drug users.

Drug users themselves talk about the revolving door, meaning that, without appropriate treatment and support, they continue on a cycle of drug-related crime, which results in a high cost to society. The national treatment outcome research study showed that a two-year treatment programme encompassing residential care, substitute prescribing and mental health care for a group of 549 users cost £2 million. That generated a cost saving to social services and the criminal justice system of £27 million. That is a ratio of 9.5:1. In other words, for every pound spent on proper treatment and rehabilitation, £9.50 is saved on criminal justice and other public expenditure.

That is why, later today, I will be lodging a proposal for a member's bill, the drug treatment and rehabilitation (Scotland) bill, and launching a consultation. I believe that drug users require holistic care plans based on individual need, offering a range of treatment and support. Services could be integrated by allocating a key person to formulate and implement the plan following the initial assessment, in conjunction with the drug user. The plan would cover family support, employability, dual diagnosis and medical treatment, as well as social and housing support. The range of treatments would include residential rehab, community-based rehab, substitute prescribing and detoxification.

The need for integrated services is clear. There are models that can be considered. The Glasgow addiction team is moving in that direction, with a four-day turnaround from the initial appointment to the treatment programme. That example needs to be replicated throughout Scotland, with equal access to services in all areas. There is a cap on methadone prescriptions in NHS Forth Valley and in NHS Ayrshire and Arran, for instance, whereas there is access without any limiting criteria in other national health service board areas.

I emphasise the need to consider alternative substitutes, including heroin and buprenorphine. Methadone is a dirty, highly addictive drug. As one ex-heroin addict asked me recently, "Why is it that the poor kids get parked on methadone while the rich kids get sent to the Priory?" That is a good question. I will return later to the question of residential rehab.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member said that each heroin addict steals £160,000-worth of goods each year. The Executive says that there are 51,000 heroin addicts. That makes a total of £8.16 billion per annum in thefts. Is the member trying to persuade us that that is the actual figure? That is substantially higher than any previously stated figure.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

I quoted a figure that Tom Wood gave us for Edinburgh. The black market and the drug economy is a multimillion-pound industry. It would be far better to spend money on treatment and support.

Before everyone starts to think that I am advocating that we cease the prescription of methadone tomorrow, I will stress that I am not. There are two points to be made on the subject. First, methadone has stabilised many people over the years, taking them away from crime and giving them the ability to care for their families. Secondly, the reason why many people are on methadone for the long term is that we do not have adequate rehab facilities in place across the country. Getting a scrip and 20 minutes of counselling once a week or once a fortnight is hardly rehab. That is the picture in many towns, however.

For some people, residential rehab might well be the best option. At present, however, it is not a choice for most. I am calling for a range of treatment options suited to the individual. For some, that will mean rehab, be it residential, community based or one following the other. For others, detox and abstinence could be the right option, given the right support. In other words, one size does not fit all. Where detox is concerned, there needs to be a recognition that, without appropriate support, there is a great danger of relapse and overdose, which is what causes many of the drug deaths that occur.

I will expand now on the need for family support to form part of a holistic care plan. It is estimated that between 40,000 and 60,000 children in Scotland are living with drug-using parents. The effects on children, as recent cases have highlighted, can be devastating. That is why my proposed drug treatment and rehabilitation (Scotland) bill includes an assessment of family needs. That assessment needs to be non-threatening and supportive, and it should involve agencies such as Barnardo's. In a briefing issued for the debate, Barnardo's states:

"Effective intervention can be held back when agencies involved do not share information or a common understanding of the threshold for intervention. It is also problematic when the child's needs are considered in isolation but the parental substance misuse and poor parenting are not tackled."

Barnardo's states that, in its experience, the things that work include

"a joined-up approach that addresses the children's needs whilst at the same time addressing the addiction and parenting needs. There must be close co-operation between the adult and children's services to do this effectively."

Thus there is a need for integrated services and a care plan that can be implemented and reviewed on a regular basis, ensuring that access to treatment and support meets the needs of the individual. The establishment of a seven-day right to treatment will revolutionise our approach to drug addiction by putting the health and social care approach centre stage, as opposed to criminal justice, which is the current priority. The time for talking is long over. Everyone agrees that treatment and rehabilitation must be readily available. Even our First Minister recently said:

"We cannot be satisfied until there are adequate treatment and rehabilitation services in all areas of the country".

For six years, I have been campaigning in Irvine with a group called Mothers Against Drugs for the setting up of a rehab facility, following many deaths in my community and the complete devastation that that has brought. We still do not have that facility.

My proposed bill will help join up services. This morning's motion is here to advance the proposals that will be contained in the bill and to get the debate started. I hope that members will be able to support the bill and that we can at last turn around the misery that is caused in our communities through drug misuse and the crime that goes on around it. If we are to tackle the crime that is related to drugs, we must also be sure that we tackle the issues around treatment.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the continuing social and human cost of drug misuse across Scotland and that past and current policy approaches have failed communities, drug users and their families miserably; regrets the fact that drug-related crime, premature death and family breakdowns continue to rise; believes that the predominant criminal justice-oriented approach to drug-misuse problems in Scotland is not only failing to address the problems but is actually counter-productive in diverting resources and attention away from treatment and rehabilitation; further believes that a predominantly social and health-led approach is now necessary and that a statutory right to a holistic treatment and care plan should be established within a seven-day period of seeking help and should include residential care where required; considers that the introduction of such a statutory right would not only lead to improved care for users and their families, but result in significant crime reduction within communities and subsequent net savings to the public purse; further considers that cannabis use in Scotland should be decriminalised but not encouraged, that debate on the legal status of other drugs must be promoted and that substitute prescription programmes, such as the provision of heroin or buprenorphine for treatment of appropriate users, should be introduced and supported across Scotland, and believes that significant investment in community and sporting facilities to tackle poverty and offer positive recreational activities to Scotland's young people is an essential but under-invested element of anti-drug abuse strategy.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I know that Rosemary Byrne cares deeply about these issues and that she campaigns on them actively. There is much in what she says with which I could not disagree. In fact, she makes eminent sense on some things. However, I must disagree with some of her conclusions. While I think that the proposed bill to which she refers has some noble aspirations, from what I have heard this morning, it will not actually offer a constructive way forward in terms of practicality and effectiveness. However, we can deal with that later.

The gist of what Rosemary Byrne has to say is right, and none of us could disagree with it. We know that there is a major challenge in dealing with drug addiction in this country. At the same time, however, we must keep a sense of perspective. Despite the difficulties that we face, we are making progress. The number of problematic drug users is going down, as is the proportion of those users who are injecting. The use of drugs among schoolchildren is stable. More people than ever before are getting treatment for their drug addiction. The rate of acquisitive crime—robbery, burglary and the handling of stolen goods—fell by 24 per cent between 1999-

2000 and 2004-05. However, we cannot be complacent. We still face a major challenge, because of which we have steadily increased funding over the past seven years. We now have record levels of investment in tackling drug problems. We have put improved treatment and rehabilitation services at the heart of our approach. Our support of drug treatment services has nearly doubled since 2000. We are now investing £23.7 million per year, which means that there are more services and there is a better range of treatments. Since last year, an extra £4 million has been provided, which has resulted in more than 2,600 new clients in the period to March 2007. That is in addition to the 14,300 new clients who accessed a wide range of treatment and rehabilitation services in 2004-05.

We are committed to providing addicts and their medical advisers with a wide range of treatment and rehabilitation options, from residential detoxification and rehabilitation to community and motivational support and substitute prescribing, to which Rosemary Byrne referred. We are conducting pilot experiments in the use of buprenorphine.

We know that, despite all that work, there is no quick fix to tackling drug addiction; neither is there a single treatment option that will work for everyone, which Rosemary Byrne acknowledged.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

In no way do I wish to introduce a note of discord, but, although I acknowledge that increased resources have been allocated, I would like the minister to explain why some beds in detox centres—which are not exactly residential—are lying empty. Is that down to a shortage of resource in the local authority or the health authority?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

It might be down to a combination of factors, including a decision by the medical people responsible for dealing with a particular addict about the appropriate course of treatment. As Rosemary Byrne acknowledged, not everyone would benefit immediately from residential rehabilitation or treatment. Beds might be lying empty because of finance or access issues, or because the medical people do not believe that particular individuals are ready for residential rehabilitation. I cannot substitute my opinion for the decisions of medical experts.

Margo MacDonald said that she did not want to introduce a note of discord. I prefaced my remarks by saying that I thought that there was a degree of consensus in the Parliament about how we should proceed. Had it not been for the vagaries of the system, we would have supported the Scottish National Party amendment, because there is much in it that we commend to the Parliament.

We need to work together on the treatment and care of drug users, because we owe it to the users, their families and their communities to deal with the real world. We know that drug addiction is a chronic, relapsing condition, but we also know that people's needs change and that we face a challenge. We need to ensure that people get treatment when they need it.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

The minister said earlier that he did not think that there was one way of dealing with everything. I know that he has considered the possibility of prescribing heroin rather than methadone in some cases. What progress has been made on that?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Currently, no doctors in Scotland are licensed to prescribe heroin. Pilot projects are being undertaken in England and we will take account of what happens there. We need to be realistic and honest about such experiments, including those in other countries. They are small-scale and apply to a small number of people for whom every other course of action has failed. Prescribing heroin is not a large-scale solution to the problem that we face. We need to get it in perspective.

I want to see more solutions. Rosemary Byrne referred to the model in Glasgow, which has combined health and social care services in partnership under single management in a community setting. It has a properly joined-up system of managed care, where services and clients can plan more easily for a beginning, middle and end to treatment for addiction. I want to visit that model and I invite my colleagues on the justice committees to join me, because I think that we could all learn from what is happening in Glasgow.

Because of the time constraints, I will skip to my conclusion. We know that drug treatment is the most effective way of reducing drug-related crime. We know that we need to put money into diversionary activities and early treatment. As the SNP has suggested, we should be spending more on trying to recover the assets of dealers in order to use them to good effect. We will continue to build on the successful model that we have already agreed.

I will leave it to others to raise the issues of the declassification, legalisation and decriminalisation of drugs, because I do not have the time to do so.

We need to support drug addicts' families and the wider community. We have a clear vision for tackling drug addiction in Scotland. Drug use is not inevitable. I agree that the long-term solution must be a drug-free life, but addicts have to get the support that they need to motivate them towards that goal. We need to give priority to children and young people. Above all, we need to say to those who are using the substantial resources that we have provided throughout Scotland that they have to be accountable for the use of that money and report back to us on how effectively it has been used.

I move amendment S2M-4252.4, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"recognises that drug abuse destroys lives and tears families apart; believes that improved treatment and rehabilitation should be at the heart of our approach; further believes that there is need to help addicts to move towards a drug-free lifestyle by offering a range of interventions; welcomes the progress made but recognises that more needs to be done, particularly to make sure that treatment is linked to further support, and believes that early intervention is the most effective way of helping offenders and reducing drug-related crime."

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I welcome the minister's acknowledgement of what is said in the SNP amendment and, in turn, I acknowledge that the Executive's amendment reflects something that we can support. Consensus on this difficult subject is highly to be desired. The issue must be above much of the hurly-burly of party politics. The problem is far too serious for us in the major parties to spend time exercising our differences, given that the way forward will more usefully be found by our identifying what we have in common.

Of course it is proper that we debate this important subject. Rosemary Byrne explained helpfully where the figure of the £160,000 in thefts by addicts comes from. Others in the criminal justice system would suggest an average of £36,000 in thefts a year per addict, but that still leaves us with an immense problem, so let us not get bogged down in arguing about the odd billion pounds here and there. Whatever figure we come up with, we have a substantial problem.

I will refer in passing to a number of research documents that touch on the issue. The first is the report by Neil McKeganey, Zoё Morris, Joanne Neale and Michele Robertson from the centre for drug misuse research at the University of Glasgow—a highly respected institution—who conducted a survey of drug addicts' aspirations. The interesting, but not surprising, thing is that 56.6 per cent of the addicts questioned wanted to get clean and come off drugs, while a substantially smaller proportion simply sought harm reduction.

Aspiration and achievement are of course two different things. We have to support addicts as they move towards abstinence, to whatever extent they are able to make that journey. To do that, we have to tailor the interventions to the needs and abilities of addicts. There is no one-size-fits-all option. If there were, we would have solved the problem by now.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

My question relates specifically to what Stewart Stevenson has just said. In the study by Neil McKeganey, did addicts to hard drugs have a different attitude to abstention to that of perpetual users of soft drugs?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We are talking basically about hard drugs.

I refer members to the study, "Licit and Illicit drug use in the Netherlands, 1997" by the Centrum voor Drugsonderzoek, which was one of the most wide-ranging studies in Europe. It examined the aspirations and behaviour of 45,000 addicts and received an acceptable response from just over half that number. The summary of conclusions on page 9 of the study states:

"Cannabis use in Amsterdam, like all other illicit drug use, is highest compared to the rest of the country."

That leads us to consider whether, by being softer on cannabis, we deliver a benefit to the users of hard drugs.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

It is perfectly clear that the approach that is taken in Amsterdam would provide a benefit in police time, but it would not touch on drug use. The study that was done in the Netherlands shows that legalising cannabis does not reduce hard drug use. If there is comparable evidence that is as soundly based and as widely surveyed and that tells a different story, I would be delighted to see it, because that would give us a way forward.

The key point to which I want to return, as I have done in previous debates, is the information gap. The Executive has said in its plans that through its substance misuse research programme it will fund research into drug users' perceptions of the risk of overdose and delays in calling for help. However, I encourage the Executive to go much further. I do not often commend what comes out of the strategy unit at number 10 Downing Street, but its annual report on drugs is very worth while. It shows the changing pattern of hard drug use, starting in the 1950s and 1960s, and suggests that in England drug-motivated crime is worth £19 billion. That is another figure, and it is not helpful to have other figures. The report also breaks down the various crimes and shows that cannabis is about four times as heavily used as heroin.

This is a useful debate, albeit a short one. Later, my colleague Maureen Watt will speak about her experience as a prison visitor in Aberdeen and other related experience. I will listen with great interest to what she has to say.

I am afraid that Miss Goldie is once again perhaps overplaying her hand. I say to Margo MacDonald that the last thing that we need is another commission.

I move amendment S2M-4252.3, to leave out from "the continuing" to end and insert:

"that the cost to communities, drug addicts and their families, and the public purse of drug misuse remains unacceptably high; believes that a range of interventions must be available to addicts across Scotland that are tailored to their individual needs; encourages the Scottish Executive to give further support to efforts to recover assets from drug barons; recognises that drug abuse is primarily a health issue but that intervention from the criminal justice system will often be the first opportunity for users to start on the road to recovery, and, in the absence of any compelling evidence, does not believe that any relaxation of the rules on drug misuse would do other than exacerbate current problems."

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I thank Rosemary Byrne for bringing this issue to the chamber, because it cannot be debated too often. Drug abuse has spread and continues to spread misery throughout Scotland. It kills, destroys families, leads to widespread and recurring crime, breaks up communities and corrodes society. It is essential that we use all the resources of the state not just to discourage drug abuse but to do everything possible to eliminate it.

Like the SSP, the Conservative party recognises that there is no overall proper strategy for dealing with drug abuse in Scotland. I, too, am critical of the Scottish Executive for being over-reliant on methadone, which simply aggravates the problem. I have made it clear on many occasions that the Conservative party is not opposed to the use of methadone per se. However, unlike those who believe that methadone is some sort of universal panacea, to be taken indefinitely by increasing numbers of people, we believe that it should be available as part of a range of options. I share Rosemary Byrne's reservations about methadone.

Conservatives believe that it is imperative that drug addicts are given immediate support and rehabilitation, to help them to end their addiction and to get back to leading a normal life. Reference has already been made in this morning's debate to the drug outcome research in Scotland—DORIS—study by Professor Neil McKeganey of Glasgow University. That research is interesting, because it found that, according to those who took part in it, most drug addicts who seek help do so because they want to become clean and to change their lifestyle. The drug misuse statistics for 2005 showed that the majority of individuals who came forward seeking help did not want a prescription-based solution.

Not only are individuals far too frequently left with methadone as the only option of help, but some individuals have to wait more than a year for that assistance. That cannot go on. In October 2004, the Executive published its review of drug treatment and rehabilitation services. The report highlighted the fact that more needed to be done to help those who wanted to be helped to obtain rapid access to treatment and rehabilitation. I suggest to the Executive that a simple way of providing access to treatment would be to set up a central directory of treatment and rehabilitation in Scotland, akin to that in England and Wales. The Executive has argued that similar information can be received from drug action teams in Scotland. I have tried to abstract that information from the reports of the drug action teams, but it is not easy, because they provide information only for their area.

For example, someone in Glasgow might be willing to travel to the Highlands to get help, which would remove that individual from the environment that has led to his or her drug addiction. I ask the Executive what hope an addict or their family has of finding a rehabilitation facility when the Executive does not have that information. Recently I lodged a written question asking how many places were available for drug rehabilitation in Scotland. The answer was that those data are not held centrally. That is not good enough. There is agreement in the chamber that we have a problem in Scotland. I share Stewart Stevenson's view that there is a genuine and healthy consensus about the need to move forward with constructive solutions. However, I believe that addicts and their families and friends should have easy access to as much information about help and rehabilitation as possible.

This is a short debate, and I know that many members want to speak in it. I do not have enough time to address all the points that I would like to cover. However, before I close, I want to say that I cannot agree with the SSP's solution of decriminalising cannabis and prescribing heroin. I commend to Rosemary Byrne the studies that have been carried out in Sweden, New Zealand and the Netherlands in relation to cannabis. That research makes troubling reading. Cannabis is a dangerous drug. Not only can it be a gateway drug to other, more dangerous illegal substances, but it has been linked with various mental illnesses and causes harm to the heart, lungs and immune system.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No—I am in the last minute of my speech.

My concern about what the SSP proposes is that it is simply another form of harm reduction. According to the Scottish Parliament information centre, there are no current GP licences in Scotland for prescribing heroin. Mr Henry referred to that fact. Apparently, a few years ago one GP in Scotland had such a licence, but it was never used. Instead of finding another drug for individuals to be parked on in the name of harm reduction, we should examine ways of helping them to lead a drug-free lifestyle.

I thank the Scottish socialists for allowing us the opportunity to debate this issue. I move amendment S2M-4252.1, to leave out from "the predominant" to end and insert:

"we need a drugs strategy which aims to reduce and ultimately eliminate drugs dependency in Scotland and that such a strategy should place an emphasis on early intervention and include a coherent education programme which prioritises abstinence, and further believes that there needs to be a radical change in the help offered to drug addicts, to provide counselling and rehabilitation rather than an over-reliance on methadone."

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

In moving the amendment in my name, I associate myself with the motion's intention and with much of the commentary that it contains. I do not wholly approve of commentary in motions, but that is a matter for you, Presiding Officer.

In calling for more resources for long-term residential rehabilitation centres for people who are addicted to hard drugs, for example, the mover of the motion has my total support. I have supported such provision for more than 20 years, but in all that time no Government has provided resources that are adequate to the task of turning heroin users away from their addiction. I heard what Hugh Henry had to say about statistics, but the hard core of hard users remains.

That is not to say that Governments have not put money into what has always been referred to as the war against drugs. They have, but it has never been enough to combat the power of the suppliers who moved into the social gaps that developed as a result of deconstruction of the nuclear family and the long-term destabilising effects of underemployment and unemployment. Although I have specific criticisms of aspects of anti-drug policies that have been pursued by Governments—Labour, Tory and, in this Parliament, the coalition—I believe that all of them have pursued those policies with the best of intentions. However, all have failed to achieve their strategic objective, if we define that objective as being to rid society of the destructive power of drug abuse.

Governments, local councils and health boards have been fighting and losing the war against drugs since I chaired the Scottish Drugs Forum in the late 1980s. That is not intended as a criticism of their competence, but much the same mixture of policies has been pursued in other countries, with much the same outcome—an apparently inexorable rise in drug abuse. At this point, it is worth noting the difference in the statistics for drug abuse between the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. I am sure that Stewart Stevenson will agree that there is bound to be a big difference between the statistical use of cannabis in Amsterdam and its use throughout the whole of the Netherlands, because people go to Amsterdam specifically to smoke cannabis. However, the stats for cannabis use in the rest of the country are lower than ours.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I merely made the point that legalising cannabis in Amsterdam has had no beneficial effect in respect of the use of hard drugs.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I hope that Mr Stevenson accepts that I am simply trying to correct what I believe is a wrong picture of the situation.

We should no longer continue to view and assess the effects of alcohol abuse separately from the effects of abuse of other mood or mind-altering substances. Ten to 15 years ago, dance drugs were all the rage for the bright young things out on the town or up for a rave. However, there has been a change in social attitudes and culture; although those drugs are still available, alcohol is now the substance of first choice and getting legless is now an accepted part of a good night out.

Although alcohol abuse statistics show that the situation is worse in the UK than it is elsewhere, this new fashion in substance abuse is becoming common across Europe. Young people are simply ignoring the laws that govern alcohol, cannabis and cocaine and are mixing and matching those substances to the detriment of their health and of national health service budgets. The relevant laws and, indeed, our general approach to substance abuse are not working, which is why front-line police officers in Strathclyde have said loud and clear that a fundamental reassessment of attitude and policy is required. Those officers, who spoke as members of the Scottish Police Federation, have not—as some sections of the media have reported—advocated immediate and/or wholesale legalisation of drugs. Moreover, neither I nor my amendment seeks such a move. The policies that have been pursued for more than two decades are failing, so I—like those officers—want a wholesale investigation of the reasons for increased abuse of substances including alcohol, and an open-minded approach to dealing with the situation in the interests of abusers and for the general good.

Prohibition of potentially injurious substances does not have a very good track record. Before anyone refers to the very high rate of public compliance with the smoking ban, I point out that it is much too soon to draw conclusions not on how or where people smoke but on how many fewer people are doing so. As the police officers in Strathclyde have suggested, it is time to think the unthinkable and to probe the feasibility of, for example, supplying heroin legally and under medical supervision to registered addicts. After all, that is what happened not so long ago. The benefits to users' health are obvious. The reduction in the level of criminality that is associated with the illegal supply of drugs is a less predictable element, but we can be pretty sure that a reduction would happen.

There is evidence that the likelihood is higher than was previously thought that heavy cannabis users can suffer permanent damage, but I wonder whether the figures are any worse than the figures for the harm that is done to the health of binge-drinkers and other alcohol abusers, and whether the statistics suggest that the two substances should be approached from the same legal and practical starting point.

As for methadone, should it be viewed as a short or long-term palliative, as a substitute for heroin or as a cheap way of introducing some order into chaotic lives? Can we ever consider viewing crack cocaine and the newer derivative life-destroyers in the same light as legally controlled and supplied substances? I believe that we should not, but if police officers did not have so much work to do on heroin and cocaine, they might have more time and resources to combat the even more dangerous drugs that can be made in a back bedroom.

Before anyone is moved to reply that a reclassification of and a fresh approach to drugs will send out confusing signals and encourage more drug abuse, I freely concede that the Home Office made a pig's ear of its new approach to cannabis. Its model is not the one that we should follow.

Hugh Henry said that the Executive's policy objective was to give people drug-free lives. If that objective does not include alcohol, we will have to do a lot of explaining to the people who now use that substance in much the same way as their parents might have used cannabis. One reason for a fresh examination into attitudes and patterns is that the statistics that have been cited even in this short debate are very confusing, so I urge the Executive to carry out an investigation to clear up the matter. I have posed questions, but I do not know all the answers. Perhaps we should think about finding them.

I move amendment S2M-4252.2, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"regrets the continuing economic and social cost of alcohol and drug abuse across Scotland and calls on the Scottish Executive to establish a commission of investigation into such misuse."

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

We will need a much longer debate if we want to find the answers that Margo MacDonald seeks. I hope that, in due course, we will have a full Executive debate on its drug strategy not only for the criminal justice system but for the health service, and that both the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Health and Community Care will take part in it.

There is widespread recognition that an individual's drug problem is a personal crisis. However, the problem also draws in family members and the local community and many—though not all—cases involve a criminal justice element. We have already heard statistics about the number of offences that are committed by people who have such problems. I agree with the point in Mr Stevenson's amendment that such people often receive help through a criminal justice intervention, but the majority of people on drug stabilisation and reduction programmes are either self-referred or have been referred by health professionals. In its consideration of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, the Justice 2 Committee heard that, in Aberdeen, authorities are struggling to accommodate the more than 300 individuals who have not been referred to programmes because of criminal justice considerations.

That situation is replicated throughout Scotland, and I have to say that the same thing is happening with drug treatment and testing orders. When, in February, I met 20 young offenders and drug misusers on a Fairbridge scheme—I know that other members have met Fairbridge representatives—one young man told me that he had been delighted to receive a DTTO from the court and to be released into the community. However, more than three weeks passed before he received his first assessment, and he did not know how long it would be before he was placed on what was likely to be a methadone programme. He still had his habit and, as he saw it, he had no option but to thieve to satisfy it. Rosemary Byrne highlighted Tom Wood's comments on housebreaking; I point out that that is one of the trigger offences in the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.

In recent months, I have rejected many of the Conservatives' comments on the subject, although I agree that there should be an audit of capacity, and I hope that the academic research that is being carried out into drugs courts and DTTOs will consider capacity issues. After all, capacity is at the heart of the debate not only for the criminal justice system but for our health service.

The Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill will introduce mandatory drug testing and assessment for certain trigger offences. During this week's stage 2 consideration of the bill, Mr Fox from the SSP did not press an amendment to make referral to a programme mandatory. However sympathetic I might be to such an amendment and, indeed, to the Scottish Socialists' motion, I fear that their proposals are currently unworkable and will make the situation worse in one key regard.

Although I support continuation of the methadone stabilisation and reduction programme, I certainly do not consider it to be a panacea. Over the past couple of months, Miss Goldie has repeatedly stated that methadone is part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. The 2005 drug misuse statistics estimate that in 2004 just over 19,000 people were receiving methadone, which is an increase of nearly 3,000 since 2001, and that in 2004-05 409,000 scripts for methadone mix were issued. However, in one of the most extensive-ever reviews in Scotland on the effectiveness of treatment for opiate-dependent drug users, the University of Aberdeen found that maintenance programmes that use methadone are effective for all population groups.

That said, I must make it clear that I have also called for the establishment of more residential abstinence programmes, such as those that are offered in my constituency—constituents of many members receive treatment in the Borders—and for pharmacists to have a greater role in working with drug misusers. Young people, in particular, have told me that the health and social work professional whom they trust most is not their doctor, but their pharmacist.

I am glad that Margo MacDonald mentioned alcohol. The shocking figures for drugs are mirrored by shocking figures for alcohol misuse—I will return to that in my summing up. However, as far as both drugs and alcohol are concerned, we must not be distracted by the well-intentioned but flawed proposals in the motion, which seek to give a statutory basis to drug treatment and rehabilitation.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I begin by welcoming the tone and tenor of the minister's comments. In particular, I welcome his desire to identify common ground and to bring people together to address some of the most complex and challenging issues that we face. It is encouraging that that tone and tenor have largely been shared around the chamber today. We do not talk much any more about the new politics—it is a bit of an old idea, I guess—but surely to goodness drug misuse must be a policy area in which we share the aspiration for a new politics, with people coming together to address complex and challenging issues. That must be the real test of whether we can put that aspiration into practice, and there are welcome signs in today's short debate that we are doing that.

I heard what Stewart Stevenson had to say about not forming yet another commission, but I have had the privilege of sitting for more than a year on a commission that is dealing with drugs—a UK-wide exercise that was organised by the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, in London. It has been illuminating and, to some extent, liberating to have the opportunity to consider the matter in some depth, free from the cut and thrust of the normal political and media debate that takes place on the issue. If there is one overriding theme that emerges time and again, it is the need for us to approach the issue with open minds and to be open to fresh thinking.

The Executive deserves congratulations on the significant programme of action and investment that it has undertaken across a wide range of areas, including treatment and rehabilitation, education and awareness, prevention and many other aspects of work on drug misuse. However, it is important that none of us becomes complacent, as the minister has said today.

Can we identify some of the areas in which we can just agree to agree? We all agree that we need to make progress in developing a wider range of services and in speeding up access to more and better treatment and rehab facilities across the country. The SSP's suggestion that there should be a statutory right to such facilities is unworkable and impractical and it is certainly not the way forward, but we all want to make progress in that area.

The debate about classification, legalisation or regulation—call it what you will—is taking place around the globe at the moment, and everybody is grappling with where to draw the lines. It is not the primary job of this Parliament to lead that debate; that is not where we have the powers and responsibilities that would make the greatest impact, but we should not be frightened, either as individuals or collectively, to engage in the debate on that challenging question.

On methadone, it is the Tories who are in danger of becoming overreliant on it—they are becoming overreliant on methadone as a topic for debate when we talk about drug policy. Everyone from the First Minister down has agreed that we need to review and think carefully about where we are going as far as methadone is concerned, so let us get on with that job, and let us do it sensibly.

I want to highlight some other areas in the short time that is available to me. The topics are not the focus, as such, of today's debate but it is important to mention them. We must not forget the importance of education and awareness, particularly for the younger generation. I know that members all have big mailbags, but I encourage all my colleagues to look at a letter that has arrived in the past few days from the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, which tells us about the choices for life programme. Last year, 27,000 primary 7 children attended events in that programme around Scotland. This year, the number will almost double; more than 50,000 youngsters in seven venues across the country will come together for what I consider—having gone to one of the events last year—to be a remarkable education programme. Scotland is leading the way in education and awareness, which gives the lie to the notion that the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency is just about enforcement. We should applaud its efforts in education and awareness.

I shall say something else about children. We have recently debated a lot—rightly so—on child protection. Many of us have seen at close quarters tragic cases that have occurred in various parts of the country. As other members have done, I plead that as we examine sensitive and complex child protection issues, particularly in relation to the children of drug-misusing parents, we do not make knee-jerk responses. We should, instead, be sensitive to the complexities of every individual family situation. I commend to the minister the work that was done recently by a think tank that was led by the Aberlour Child Care Trust. That is the kind of considered work that should be examined carefully before decisions are reached.

When we are thinking about the impact of drugs on the children of drug-misusing parents, let us also take a preventive approach. Colleagues will know of my interest in sexual and reproductive health, which we do not talk about enough. It is vital that all services that deal with women who use drugs consider fertility and contraception. At present, services and support in that area are patchy, to say the least.

I have been able to touch only on a few issues today—we are all conscious that we are skimming the surface of a complex subject. However, there are welcome signs in today's debate that we in Parliament are willing to take a grown-up approach to the subject. If we can continue to take such an approach, to be open to fresh thinking and to be imaginative and creative in our solutions, we can make progress in tackling one of the biggest challenges that our society faces.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for allowing me time in this debate to get my first speech over at an early stage.

As Stewart Stevenson did, I want in this debate to draw on my 14 years' experience as a prison visitor at Craiginches, where I have witnessed the human misery that is suffered by individuals as a result of drug misuse and involvement with drugs. Over the years, I have seen the prison population at Craiginches change from being predominantly older men on theft and petty criminal charges to the majority of prisoners—some 70 to 80 per cent—being there as a result of drug misuse.

As many members have said, the scourge of drug abuse must not be seen as a party-political matter and speeches today have shown that our common goal is to rid Scotland of its drug culture. However, it is my firm belief that sentencing drug addicts to short sentences that are not long enough seriously to tackle their addictions is not the answer, because far too often we see those addicts back in prison again, sometimes within days. That must really frustrate the police.

Craiginches has the highest rate of prisoners who have tested positive for drugs, but it has the second-lowest rate of attendance for drug programmes. The provision of methadone substitute is not the answer because the addictive behaviour continues. On a prison visit just last Friday, I listened to one prisoner who had been forcibly removed from Craiginches to Barlinnie on a Wednesday, despite the fact that he told prison staff that his case was due in court in two days' time and that he was likely to be released on bail. He was released from Barlinnie on the Friday, at 7.30 pm, with a bus ticket to Aberdeen that was valid only for Friday, but by that time all the buses had left. He had to sleep rough in Glasgow and return to Aberdeen at his own expense the next day. Worse than that, he was released without his methadone prescription for the weekend, so as soon as he got back to Aberdeen he was immediately back on heroin and back in prison within a few days.

The benefits to the drug user and to society of becoming drug free greatly outweigh the benefits of controlled drug abuse. Residential rehabilitation has been shown to be the most effective way of facilitating recovery, but it is available only to a tiny proportion of addicts in Scotland. I agree with colleagues who have said that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. The methadone programme alone costs £12 million for an estimated 20,000 addicts. How much better it would be if that money were redirected to provide residential rehab services. Although there is some provision by the private sector, it is patchy and unregulated. I disagree with Miss Goldie's suggestion—if I heard her correctly—that there should be a central unit for rehabilitation, because it is important that addicts be treated in their own environments, so that they can have family support.

Grampian has the highest number of babies born with drug addictions. The national figure is 6.1 per 1,000 live births, but in the Grampian area it is 11.4 per 1,000 live births. Now that the women's unit in Craiginches has closed, we do not see those women and they have to go to Cornton Vale, where I am sure there are some human misery stories still to be told.

We need residential units throughout the country. In the north-east we desperately need a publicly funded rehabilitation centre. I am sure that the long-term benefits to drug users and to society as a whole would mean that money had been well spent because it would make us safer and save taxpayers money. That really would be joined-up Government.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I whole-heartedly support Rosemary Byrne's motion. I also support comments that have been made by many members, but Rosemary's motion echoes the approach that I and my party take to drugs in that we see it primarily as a health, rather than a justice, issue.

It is as well to put the drug problem in context because, as Margo MacDonald said, there is sometimes hysteria around the issue. In 2004, 356 deaths were directly due to controlled drugs. In the same year, there were 2,052 alcohol-related deaths in Scotland, an estimated 13,000 deaths due to smoking, 865 deaths due to passive smoking and 2,000 deaths from vehicle emissions. Although I want in no way to minimise the adverse effects of some drug use, we should put the scale of the problem in context.

I mentioned the 356 deaths from controlled drugs, but once a drug becomes criminalised it becomes anything but controlled: users are placed outside the control and protection of the law, which I do not believe best serves the needs of users, their families or their communities. A justice-based approach to tackling drug use will always leave vulnerable users outside the law and take them away from potential help. In contrast, a health-based approach can put the needs of drug users and their families at the heart of the matter as care and rehabilitation, rather than punishment, become the primary objectives. I therefore particularly welcome Rosemary Byrne's motion's mention of prompt treatment and residential care. There is always the potential for abuse of any care provision that involves accommodation, but we should remember that every £1 that is spent on care saves £3 in other social costs of drug abuse. I had the figures when I wrote my speech, but Rosemary's figures, which I am happy to accept, suggest that there are much larger savings.

Cannabis is infinitely less of a public health problem in present-day Scotland than are alcohol or tobacco; members will note that it did not figure in the list of deaths that I read out. I do not encourage its use—far from it—but it should not be a major target for policing when serious drug use, including under-age drinking, merits much more attention from all agencies.

It is interesting to contrast the approach that is taken to drug education, which Susan Deacon mentioned, with the approach that is taken to alcohol education. Of course, alcohol is the drug of choice of most middle-aged people, which is the age group that is most likely to devise education strategies. The approach on alcohol is one of education, moderation and the avoidance of drinking in particularly risky situations such as when driving. We should contrast that with the approach that some people advocate for other drugs, which involves avoiding giving meaningful information and urging people to "just say no". One can imagine how much success a "just say no" approach to alcohol abuse would have. I suspect that in modern Scotland it would have very little success. I believe that the same reasoned approach as is used for alcohol should be used for drugs, because ignorance never affords protection. People must be properly informed, without scaremongering taking place, and they must be supported in making healthy choices. People also have to live in a society in which they develop the hope and self-esteem that makes it likely that they will make the healthy choice. Drug dealers feed off ignorance as much as they feed off poverty and inequality.

I fully support the SSP motion and its emphasis on treating drug misuse as a health issue. I urge the Executive to continue to seek innovative and constructive approaches to drug problems, as was suggested in last December's publication, "Taking Action to Reduce Scotland's Drug-related Deaths" including monitoring of the heroin-prescribing pilots that are taking place in England.

Jean Turner (Independent, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I heartily agree with everything that Eleanor Scott said, but that is true of almost every speech that I have heard today. I have enjoyed the consensus.

Maureen Watt, our new MSP, reminded me of a very important issue: prison. The sad thing is that people go into prison on one drug and come out on other drugs. I speak from 25 years of experience in general practice, during which I dealt with the problem.

If we were to ask any general practitioner what are the biggest drug problems today, they would say alcohol and smoking. We are trying to do something about smoking, but alcohol is by far the biggest problem.

There is a mixed picture in Glasgow in relation to drug addicts; if the situation were not so complicated, we would probably have found a solution to it by now. After 25 years in general practice, I have no idea why people do it. The problem crosses all socioeconomic groups: the wealthy professionals and the most deprived.

I recall the saddest situation that I came across in a general practice surgery. It involved a young man, whom I first met when his mother pushed him in in his buggy, who was by this point married with his own child. In order to deal with the pressure of his 12-hour shifts, he bought, for £5, a small container of methadone, which had been prescribed for someone else to get them off their drug habit. He started to take methadone once a week, then twice a week. As members might suspect, he got well and truly hooked on it because it is a very addictive drug. General practitioners do not wish to be part of the scene of giving drugs for ever and ever—we do not want to be in competition with the drug pushers. We know that it is often easier to get off drugs than it is to stay off them.

I agree with the comments made by Rosemary Byrne and almost all the members who have spoken. A great deal of debate is required about cannabis. Given that it is a drug, I am afraid of it being called safe. We must discuss seriously what we think about that. I noticed in one patient that cannabis can either stimulate psychosis or produce it of itself, and that can end up in death. That fact must make us think hard about what we decide about cannabis.

I wonder whether we can really know the figures. As I say, in Glasgow, there is a mixed picture. People take alcohol and one or two other drugs. If we were to estimate how many people drink every day and drink more at the weekends, we might discover that there are more alcoholics than we think. When I see the word "drug", I always think drugs and alcohol. Can we afford the costs of family breakdown? Can business afford the time and money that absenteeism costs? There are cheap nights at the pub for students, so when they come in the next day they are sleepy and cannot do their work. National health service staff, the police and the fire service have to cope with alcohol intoxicated patients—or, more accurately, alcohol poisoned patients. Such patients would argue about the number of grains of sugar in their tea. They are argumentative, aggressive and violent. I do not know that we should have to put up with such behaviour.

In addition to the terrible costs to the family and the person who wishes to get off drugs, there is another cost. As a GP, I would like to think that when people come to us we could get them treated quickly. Can we afford the liver transplants of the future? Where will we get the livers for transplant? If the current situation continues, we will not have enough of them to cope. More research is required. I support Rosemary Byrne's motion.

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

I commend Maureen Watt for a powerful maiden speech, which I agree with in its entirety.

We have heard of the McKeganey findings about those who take drugs wanting a drug-free lifestyle. That should be our ambition. However, in response to Margo MacDonald's point, I say that residential programmes for abstinence, such as those offered at Castle Craig in my constituency, are much more expensive than community options. A statutory duty to offer treatment in seven days would mean that health boards would refer more people to community options and methadone programmes than to residential programmes. That is counterintuitive to the McKeganey findings.

I have always favoured the legalisation of cannabis, not just its decriminalisation. I have often wondered what the benefit is of just decriminalising it. The Parliament has no power to legalise cannabis—

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

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

I am sorry, but I cannot take an intervention because of time constraints.

The Parliament has no power to legalise cannabis and neither my party nor my colleagues support its legalisation. I have read the Dutch report that was mentioned. I accept that it shows that legalising cannabis does not reduce hard drugs use, but that is because the link between cannabis and hard drugs is overstated. That is one of the reasons why I support the legalisation of cannabis.

In 2004, there were 22,310 drug seizures in Scotland. Of those, nearly 18,000 were for cannabis. Resources are not being directed properly at tackling the drugs that do the greatest harm. It has been many years since devolution, but too many drug and alcohol programmes for young people still have insecure funding.

I do not support a reduction in the classification for chemical drugs such as ecstasy, from which 17 people died in Scotland in 2004, or for the drug from which Scotland will soon, I fear, be under attack from the United States of America—methamphetamine, which is man-made and deeply insidious.

The general registrar tells us that in a year when there were 313 deaths from mental and behavioural disorders due to alcohol, there were 356 deaths due to drugs. Both of those figures have remained stubbornly similar to the figure for people who die from falls, and have consistently been about half the figure for people who die from chronic liver disease.

In my constituency in the Borders, 21 new entrants to drug and alcohol programmes in 2004 were under 15. In greater Glasgow, the figure was 13. We must ensure that the programmes work for those young people.

I recently went on a school visit with Kenny Houston, the police constable who is the drug awareness officer in the Borders. He is motivated and passionate. We went to Langlee primary school and he educated young people about the disadvantages and dangers of drugs as well as the law on drugs and alcohol. I then visited the Reiver project in Galashiels. I am thankful that it is receiving more funding for next year, because there was concern that funding would not be secure over the next two or three years. Young people can be referred to the project or they can refer themselves. In the Borders, we have an innovation that could be followed throughout Scotland: if underage people are caught with alcohol or drugs, they are automatically referred to the Reiver project.

That idea is similar to one in today's Scottish Socialist Party motion, but we cannot compel people to use services, and unless there is sufficient capacity it is unfair to say to people that they have a statutory right to services. It may be that services cannot be provided; but—worse—services that are provided for reasons of expediency or cost, or simply to prevent the law from being brought in, may not be in the best interests of the people referred. Therefore, although we sympathise with the SSP motion, we cannot support it.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

When I say that the subject matter of this morning's debate is deeply depressing, I in no way seek to criticise any of the speeches. A number of them have been very good and all of them have contained ideas of merit.

In her sincere and measured contribution, Rosemary Byrne raised a number of issues. First, she highlighted the problems of children living with drug-abusing parents, an issue that must surely concern us all. She made the sound point that methadone must be used sparingly and that other less addictive substitutes might well be considered with a view to reducing the number of people who are, to be frank, parked on methadone.

Over the years, I have known Hugh Henry to be a master of understatement. Today he said that we cannot be complacent, which was indeed an understatement. How can we possibly be complacent when we see the human wreckage on the streets of our cities and, indeed, our villages, and when we consider the level of criminality that is caused entirely by addiction? We must have a joined-up approach to both criminal justice and health issues.

We agree that drug abuse is not inevitable, but we must have sympathy with people who have become addicted. Even if it has been their own fault, they should not be cast into the outer darkness.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

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

We must do something for those people. We have to consider what we are doing at the moment and ask what is working and what is not.

Jeremy Purvis said that a longer debate was required and he was right. He spoke about self-referrals. In his area, such things may happen, but in Glasgow the quickest way for a person to get treatment for drug problems is to commit more and more crimes. If they do that, they will be fast-tracked through the judicial system and will go to the drugs court and be offered immediate assistance. Unfortunately, as recent statistics prove, 53 per cent of people who go through the drugs court in Glasgow do not fulfil their obligations, which is a matter of concern. We support the concept of drugs courts but we must consider ways in which less hardened offenders who need treatment just as desperately can go before those courts and obtain treatment that will be much more likely to be effective.

I congratulate Maureen Watt on a fine opening speech; we look forward to hearing more from her in future. She highlighted the way in which drug addiction has changed the profile of people in prison. She made the point—and it is arguable—that short prison sentences do not help. However, what do we do with people who commit more and more crimes—people who may have 12 or 15 cases outstanding, from minor shoplifting to theft by opening lockfast premises—

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am afraid that I cannot; I have no time.

The fact is that with such people we cannot do other than to impose a prison sentence—and we must investigate with the greatest of urgency why many different forms of drugs are so freely available in our institutions.

Of course, there has to be cross-matching with people's needs, but we must consider the effects of drug addiction not only on people themselves and their families, but on wider society. The figures may or may not be accurate, but I refer members to a document that was produced five years ago by the predecessor of the Communities Committee—the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee. The report showed the effects of drug addiction in the poorer areas of Scotland. It made terrifying reading then, and it makes terrifying reading now.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Bill Aitken said that this was a depressing debate, not in its tenor but in its subject. Depressing it may be, but it is vital that we address it. We face a pandemic—if not globally, at least in the western world. It is not avian flu; it is drug abuse—and I accept the point made by others that drug abuse includes alcohol abuse.

This has been a remarkably good debate. Both Stewart Stevenson and Hugh Henry, the minister, said that there was little disagreement with the generalities of Rosemary Byrne's opening speech, although there was some disagreement with the specifics. We accept that this is not simply a criminal justice matter; there are health and social implications too. Stewart Stevenson said that the criminal justice system may be the first interface, but we must also consider health and social justice.

Hugh Henry said that there was no quick fix, and we agree. The opening speakers in the debate set the tone and they were followed by two excellent speeches from Maureen Watt and Susan Deacon. They made it clear that we must reach a consensus. If we allow the issue to become a political football, we will not serve the parties well and we will certainly not serve the people of Scotland well. We have to find solutions, not simply score points. Maureen Watt's points and anecdotes were clearly ones that we must address.

I accept the premise in the SSP's motion that this is not only a criminal justice issue but a social and a health issue. However, the criminal justice system is where people first become involved. We cannot ignore that—although if we consider only the criminal justice element, we will simply be firefighting rather than looking for solutions. We must consider criminal justice, health and social issues, but we must also consider demand as well as supply. We have to ask why people take drugs and not simply ask how we can get them off drugs or how we can stop them taking drugs in the first place.

This is not simply about enforcement or powers and laws. Anybody who has read Chomsky will know that the United States is a global superpower the likes of which the world has never known. It has resources for the military, for the police, for anti-terrorist force SWAT teams—you name it, they have it. Despite that, the United States cannot deal with the control and supply of drugs. If we read Chomsky, we realise that, of the ingredients of cocaine, around 97 per cent are manufactured in the United States, exported to Colombia, integrated with the principal subject and then imported back into the United States. The United States cannot close its borders—not to Hispanic migrants and not to imported drugs.

As I say, we must consider not only the supply of drugs but the demand. That does not mean that we should take our eyes off the ball and not take any action. Stewart Stevenson was correct to talk about the need to target dealers, but we must examine why people take drugs. I accept that we are living in a society in which there are social causes of drug taking, such as deprivation. It is clear that there is a correlation between the onset of mass unemployment in an area and the arrival of heroin. As well as being taken by yuppies as part of their lifestyle, drugs are taken by people who have no focus in their lives and who see no reason for living. Why is it that when we have never had more material wealth, people feel that their lives are worthless?

The members who mock Dr Carol Craig—who come from all parties—should acknowledge that we are talking not just about material well-being. We must address people's moral values and give them a sense of self-worth. People do not take drugs purely out of poverty; they inject smack or heroin into their veins because they believe that there is little place for them in society. We must address demand as well as supply, which means not just providing people with material benefits, but giving them a sense of value and self-worth. I am not sure what the solution is or how we can legislate for it, but Dr Carol Craig must be listened to.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I commend to Parliament the amendment in my name, which represents a general statement of intent rather than a specific prescription on every aspect of the issue that has been mentioned during the debate. I welcome the large degree of support that has been expressed for the work that we are doing, the recognition that we are confronted by a significant problem and the willingness to work together that members of all parties have shown. Although we may sometimes disagree on particular issues, I hope that we can work together on our general intent.

There have been some excellent speeches. I commend Maureen Watt for making an excellent and highly thoughtful first speech in the Parliament. It was fascinating to hear her draw on her experience as a prison visitor. I agree that giving drug users short sentences is often not the answer, although I accept Bill Aitken's point that prison must sometimes be an option for those who commit crime persistently.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

I agree with what Maureen Watt said, which is why we have introduced drug treatment and testing orders. We want to keep people who have a persistent drug problem out of prison. I was shocked by the example that Maureen Watt gave of the release of a prisoner from Barlinnie. I would certainly like to know more about that case because it demonstrates some of the failings that still exist in the system and the inability of different parts of the system to come together.

In her thoughtful speech, Susan Deacon was right to discuss education and awareness raising. She mentioned the choices for life initiative, in which the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency is involved. That programme, which is funded largely by the Executive, demonstrates our commitment to educating young people about the dangers of drugs. As a number of members said, simply telling them not to take drugs is not enough. We must make them aware of the wider context and of the consequences of taking drugs. That is the starting point for much of the material in the know the score campaign, the effectiveness of which in providing drugs education and contributing to the drugs strategy is widely recognised in the United Kingdom and beyond.

We must reduce the use of drugs among children and young people—and I have mentioned the role that education and the provision of public information can play in that—but we must also reduce the harm that is done to children and young people who live in drug-addicted families. We face a huge moral and social dilemma about what to do in such situations. We know that parents want to be with their children and vice versa, but we need to ensure that by allowing that to happen we are not exposing children to dangers that could sometimes be lethal. We must engage in debate on that.

It is proper that we ensure that the number of problematic drug users who get timely and effective treatment increases, which is why we have extended the range of facilities that are available. However, we must keep a sense of perspective in the debate about residential treatment. Although such treatment, when given at the appropriate time, is right for some people, there can be other, equally effective interventions. We must leave that for the experts to determine.

Today's debate on what is a complex subject has been useful. Given the comments that have been made, I want to work with members of all parties and I hope that members of the justice committees will join me in examining what is happening in Glasgow and elsewhere. The more we can educate ourselves about the challenge that is ahead of us, the more we will be able take effective action to ensure that the problem is dealt with properly.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The Scottish Socialist Party is much more interested in progress than in consensus or point scoring. In 2000, in the Parliament's previous debating chamber, the SSP argued against the Executive's drugs strategy on the basis that it was primarily criminal justice led, did not take enough cognisance of the need for drug rehabilitation and treatment, did not allocate enough resources to community investment and to providing facilities that would allow young people to engage in positive recreation and did not address the legality of drugs and the continued criminalisation of users. We were lambasted in the Parliament and criticised by the media. We were told that because we called for heroin to be provided on prescription, we were, in effect, drug dealers. In 2000, there were 495 premature deaths from illegal drug use, but in 2004, there were 546 such deaths. In other words, consensus is not working. The Parliament's approach is not dealing with the problems that continue to haunt the communities of Scotland.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but I do not have time. The member did not have time to take an intervention from me.

We in the SSP believe that it is time to get real about the drug problem in this country. Let us get rid of the idea that simply getting tough and providing the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency with more money will deal with the problem. If we want an anti-crime strategy, let us consider the legalisation of the drugs the use of which is currently illegal.

People talk about the cost of illegal drug use. The Government says that it is responsible for 54 per cent of robberies, 80 per cent of burglaries, 85 per cent of shoplifting and 95 per cent of street prostitution. That is the result of the criminalisation of users, which is not working. Kenny MacAskill mentioned Chomsky's excellent work and the fact that the most heavily armed country in the world—the country that spends more on its security than any other country in the world—cannot stop the supply of drugs. Let me use an example that is closer to home. Some members have not spent time at Her Majesty's pleasure, but some of us have. Drugs have been available in each of the four prisons in which I have spent time. If we cannot stop the supply of drugs in prison, we will not be able to stop the supply of drugs in society as a whole.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member give way?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

No—I am sorry.

That is why we must address the legal status of drugs. Jeremy Purvis said that he believes in the legalisation of cannabis; so do we. Here in Scotland we have the power to decriminalise cannabis use by instructing our chief constables to no longer take action on such offences. That is what we should be doing. The figures that Jeremy Purvis gave show that we are involved in an absolute farce. There have been no deaths from cannabis use, but 80 per cent of illegal drug seizures involve cannabis rather than heroin.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

rose—

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

No one in the SSP is arguing that cannabis is a safe drug. There is no such thing as a safe drug. The SSP does not believe in promoting any drug; we are saying that we should stop criminalising the people who choose to use cannabis.

The crux of the motion that is before us today is Rosemary Byrne's call to get rid of the rhetoric on rehab and to introduce some reality on the subject.

Members should read the account of the experience of nine heroin abusers in The Lennox of 14 April. Every single one of them said that, when they sought help, the only available help was for them to be put on methadone. As far as the SSP is concerned, if someone is well off, they will get rehab; if they are poor, they will get methadone. That is not good enough.

A statutory right for users to receive drug treatment needs to be put into our health system. That would mean that proper rehabilitation and treatment would be made available, including residential treatment where appropriate. We are saying not that residential treatment works for everyone or that one cap fits all but that what is available here and now in Scotland is not good enough. To those who ask how we can afford that and who say that the system cannot cope—including members such as Jeremy Purvis, who says that we do not have enough places—I say that we should provide the resources to ensure that the system can cope. Drug misuse is a fundamental problem. If we were to divert the resources that go into criminal enforcement into drug treatment and rehabilitation, we would have the resources, beds and treatment. We can deal with the problem.

In his amendment, Stewart Stevenson says that he supports

"efforts to recover assets from drug barons".

I say to him that the SSP does not want to take more resources from the drug barons; we want to put them out of business. Back in 2000, we were isolated for saying that, but others now support our position. Lord McCluskey supports it, as does David Hingston, the procurator fiscal for Highlands and Islands. I say to Annabel Goldie that she ought to support her party leader on the matter. In September last year, he was quoted as saying that, as the war on drugs was not working, it was time to legalise drugs. The Tories in Scotland are not only out of touch with the people of Scotland; they are out of touch with their leader.

Strathclyde police has called for the legalisation of drugs. It did so because it wants to break the link between illegal drugs and crime. That is what the Parliament should be doing. If we want to have an anti-crime policy, we should address the illegal drug laws that are part of the problem and not the solution. Scotland should also have proper treatment and rehabilitation for addicts, as of right.

Local Government Pensions

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4253, in the name of Colin Fox, on local government pensions. Before we proceed to the debate, I will allow a few moments for members to leave and enter the chamber.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

As long as it is not part of my seven minutes, Presiding Officer.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No, it is not. Your seven minutes will start when I call you, Mr Fox. That is what we do in these circumstances.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

The motion that is before the Parliament was passed unanimously at Labour's Scottish conference in February. I hope, therefore, that Labour members in particular will support their party policy today.

More than 1 million workers struck on 28 March in the biggest industrial dispute that Britain has seen for decades. They made clear to all their anger and determination to defend their pension rights from attack. I was on the picket line that day, as were all my Scottish Socialist Party colleagues. I also attended the Edinburgh strike rally. I congratulate all the workers across Britain who took part in that day of action. The Scottish Socialist Party stands proudly alongside local government workers in this dispute. I am grateful that it has been noted that the SSP is the only political party to back the strike, attend the picket lines and support the strike rallies.

The question that 1.5 million local government workers continue to ask is: why are our pensions under attack at all? The Government and employers argue that, as everyone is living longer and the baby-boom generation is soon to retire, we face a demographic time bomb and a pension fund into which too few people are paying and out of which too many people will take. Indeed, the recent report from Adair Turner proposed that the way around the problem is for workers to pay more of their wages into the fund, to work longer—perhaps to 68 or 70—and to expect far less of a pension in return.

The SSP rejects that proposition. We do not accept that the money does not exist to pay a decent pension to everyone when they retire. The local government pension scheme is perfectly capable of meeting its future obligations in Scotland. We also reject the notion that the reward for better health and greater longevity is that people work longer and expect less on retirement—when it finally comes. Perhaps uniquely in the debate, the SSP retains the view that the retirement age should be reduced, not increased. The best way for working people to celebrate living longer is to spend their retirement in dignity and free from poverty. That is what people want.

At every opportunity that is afforded to them, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Labour members stand up and tell us that Britain is having the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth it has ever had. We can see clearly the signs that the rich and the wealthy are benefiting; those signs are all around us. However, Labour members cannot applaud record profits and economic boom only to turn round and say that the money does not exist for the poorest among us to expect even a meagre pension.

Frankly, the facts and figures do not back up the argument that Labour members make. Britain spends only 5.5 per cent of its gross domestic product on pensions, whereas the average across the European Union is 11 per cent. The average pension for a member of the local government pension scheme is £3,800 per annum. The average pension for working-class women, who represent the overwhelming majority of scheme members, is £31 per week, which is a ludicrous and scandalous sum of money.

I remind members that the state pension is £87 a week, which is just 20 per cent of average earnings. On the other hand, the average company director retires at 60—if not 55—and takes home a pension that is 26 times that of the average local government worker. Last year, the combined profit of the banks in Britain was £35 billion and the combined profit of the oil companies BP and Shell was £25 billion.

The cuts that Labour made to corporation tax resulted in an £11 billion loss to pension funds. The pension holidays that the top FTSE 100 companies took between 1988 and 2002 resulted in a loss of £28 billion from their pension funds. It is ridiculous to say that the money does not exist to pay for decent pensions or to allow people to retire at 60.

The mood of working people is angry and betrayed. They are determined to fight for what is theirs. I remind members that pensions were not granted by philanthropic Governments or employers; they were fought for and won by previous generations of working people. Indeed, in recent years, by not matching contributions, by abandoning final salary schemes and—in some cases—by bankrupting pension schemes altogether, employers have ratted on their side of the deal.

The issues at stake in the debate could hardly be bigger. The rule of 85 is not the real issue; in some ways, it is the thin end of the wedge. The Government is using a relatively unused clause of the local government pension scheme as a precursor to wider attacks on pensions. It is iniquitous that local government pension scheme members are being denied the right to retire at 60 when that right is afforded to teachers, civil servants and other public pension scheme members.

The Scottish Executive has said that the legal advice that it has been given is that the rule of 85 contravenes European law. I ask the Executive again—as many members have done recently—to put into the public domain today the advice that it was given. The Executive's argument is nothing more than a fig leaf to cover its intention to make further attacks on local government pensions.

The political choice on the matter is clear: it is a question of whether current pension rights are honoured and we go forward to improve them, or employers rat on their obligations and take away from working people that which they have worked for and earned.

Some on the right pour scorn on the pension rights of local government workers, and say that those rights are better than those of private sector workers. The people who bleat the most tend to be company directors such as Digby Jones, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, who will retire at 60 with a half a million pound pay-off and a £90,000 pension. That is utter hypocrisy.

Workers in all sectors deserve better pensions, and I remind them that we get nothing in this life without fighting for it. The lesson from local government workers' pensions for those who do not have similar schemes is that workers should join a union and campaign to retire at 60 and enjoy a full and decent retirement.

The Scottish Socialist Party rejects new Labour's manifesto of pay more, work longer and expect less in return. We support index-linked pensions and a £150-a-week pension for all now, rising to two thirds of the average wage. The Scottish Socialist Party hopes that a negotiated settlement that is acceptable to union members can be agreed in the dispute, but it must meet certain demands, maintain the right to retire at 60, not reduce the present pension rights and address the diabolical level of pensions that are paid out to the vast majority of local government pension scheme members.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern the Scottish Executive's announcement on 17 January 2006 to abolish the Rule of 85 for members of the local government Pension Scheme (LGPS) in Scotland; recognises that the proposed changes will have a detrimental impact on many working people who support vital public services, often on low wages, in a wide range of occupations in Scotland, including workers in local government, the Environment Agency, police support, cleaning and waste companies, the voluntary sector, bus companies, higher education and others; notes that this decision means that LGPS members are denied the same rights and protections as members of other public sector pension schemes which have agreed to allow retirement at the age of 60 on a full pension; further notes recent comments made by EU Commissioners on this issue indicating that changes to the Rule of 85 would not necessarily be a requirement under EU legislation and previous assurances given to COSLA and the relevant trade unions that the Rule of 85 for members of the LGPS in Scotland would be retained; recognises that members of the LGPS contribute to the scheme and want to ensure that there is a viable and sustainable future for it; further recognises that the financial standing of Scotland's LGPS is significantly healthier than schemes elsewhere in the UK and therefore calls for a distinctive approach, and further calls on the Executive to review and publish its legal advice regarding the Rule of 85 and to work with trade unions and COSLA to find a settlement which protects local government workers' pension rights.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

The debate provides a welcome opportunity to set out once again the Executive's position on our legal obligations under European law and our strong desire to ensure that local government workers receive fair and equitable treatment. It also provides a welcome opportunity to repudiate the carpetbagging nonsense that we have heard from Mr Fox. Money is not the driver. Why would it be the driver for removing what Mr Fox has just described as a little-used benefit? The firm legal advice that is available to us, which we have tested extensively, tells us that the rule of 85 in the local government pension scheme breaches the European directive on equal treatment in employment and occupation. Without the European directive there would be no legal impediment to keeping the rule.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Will the minister give way on that point?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

Not at the moment.

It would be easier if the legal position were different. We are fully aware that it creates an anomalous situation for some local government workers, particularly when compared with recently negotiated conditions in other public sector pension schemes. I have said previously and I say again that we are earnestly seeking a fair and equitable solution that will stand up to legal challenge. If we simply sought a quiet life or popularity, we might prefer to ignore the legal advice and do nothing. However, to do so would mean, in our view, that local government workers who felt that their position had been protected would be vulnerable to a legal challenge that would effectively strip away the rule of 85. We are not prepared to mislead, be disingenuous or ignore our legal obligations in the interests of short-term popularity.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Does the minister accept that the directive contains a number of provisions to exempt particular pension schemes? Does he not consider that paragraph 5(1) of schedule 2 to the consultation draft of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 would provide an exemption because it deems different approaches on age and length of service to be permissible under the directive?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I am aware of various articles of the directive and appreciate the fact that Mr Swinney draws it to our attention. It is clear that our legal advisers are equally aware of those articles. So far, we have not been able to provide a legal solution that allows us to apply a derogation that our legal advisers believe would stand up to legal challenge. I stress again that we do not want to give local government workers the impression that we have found a solution when, in reality, the solution would be subject to legal challenge and they would ultimately lose their position in any event.

The Scottish Executive is as committed as the trade unions and the employers—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—to negotiating a new local government pension scheme from 2008, and we are clear about our aims. First, the scheme should be sustainable and affordable. Secondly, and just as important, it should focus more directly on improving conditions for women and lower-paid workers. I have instructed the officials of the Scottish Public Pensions Agency to work closely with the trade unions and the employers in the tripartite group to seek a solution on which local government workers can depend. The next meeting of the tripartite group is tomorrow.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

The minister says that he is earnestly seeking an honest solution to the dispute, which everybody welcomes. Will he guarantee that the honest and earnestly sought solution will seek to protect the local government workers' current pension rights, which are at the centre of the dispute?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

That is, of course, exactly what we are trying to do. I have already made that perfectly clear. In case it was not picked up, I will say it again: without the European directive there would be no legal impediment to retaining the rule of 85, but the directive exists. The rule applies only to a relatively small number of people whose age and service combines to reach a total of 85. However, the directive removes that condition. We are aware that that is an anomalous situation. We have acknowledged that publicly and I am happy to do so again. We are searching for a solution and will continue to do so.

We know that there are differences in legal opinion and I have instructed my legal team to explore them actively. I have made it clear to our officials in the Scottish Public Pensions Agency that we need a Scottish solution and that that solution should happily and most desirably conjoin with any United Kingdom solution, but it does not necessarily have to do so.

I am pleased that tomorrow's meeting will take place against the background of the suspension of industrial action. I urge trade union leaders to convey to their members that an earnest and sincere search is going on in Scotland to find a solution—which we would like to find sooner rather than later—but also to bear in mind that the directive will not take effect until October 2006.

I assure the employers, the trade unions and, most important, the local government workers that we will use the coming days and weeks to work closely with the employers and the trade unions to find a solution that is fair, equitable and legally robust.

I move amendment S2M-4253.1, to leave out from "with concern" to end and insert:

"the current issues surrounding the future of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS); recognises that these issues will impact on a wide range of public sector workers; recognises that members of the LGPS contribute to this scheme and want to ensure that there is a viable and sustainable future for it; notes that the correct manner for dealing with the consequences of any changes to the LGPS, or any disagreement in legal opinion in respect of it, is through open and fair discussion with trade unions, employers and the Scottish Public Pensions Agency, and therefore welcomes the decision of the trade unions to suspend strike action as a result of the constructive dialogue which is currently taking place."

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The minister said in his speech that he was committed to finding a negotiated solution. I welcome those remarks and the fact that the discussions can take place without the threat of strike action, but the minister's interest in a negotiated solution was not apparent when he answered Carolyn Leckie's parliamentary question on 17 January and unilaterally announced in the middle of a negotiation that involved all parties that the Government's view was that the rule of 85 had to be abolished. It did not strike me as sensible and measured negotiation for the Government to announce halfway through a dialogue with various parties that it had come to a conclusion that was not to the liking of the trade unions.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

This might strike some people as pretty obvious, but it was impossible to begin negotiations to try to find a replacement for the benefit until we had declared our intentions. Therefore, we declared our intentions with the sole aim of moving on to negotiate some form of replacement for the rule of 85 for local government workers.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr McCabe makes my point for me. The Government had concluded that the rule of 85 was all over and done with, but I do not take that view. If we have an issue with the rule, we should not discuss its replacement with trade unions, but should discuss with the European Commission whether there are issues with the rule of 85 that have to be addressed. We should not hoist up the white flag and say that it is all over and that we have to abandon the scheme.

The minister said that he must have a robust solution that is not vulnerable to legal challenge. He is right, but there is a fine line between those careful remarks about ensuring that we have a robust legal position and scaring people that if they defend their existing pension scheme arrangements in the rule of 85 they might be legally vulnerable in future.

There are competing legal opinions on the subject. In my intervention on the minister, I cited paragraph 5(1) of schedule 2 to the consultation draft of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, which would provide for different pension schemes for employees of different ages and with different lengths of service. If the rule of 85 is not about that and if paragraph 5(1) would not encompass it, I do not know what the exemption is designed to achieve. The Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Mr Špidla, pointed out to my colleague, Ian Hudghton MEP:

"Article 6(2) of the Directive allows Member States to provide that the fixing for occupational pension schemes of ages for admission or entitlement to benefit "

on the basis of age and length of service

"does not amount to discrimination on grounds of age."

That comes from a European parliamentary answer given by a member of the European Commission, which I would have thought is fundamental to our discussion.

Some weeks ago, the minister was quoted—sorry, I should not say that the minister was quoted, but what he said did lead to a front page headline in The Scotsman that read "McCabe folds on pensions". That was a rather ungracious headline, but the article included the interesting comment that the minister was seeking a derogation from the directive to preserve the rule of 85. Unless I have missed something in the letters pages of The Scotsman, that line has not been corrected by the minister. On 30 March I asked the First Minister whether the Government was seeking a derogation. I hope that Mr McCabe or Mr Lyon, if he is summing up, will be clear about whether the Government is seeking a derogation or whether the position that Mr McCabe outlined is the case—that is, that the Government does not support the rule of 85 and thinks that we have to work on something else.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

rose—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I would love to take an intervention, but the Presiding Officer would probably contemplate throwing me out, and not for the first time.

It is important for the minister to confirm whether the Government is seeking a derogation. If it is, we are making genuine progress. There may be ways of preserving what I think is an important element of the local government pension scheme.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

As Colin Fox rightly said, relatively few people are affected by the change, so we have to ask why we had a strike. The answer is that the unions and people who work in local government find it difficult to get ministers to address the issues about which they feel strongly. I simply say—and I have said it before—that I do not think that the minister has done the Executive any favours in his handling of the situation, which has caused grief and distress to many people who are dependent on public services. They are the innocent victims.

The minister's amendment states that he is looking for

"a viable and sustainable future"

for the local government pension scheme and that he wants an

"open and fair discussion".

If that is the case, why on earth was there apparently a unilateral decision by Government to change the rules without any such discussion? I hope that the minister will answer that question.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I point out to the member that the question of the rule of 85 was first mentioned in a consultation document in 2004.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In that case, perhaps the minister will tell us what progress he has made with the discussions in the time leading up to today, but that is another point, presumably.

Sustainability is the issue, but of course it is not just the Scottish Executive and local government that are having difficulties with pensions. The chancellor, Gordon Brown, has attacked both public and private sector pensions annually to the tune of £5 billion or so. Many unions have pension schemes that are managed by the City and they have been attacked. It is almost as if the Labour Party—both south of the border and in Scotland— is unwilling to help people to look after their future concerns when they retire and to have some comfort to look forward to.

The minister dealt with the legal position, although it would have saved some angst if he had said what he said a wee bit earlier. It is interesting that 29 members signed Janis Hughes's motion on the local government pension scheme, which also called for

"open and fair discussion with staff"

and called on the Scottish Executive

"to initiate urgent discussions with COSLA and the relevant trade unions to achieve a solution agreeable to all."

Of the 29 members who signed the motion, 24 were Labour members. That shows that Labour members think that the handling of the matter has not been terribly clever.

I am not going to score brownie points against the minister, because we agree that any pension system should be fair, understood, agreed and sustainable, whether it is in the public sector or the private sector. It is important that we look to the future. We have to address the fact that we have an aging population. We have to ensure that people have some dignity when they retire and that people can expect that their savings will be worth something when they retire. If people contribute to a pension, they have a right to expect that their share of the pension fund will be sustained.

I hope that the minister meant everything he said about sustainability. If that is what he is seeking to achieve, we support his position. Equally, however, we have to consider who pays for local government pensions. The council tax payer is being squeezed badly every day of the year by the Scottish Executive, with huge increases in council tax. Will council tax payers pick up the cost of any changes to the pension scheme? It would be helpful if the minister explained when he winds up how pensions will be funded in future.

I am grateful to the unions for taking the sensible stance of saying that they will not strike in the meantime but will get around the table. I encourage the minister to join them.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Before I arrived in the Parliament I did not fully appreciate the meaning of the phrase "the luxury of opposition". However, we have a prime example of it this morning. The SSP motion might have been intended to grab a headline or two, but the negotiating moves by the unions and by local and national Government both north and south of the border have left the motion providing little more than the proverbial chip-wrapping paper, which is where all yesterday's news ends up.

As far as the Liberal Democrats are concerned, we need to stay within the law in dealing with the rule of 85. As the minister stated, doing otherwise could expose employees to financial claims. A legal challenge to the directive is being considered in England and, if it is successful, we will support the outcome. At the same time, the Liberal Democrats support the Scottish Executive's moves to resolve the issue with a Scottish solution through constructive dialogue. That includes consideration of the best way to introduce transitional protection measures. Despite facing bigger financial hurdles down in England, Richard Kemp, the leader of the Liberal Democrat negotiating team there, stated last week that he was sure that there could be a successful outcome to the negotiations that recognised both the increased longevity of staff and the rights of LGPS members.

It is important not to get the rule of 85 out of proportion. Although there are many thousands of people in the scheme, most of those who take early retirement do so under restructuring or early retirement packages. As other speakers have said, the rule is little used. In Scotland, figures for the past five years show that less that a quarter of employees leaving local authorities accessed the rule of 85.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I am sure that Labour members will be interested to know that the member thinks that a Labour party motion is chip wrapping, but they can take that up with him. There is little evidence that members understand the effect of abolishing the rule of 85, which will remove local government workers' right to retire at 60 on their full pension. If the Executive's proposals stand, they will lose a third of their pension. Does Mr Arbuckle support that?

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That was a premature intervention, if I may say so. I will come to that point.

We should remember that the rule of 85 is divisive. I would have thought that the SSP in particular would have recognised that in its motion. In its current state, the rule discriminates against many people, especially women who have had breaks in their working life. The exclusion of part-time workers from the local government pension scheme until 1993 was also divisive. One pension holder in five suffers because of a broken work record.

Today's debate is part of a much bigger unsolved problem with pensions that the UK Government—for whatever reason—has not yet dealt with fully. At Westminster, the Liberal Democrats' pensions spokesman, David Laws, referred to that two months ago when he described the UK Government's attitude to pensions as a "dog's dinner". I agree with his view that there needs to be a coherent and comprehensive policy on long-term pension reform and that it should be introduced as quickly as possible. Any delay in putting through properly costed reform of pensions would be unfair, not only to those who are on the brink of receiving their retirement payments but to those who have to pay for them.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We move to the open debate. I want to fit everyone in, so each speaker will have a tight four minutes.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

We are debating an important issue. The solidarity that the local government workers who went on strike on 28 March showed is testament to the strength of feeling about the matter. The strike reached into all parts of Scottish life and I am sure that every one of us felt its effects in some way. It reminded us how vital the workers who are involved are. A decision to strike is never taken lightly, particularly when many of the workers involved have low-paid jobs.

As Mr Davidson kindly reminded us, I lodged in January a motion that called on the Executive to initiate urgent discussions with COSLA and the trade unions to find a solution to the pensions dispute. As he said, that motion attracted widespread support from across the parties and showed the level of support for such discussions and for finding a satisfactory solution to the problem.

As I said, many local government workers have low-paid jobs, and the salaries of many are less than they would be entitled to expect in the private sector. The local government pension scheme has often been held up as an incentive for people to stay in public service when they could easily find more financially rewarding employment elsewhere.

The scheme covers far more people than just those who work directly for local authorities; it includes police support staff, higher and further education staff and staff in the community and voluntary sector. It is particularly hard for members of the scheme to accept that they will no longer be protected when they consider the agreement that was reached last October to protect other public sector workers. I accept the need for serious pension reform, but it is unfair that employers should be able to move the goalposts after an employee has started to pay into a scheme without putting in place another mechanism.

I worked in the national health service for 20 years and I will be entitled to an NHS pension, which is protected. That is not the case with local government pensions, which is surely wrong. It may be true that the rule of 85 has not affected many people in recent years, but it is unfair to change the provisions of the scheme for those who have already signed up without providing alternative provision. For those reasons, I support local government workers on the matter.

However, as today's debate takes place precisely when delicate negotiations are being undertaken, it is unhelpful. Of course I have every sympathy with the issue at stake, but the best way at this time to find an agreeable long-term solution is through negotiation. Resolution will be achieved only by all the parties involved reaching agreement, not by any discussion in the Parliament.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

No. We have already heard from Colin Fox.

The minister said that he has worked with and listened to all the parties involved in the argument. I sincerely hope that he continues to do that. Only by continuing dialogue and meaningful negotiation will a solution that is acceptable to all be achieved. I sincerely hope that that happens sooner rather than later, as the minister said. I welcome the trade unions' decision to suspend further strike action in the meantime.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

A public debate about pensions in general is taking place. Some people have erroneously tried to draw a distinction between circumstances in the private sector and those in the public sector. Public sector pensions are there to be defended and it is right to defend them. Members of such schemes contribute towards their pensions.

Colin Fox was a little wide of the mark when he referred to private companies' profits. If private companies made no profits and dividends were not paid into pension schemes and capital values did not increase, schemes would be in crisis, so profits are required.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Colin Fox has had his opportunity to speak.

The local government pension scheme is real, unlike the NHS pension scheme, to which Janis Hughes referred, which is paid for from current revenue and not from investment in funds. In that sense, there is a distinction between public and private sector pensions. However, the local government pension scheme and several other public sector pension schemes are real pension schemes in which people invest money for their future. That money is invested in Government stocks and in the stock market, so we need a successful economy to maintain those schemes.

The health of pension schemes north and south of the border could be different for a variety of reasons. However, all schemes have been exposed to Gordon Brown's raids through taxation changes. Local authorities north and south of the border might have taken different pension holidays—perhaps the deputy minister could advise us about that. Private pension schemes have suffered because companies took pension holidays and failed to contribute when stock markets and dividends were high; at least part of the pensions problem results from that. The other main cause of the problem is that Gordon Brown has chosen to have an on-going raid on the pension funds for all our futures.

I am concerned that we have missed an opportunity to engage with European Union law. I would like the deputy minister to give us a clear-cut answer on whether a derogation for the rule of 85 has been sought from the European Commission. That deserves a clear-cut answer of yes or no. If the answer is yes, unanimous support will be given. If the answer is no, we will be extremely disappointed and we will have to divide, perhaps unnecessarily.

Failing to engage properly with the processes that relate to directives from the European Commission ill behoves us all. The issue should have been spotted in advance and we should never have reached the current point. I do not believe that anyone who is involved in the tripartite talks wanted to reach this point. Had we been more aware of what was coming from the European directive, it could have been headed off. We all need to engage with the stuff that comes out of Europe, because it has consequences, which are often unintended.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Public sector workers have never expected high wages, but they do expect their pensions to be safe. Local government workers were therefore right to be outraged by the proposal to scrap the rule of 85 and give existing LGPS members only limited protection. Members of the pension scheme faced having to keep working until they were 65, even though they had paid the required proportion of their salary into the scheme and planned for their retirement for years.

It is hard to imagine the Executive making a bigger mess of things. First, as we have heard, it sabotaged on-going negotiations between COSLA and the public service unions by stating that the rule of 85 would be scrapped and insisting that it had no choice under EU law. If that is the case, why did Katharina von Schnurbein, the EU spokeswoman on employment, social affairs and equal opportunities, state categorically that the LGPS's existing terms were entirely compatible with the proposed directive on equal working conditions?

As has been said, we have seen probably the biggest single-day strike since 1926. The Executive went into back-flip mode and claimed that it would seek a derogation from a law that I would say is in no danger of being broken. The Executive's behaviour from start to finish has been a humiliating farce. The Executive must commit to supporting decent pensions for local government workers and to preserving their rights and their flexibility to take early retirement.

As we have heard, the debate must be seen in the context of wider pension issues and the erosion of pensions in the public and private sectors. The Blairite agenda has been to push people towards greater individual reliance on the vagaries of the stock market. That gambles with people's futures. We have seen the impact of the stock market's recent poor performance on individuals who are retiring, the impact of Equitable Life's performance and the high-profile collapse of several company pension schemes. That we still allow businesses to gamble with their employees' pension funds seems to be inconceivable, but time and again when a business goes bust, the pension scheme goes with it, leaving workers high and dry after many years of paying for their retirement. The ghost of Robert Maxwell still seems to haunt British boardrooms. That is why it is important for the state system to remain the bedrock for pensions in this country despite the attempts of successive Governments to whittle it down and undermine it.

Our current state pension scheme is based on the system that was established in 1911. It is therefore time to rethink what we are doing. We no longer live in a world in which there is full employment for men and in which women tend to stay at home. In 1911, life expectancy at birth was 51 for men and 55 for women. We still base our pension scheme on those assumptions.

Andrew Arbuckle was right to say that it is time to grasp the nettle and implement proper pensions reform. We need to introduce a citizens pension as the first stage towards having a general citizens income for all. We must get rid of the complex means-testing morass of the state pension scheme with its in-built discrimination against couples, disincentives to save and failure to maintain living standards. I look forward to the day on which this Parliament considers how we can introduce a pension scheme that is fit for the future in place of a scheme that is based on decisions that were taken in 1911. That is what we owe pensioners for the future.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Like many members, I think that we would be doing a great disservice to our constituents who are members of the local government pension scheme if we did not seek to form a cohesive vision of the way forward. Members have made some suggestions, but we should also take into account the skills of many shop stewards in the trade union movement and ensure that there is co-operation with the tripartite group to which the minister referred.

I have reflected on the representations about the loss of service conditions that various unions have made. I have been a member of the Labour Party for 23 years, since I was 16, and am proud that we have ensured that conditions have been taken into consideration over the years. I always respect the rights of individuals to make representations to their elected members. Many of us have received representations on the issue that we are discussing and we should give measured consideration to those representations as well as showing leadership.

Since members of the Scottish Parliament were sworn in on 6 May 1999, the issue of compliance with European law has touched the Parliament in many areas—it has affected fishing quotas and housing issues, for example. However, too often, some members think that only the Executive is responsible for considering compliance with European law. All of us must ensure that such compliance is considered. Members have said in the chamber that we should ignore compliance with European law. Some have said that they do not care about it in the first place. Some have said that they do not want to be part of the European Union and that we simply should not care about compliance at all.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Paul Martin and I are members of the Local Government and Transport Committee. Does he agree that compliance with European legislation on the provision of lifeline ferry services has been damaging to the people of Scotland?

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

In the minutes that are available to me, I will focus on the local government pension scheme; Tommy Sheridan and I can discuss the issue that he has raised when there is an opportunity to do so in the Local Government and Transport Committee. We should not ignore whether we are complying with European law, but a wider debate on compliance is needed. We should reflect on issues relating to compliance after the debate.

I welcome the fact that the minister has committed himself to having an open dialogue, but members seem to be concerned when we discuss the possibility of reforming the local government pension scheme. I am not frightened of reform. It would be interesting to find out how many of my constituents have benefited from the rule of 85. Not many directors of education or people who are on salary scales that have led to their benefiting from the rule of 85 live in Glasgow Springburn. I would welcome reform of the rule of 85 and the involvement in that reform of domestic assistants and the many other workers in my constituency who have not benefited from the rule of 85. We should not be frightened of reform.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I do not have enough time.

In conclusion, I am proud of my party's links to the trade union movement, which will continue. We have delivered the minimum wage, which was a pipe dream for many union members over the years. I assure union members that we will work closely with them and that we will ensure that Executive ministers work closely with them to resolve the issue.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

It goes without saying that pensions are an extremely important and emotive issue, so it is hardly surprising that the trade unions have been concerned about events in the past few months. However, it is important to keep the matter in perspective. Tom McCabe was correct to say that the number of people involved is quite small. In Glasgow, for example, only 51 people in a local authority that employs 36,000 people have sought early retirement since 2001. That said, it is understandable from the trade unions' perspective that, as people wish to retire earlier and the age make-up of the population changes, there should be concerns about changes. I understand the concerns that COSLA and the trade unions have expressed.

The minister has brought some difficulties on to his own shoulders. His somewhat abrasive negotiating style has certainly not helped. In turn, he might think that the matter has been complicated totally unnecessarily by the actions of his colleague down south, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, as Brian Adam properly pointed out, has made a sustained and prolonged raid on pension funds that has removed from them some £38 billion. That is profoundly unhelpful.

Andrew Arbuckle was correct to say that we must consider pensions overall because pensions will become an increasingly important issue in the years ahead. There seems to be a lack of political will to face up to what the problems are likely to be.

I am familiar with the local government pension fund because one of my duties in Glasgow City Council was to sit on a committee of three that administered the Strathclyde pension fund. I assure members that the responsibility that was involved was heavy. Mark Ballard seemed to suggest that we should abolish the stock market. I assure him that the decisions that were taken on stock market investments were taken after the deepest consideration, because such decisions impact heavily on the lives of many people whose means in retirement will not be significant. There are issues in that context. It is clear that we must be careful.

Tom McCabe was correct to say that considerable legal complexities are involved. Notwithstanding the comments of the estimable Frau von Schnurbein, the issue is not simple. The Executive is correct to want to seek its own legal advice and we look forward to seeing what is determined, as it is vital. It would not be proper to do anything today that is likely to pre-empt the results of that inquiry.

In the end, we need a scheme that is fair, sustainable, affordable and not likely to cause us difficulties with the European Commission as a result of breaching European rules. We support the Executive's amendment.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Paul Martin made the important point that compliance with EU directives is an issue for all of us. It is not just for the Government but for all members to exercise our responsibilities properly. The directive in question emerged from the European Council on 27 November 2000, so we cannot blame Westminster for the current situation; it was our responsibility to scrutinise it. I would prefer us to be sitting on the European Council and putting a Scottish voice from a Scottish perspective into the discussions rather than relying on the United Kingdom Government to do that.

That brings me to Andrew Arbuckle's comment that the UK Government is making a dog's dinner of pensions issues. As the Executive's approach is exactly the same as that of the UK Government on the local government pension scheme, I assume that the Executive's position is, similarly, a dog's dinner in Mr Arbuckle's view. If it is not, that will be another case of that terrible word that begins with H and ends with Y in which Mr Arbuckle is such a specialist, especially on the issue of Tay road bridge tolls, to give another example.

Janis Hughes made an important point of principle on pension matters, which is a substantial point on which we must reflect in our discussions. When an individual contributes to a pension scheme, we cannot change the basis on which that contribution is made without an appropriate transitional mechanism and due support for the arrangements to which that individual has contractually signed up. I have some experience of the subject from my former employment, and I believe that any private pension company that decided unilaterally to change the terms of somebody's pension entitlement would be condemned by every political party in the Parliament for breach of the terms and conditions of the contract into which the individual had entered. Therefore, I do not think that it is reasonable for the Government to take an approach that undermines the basis on which an individual has signed up to a certain pension scheme.

Mark Ballard referred to the comments that were made by the EU spokesperson on 22 January. She said:

"The directive has no influence on pension value or pension age. It is completely up to the member state. If they think it is reasonable for people to retire at 60, under EU law that is perfectly legal."

I accept that that is not a detailed legal opinion, but there are plenty of detailed legal opinions that support the point of view of the EU spokesperson. In the interests of open scrutiny of this point, we need to see all the legal opinions on which the Government is relying. If it is possible for the Attorney General to publish perhaps the most significant legal opinion of all time, in relation to the decision to go to war with Iraq, it is important that we have at our disposal the legal opinion on this issue, which is important to the members of the local government pension scheme albeit that it is of a slightly different order to the war in Iraq.

In the parliamentary answer that I quoted earlier from Mr Špidla of the European Commission to my colleague Ian Hudghton, the commissioner said:

"The Commission has had no meetings with the Scottish Executive on the '85 year rule' ... nor has it had any contact with members of the Scottish Executive on this matter."

The sooner that the Scottish Executive starts talking to the European Commission about the issue in detail, to protect the interests of the members of the local government pension scheme, the better. The approach that has been taken by the Government is cack-handed. There needs to be a reasoned negotiation based on open dialogue, with the publication of legal opinions. We must have swift action from the Executive on that point.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

This is an extremely important debate about the future of local government pensions and the rule of 85 in particular. That has been reflected in the serious speeches that have been made in the chamber this morning. As David Davidson rightly said, this is not a subject for scoring brownie points on; it is far too serious for that.

As Tom McCabe stated in his opening speech, if we simply sought a quiet life or popularity, we could ignore our legal advice and do nothing, in the knowledge that local government workers who felt that their position had been protected would still be vulnerable to a legal challenge that would, effectively, strip away this condition. That is not a position that any responsible Government or employer could adopt. That is why we are striving to find a fair, equitable, sustainable and legally robust solution to the problem.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I must make progress. Many important questions have been asked by members, which I hope to address.

I stated earlier that the firm legal advice that is available to us, which we have tested separately in Scotland, tells us that the rule of 85 in the local government pension scheme breaches the European Commission's equal treatment in employment and occupation directive. The current rule of 85 provides for some members to retire with an unreduced pension before their normal pension age. The factor that decides who can access that benefit is a combination of age and service; hence, if there were two members who had given exactly the same service, it would be solely their age that would determine which one qualified under the rule. That is where there is a slight difference from the arguments that have been put forward about other schemes. It is a separate issue. It is not about money; it is about dealing with the way in which the rule works.

In his opening speech, Mr Swinney asked why we are not using derogations and quoted one from the directive. We acknowledge that the directive already contains certain exceptions, which are otherwise known as derogations. That is what John Swinney alluded to. We have always said that we are looking for ways in which those exceptions can be used to allow transitional arrangements to be put in place to give protection to members. We have to justify the use of them objectively, but members should be assured that we are seriously considering the use of those exceptions, or derogations, in order to come up with a sustainable solution.

Brian Adam asked about the state of the local government pension scheme in Scotland. It is in a healthy state, as local authorities up here did not take pension holidays.

Both Janis Hughes and Paul Martin made strong speeches about the need for protection. Paul Martin made an important point about compliance. I take it that members from most parties will agree that compliance is an issue that we need to take seriously and work towards. That is why we believe that there needs to be a change to the scheme and why we are committed to working with the trade unions and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to negotiate a new local government scheme from 2008. The Scottish Public Pensions Agency is working closely with trade unions and employers to seek out a solution, and the next meeting of that tripartite group takes place tomorrow.

We are aware that there are differences of legal opinion and our legal team has been instructed actively to explore those. It has also been made clear to officials that this is a Scottish initiative. Although it would be preferable if it was aligned with a UK solution, it does not necessarily have to be that way.

I welcome the fact that industrial action has been suspended. That will allow breathing space for the serious negotiations to take place. I am sure that all members hope that a successful outcome can be achieved. Ministers have been in constant dialogue with the trade unions and COSLA for some time in seeking solutions and they stand by to continue those discussions.

Ministers are acutely aware of the genuine concerns of local government workers about the future of their pension scheme. We are also aware that, as a responsible Government, we must have regard to our legal obligation to comply with European law. We are committed to finding a solution that is both sustainable and affordable, and which focuses more directly on improving conditions for women and low-paid workers.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

It is appropriate to remind members what the debate is about. It is not about fetishistically hanging on to a particular rule; it is about protecting the rights of local government pension scheme members and the financial package to which they are currently entitled. The fact is that the Executive has unilaterally announced a breach of those scheme members' contract and a diminution of their rights and entitlements without their consent. They may agree to a change in their contract, but it is up to them to do that in advance of any such change. It was inappropriate of the Executive to announce to Parliament through an answer to a written question from me that it intended to abolish the rule of 85. At the same time, the Executive was in tripartite negotiations but was not telling the unions. That is outrageous.

Let us remember what the decision is about—it means that the right to retire at 60 with full pension entitlement under the rule of 85 will be removed. That will mean the loss of a third of a pension. Given that the average pension of a woman in the local government pension scheme is only £1,600, she will lose a significant amount of money.

I say to Andrew Arbuckle that the solution is not to accept a diminution; the solution is to make the deal better. The test of any solution that the Executive, or the Westminster Government, proposes will be the value of the alternative to every member of the local government pension scheme. Do the Governments propose to reduce the overall value of the scheme? Will the value stay the same, or will it increase? It will need to increase if it is to address the discrimination that women face—that is the only solution that will address the problem. Alternatively, is it being argued that some of the value of the scheme to members needs to be lost in order to equalise it? If that is the case, those making that argument should be honest about it. I do not want to equalise people down; I want to equalise them up.

What about the people who say to local government workers that we cannot afford the current provisions of the scheme? The minister used in his motion the words "viable" and "sustainable", but that makes me very suspicious. We do not hear the words "viable" and "sustainable" in relation to the MSP pension scheme. After just eight years' service, we are entitled to £8,000 a year. We do not hear those words in relation to the pension scheme of members of the UK Parliament, but the taxpayer bailed them out of a deficit after which they took the opportunity to increase their rights and entitlements. We do not hear those words in relation to the pension of I'm all right Jack, the First Minister, who is guaranteed 45 grand a year even if he is kicked out next week. We do not hear those words in relation to company directors who are paid 45 times more than their staff. Let us get real about those people's pensions and start talking about what is viable and sustainable about their packages. If those kinds of pension rights and entitlements are good enough for them, they are good enough for local government workers and for all workers in the private and public sectors. It is disgraceful to argue that the local government pension scheme for low-paid workers is not viable or sustainable.

Westminster MPs argued that their pension scheme needed to be retained because the precarious nature of the average parliamentary career meant that they deserved a better pension deal. With that sort of cheek and hypocrisy, their careers are not precarious enough.

This situation is about the political will to make priorities. Do we pay for pensions and workers or do we invest £25 billion to develop a new Trident or, as the Labour Government has done, spend £11 billion to give pension tax relief to the richest 10 per cent of the population?

When the argument turns to life expectancy, we all know that actuarial reports are based on English and not Scottish life expectancy. Unfortunately, we die younger in Scotland, so those reports make the Scottish pension scheme even healthier than the healthy state in which it is already reported to be.

The smaller someone's pension, the earlier they die. That is just not acceptable. Unfortunately, that means that because of the rights in Jack McConnell's pension scheme, he is likely to live as long as Methuselah.

Let me make a correction. The Government and the taxpayer would be worse off by £2 billion without the existence of the local government pension scheme and the contributions of its workforce. So why are we hearing those words "viable and sustainable"?

This whole episode and the spurious arguments made by the Executive to justify what is being done are the worst example of the Executive kow-towing to Westminster come what may. I might be more persuaded of its concerns about forms of discrimination if it spoke out and paid up to women who have been denied equal pay and to young people discriminated against by the minimum wage legislation, or if it stood up to Westminster against discriminatory asylum and immigration laws. The Executive's protests are a bit rich.

The Executive has got its knickers in a twist over the abolition of the rule of 85. COSLA and Unison are prepared to publish their legal advice, which contradicts the Executive's assertions, but the Executive is not prepared to publish its legal advice. The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry helpfully makes explicit statements to Parliament on the EU employment directive and its flexibility—when it suits that Government's objectives, of course—and those too contradict the Executive's statements.

I say to the Executive: publish the legal advice and let us see it. Let us see the colour of its money, let us see whether it will back up its statements on local government workers' pension rights with action and let us see the value of its proposals, because that is the crucial consideration.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it agrees with the advice from Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel that article 45 of European Community regulation 1782/2003 could be used in order to ensure that farmers in Scotland who were deer farming prior to 2002 can receive a single farm payment under new European Union support mechanisms. (S2O-9537)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

In advance of my response, I apologise to the member for its slightly technical nature. In addition, I do not wish to be picky, but for the sake of accuracy, it is article 42(5), not article 45.

Article 42(5) allows member states to use the national reserve in certain circumstances for establishing reference amounts for farmers. However, the consistent advice that I have received is that the historic model adopted for Scotland excluded support for categories not previously supported. Responding to a specific question, Commissioner Fischer Boel said that if distortions of competition that provoked disadvantages to Scottish deer farmers were shown, it would be possible to use article 42(5). As the answer to what constitutes a distortion of competition involves a consideration of all other previously non-supported categories, and since any use of the national reserve has to be agreed at member state level, we have been pressing the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to clarify the applicability of article 42(5) in those circumstances.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I could accuse the minister of hiding behind technicalities, but I would not do that. I appreciate that he is concerned that by opening up the question, he might be pursued by requests for support from previously unsupported sectors, such as the pig and poultry sectors. Is the minister aware that pig and poultry units tend to be parts of larger enterprises that almost certainly receive support through arable aid and other such mechanisms?

Given that the number of venison producers in Scotland has halved in the past two years, will the minister give an undertaking to at least investigate what I think is an unfair loophole and to identify exactly what the cost implications would be to provide support for an extensive and environmentally friendly agricultural sector that thoroughly deserves support to allow it to compete fairly with more recent converts to venison production?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am happy to do that. I expect that the member has exchanged correspondence with those in the deer farming industry. I have absolutely no wish to specifically exclude deer farmers from the single farm payment, but as the member rightly said, there are other unsupported sectors. Those extend beyond pig farming and include vegetable and fruit growers and other sectors that could benefit in theory. There are potentially serious ramifications for the allocation of the single farm payment.

I continue to pursue what has become an extraordinarily complex matter. I am very disappointed that after all these months we still do not have a definitive answer, but I am happy to pursue the matter further because I have no particular wish to exclude the deer farming sector. However, I must have consideration to the wider ramifications of the application of the single farm payment.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it ensures that people who are placed temporarily in a nursing or residential home are still able to access primary health care services. (S2O-9570)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 make provision for residents of nursing and residential homes, including temporary residents, to be accepted on to general practitioner lists and thereby to have access to primary health care services. Residents who for any reason cannot identify a GP practice at a temporary address may be allocated to a local practice by the NHS board for that area.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I am pleased to hear the minister's answer. The background to my question is that one of my constituents was removed from hospital care and placed in a temporary residential unit—temporary is the operative word in this case. Unfortunately, while they were in that unit they needed podiatry and GP care, but the podiatry was not available at all and it took time to establish the GP service. Does the minister agree that that is unacceptable and that everyone, regardless of where they live, is entitled to primary health care services? Does he also agree that arrangements for such cases should be fully developed before an individual moves from a hospital into a residential situation?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I agree that people have an entitlement to access primary health care and it is a reasonable expectation that that would be organised. Clearly, the primary responsibility for registering with a GP lies with a patient. However, in recognition of the position of elderly and frail people, the national care standards for care homes, for example, require that care home staff will know residents' health care needs and will arrange to meet those needs in a way that best suits the residents. That will include, where necessary, arranging for registration with a GP, which in turn provides access to other primary care services. If a care home operator fails to carry out that requirement, the national care standards are there for everybody and clearly it is open to an individual to make a complaint either to the operator or, indeed, to the care commission, and such a complaint would be investigated.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what economic benefits there are in proposals for a second runway at Edinburgh airport. (S2O-9515)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Aviation makes a significant contribution to growing Scotland's economy. The route development fund in particular promotes a greater range of direct connections. Projections suggest that, in order to maximise the benefits, a second runway may become necessary between 2020 and 2030.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I thank the minister for his answer. I also find it slightly disconcerting that a back bencher is sitting in front of a minister.

When the Executive considers the issue and when the minister has had discussions with the Minister for Transport at Westminster, will the minister assure me that the Edinburgh airport issue will be considered in a wider context that will perhaps include consideration of whether greater economic and environmental benefit could be brought from a high-speed, second rail line to London rather than from a second runway at Edinburgh airport?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I certainly accept the premise of Mr Pringle's argument that we need to consider the wider arguments and issues relating to aviation in Scotland, as we will do through the consultation on the national transport strategy. On every working day, there are 140 or more direct flights between Scotland and London's airports. We must consider whether there would be greater environmental benefit and improvements in journey times through promoting and encouraging, along with the United Kingdom Government, a fast rail link to the south. That issue is under active consideration. As Mr Pringle no doubt knows, Rod Eddington, the former boss of British Airways, was commissioned by the UK Government to consider that issue and others.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Business people from Europe have spoken to me many times about the difficulty of travel between Glasgow's airports. The Scottish Executive has said that it has no plans to consider establishing single-mode public transport links between those airports. Will the minister at least consider the feasibility of single-mode public transport between Glasgow and Edinburgh airports?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am not aware that there is a problem in travel between Glasgow's airports. If Ms Fabiani alludes to Glasgow airport and Glasgow Prestwick airport, there are rail links. While we can always look at improvements with the west of Scotland transport partnership and the First ScotRail franchise, there is significant co-ordination between those services at this time.

On travel between Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport, one of the important issues around the Glasgow crossrail project is the ability to connect Glasgow airport to the rail network in a way that would allow passengers and travellers generally to travel right across Scotland, potentially without having to change trains. That seems to me to be a significant advantage of that project.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it considers that the proposed closure of Jedburgh and Coldstream cottage hospitals complies with the spirit of the Kerr report. (S2O-9579)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The "Delivering for Health" report has been accepted as the national framework for service change and it sets out a comprehensive strategy for health care in Scotland for the next 20 years. As I have said before, I expect any service change proposals that are developed by national health service boards to be in line with that report.

As members will know, Borders NHS Board considered and discussed the outcome of the consultation exercise at its meeting on 30 March. The board's recommendations were received in my office on 10 April. Before making any decision, I will require to be satisfied that the board has fully considered the views that were put forward by all the people of the Borders, including those from Jedburgh and Coldstream, and other interested parties over the period of the consultation and that any proposals are fully consistent with national policy as set out in "Delivering for Health".

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I refer the minister to the key messages in the Kerr report that underpin the recommendations. Three out of seven key messages contain the word "local":

"ensure sustainable and safe local services ... view the NHS as service delivered predominantly in local communities rather than in hospitals ... develop new skills to support local services."

The final key message is:

"develop options for change WITH people, not FOR them, starting from the patient experience and engaging the public early on to develop solutions rather than have them respond to pre-determined plans conceived by the professionals."

Against the background of those key messages, I repeat my question. Does the minister think that the proposed closure of Jedburgh and Coldstream cottage hospitals complies with those underpinning key messages?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The member has no need to advise me of the contents of the Kerr report or, indeed, of "Delivering for Health", which took on board many of the Kerr report's proposals as part of the Executive's strategy. I can go no further than to say that Borders NHS Board's report is now with me and that I will make a decision at the right time in the interests of the people of the Borders.

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

The minister will be aware that one of the consultation responses was from Euan Robson and me on behalf of our constituents, who are concerned that the board's proposals did not sufficiently include co-operation between the board and Scottish Borders Council's social work department for the provision of services not only in Jedburgh and Coldstream, but across the Borders. Will the minister give the commitment that one of his key considerations will be the fact that the board has not proposed close partnership working with Scottish Borders Council's social work department?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The member raised that dimension with me previously and I recognise that such partnership working is essential for the delivery of more localised health care. Indeed, that is the policy and strategy of our health service throughout Scotland. I have agreed to a meeting with Euan Robson and representatives of the Coldstream and Jedburgh action groups on the particular issue to which the member referred. I will bear in mind the member's point about the need for close liaison between the board and the local authority.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to promote good practice in caring for elderly people with dementia. (S2O-9572)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We published guidance in 2004 on the best means of delivering care and support for those with dementia and their carers, no matter the setting. When we published "Delivering for Health" last October, we committed to develop a standard for integrated care pathways for dementia services.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Is the minister aware that the experience of admission to hospital for elderly people with dementia is frightening and, indeed, that admission for them can be dangerous? Is he also aware that elderly people suffer a significant number of accidents and falls in the hospital environment? Will the minister join me in calling for NHS boards across Scotland to put in place detailed and substantial plans to deal with hospital admission and stay? Will he look at good practice in other countries, which includes admitting elderly people with dementia to hospital only when absolutely necessary, using sitter services and consulting families regularly to ensure that elderly people with dementia are treated with dignity and respect in the hospital environment?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Many of the features of care to which Irene Oldfather refers are indeed the kind of things that we wish to encourage. We wish to develop those features where they are in place and, where they are not yet in place, we wish to ensure that we achieve them. The purpose of developing the integrated care pathway is precisely to ensure that all agencies, from primary care through social services, the voluntary sector to hospital services and, indeed, care homes, are aware of their particular roles, that users and their carers are consulted and that the agencies work in partnership with users and carers to deliver the most appropriate service.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it expects to be able to announce the outcome of its examination of the economic, social and environmental impact and costs of retaining or removing tolls from the Forth and Tay road bridges, as recommended by the Parliament on 30 March 2006. (S2O-9543)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The proposals for that will be reported on as soon as possible.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

We await them. Does the minister accept that the main reason for the necessity of its examination is that, in the Executive's tolled bridges review, the economic, social and environmental impacts were not fully examined? Does he accept that, if the case for the tolls to be removed, which I support, is to be evidenced, all those factors need to be taken fully into account?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I certainly accept that all those factors need to be taken into account, and they need to be factual. It is important that factual evidence supporting the concerns to which Scott Barrie refers is considered. I give him the assurance that it will be considered in the context of the study that we will undertake.

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

Does the minister agree that that exchange illustrates the sheep-like stupidity of Labour and the Liberal Democrats, who voted for a review of a review instead of voting to abolish the tolls on the Tay road bridge? As a gesture of good faith, will the minister advise the Forth Estuary Transport Authority and the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board that improvements by means of relocating the tollbooths on both bridges should cease until the review is concluded, thus saving millions of pounds?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I would be very happy to deal with the stupidity of the Scottish National Party, which of course has two different policy positions depending on which day it is. The SNP had one policy position before Christmas, according to which it was in favour of tolls; after Christmas, the SNP adopted a policy position that said that it was against tolls. Which is it?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

What advances has the minister made in the preliminary work on a new crossing over the Forth?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

As we announced on 1 March, we are taking forward the work that needs to be done in relation to the potential need for a second crossing. That includes an assessment of the technical requirements and the continuing assessment of the current condition of the Forth road bridge. I assure Mr Davidson that we will bring those matters back to the Parliament so that members can be kept up to date with an extremely important strategic issue for Scotland.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question 7 has been withdrawn.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is able to provide any further information about the Office of Fair Trading investigation into supermarket trading. (S2O-9589)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Following its month-long consultation on its proposed decision to refer the market for the supply of groceries by retailers in the United Kingdom to the Competition Commission, the OFT is considering the responses that it has received to that consultation. We expect the OFT to reach a final decision on whether to refer within the next month.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is the minister aware that Kettle Produce Ltd, one of the biggest employers in north-east Fife, recently paid off 60 staff, largely because of the company's current untenable contractual situation with the retail multiples? Does the minister agree that the supermarket code of conduct is clearly failing and that the Executive has a responsibility to Scottish food producers across the board to achieve a fairer trading situation?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

It is clearly very important that the trading environment is fair. On launching the proposed referral and consultation, John Fingleton, the chief executive of the OFT, pointed out:

"Although consumers have benefited from lower prices, the restrictions in the planning system, and the possible incentives those restrictions create for retailers to distort competition, may harm consumers and mean that competition in the market is less than it might otherwise be."

There was a very big response to that consultation, which reflects the level of interest in the issue. The size of that response is the reason for the short delay in the OFT's consideration of the matter. It had hoped to reach a decision on the proposed referral by the end of this month. I am confident, however, that a decision will be reached by the end of May.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what further progress it is making on the Aberdeen crossrail project. (S2O-9544)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

In line with our partnership commitment, we continue to support the development of the feasibility work for the Aberdeen crossrail scheme. My officials recently met the north-east Scotland transport partnership, which is responsible for delivery of the study, to discuss progress and the next steps. All the parties involved are committed to ensuring that the feasibility work is completed by the end of 2006.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the minister agree that the north-east would benefit hugely from the successful completion of the crossrail project in terms of both economic impact and the development of an improved and sustainable transport infrastructure? Given the welcome new investment that is coming to Scotland's rail network, does the minister agree that a final decision backing the scheme with a clear timetable should be a priority in the Executive's national transport strategy?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I have no doubt that NESTRANS and local members such as Richard Baker will want to make such a submission to the national transport strategy. Richard Baker will know that the strategic projects review provides the opportunity to consider carefully that kind of project against many others for which there will be competing demands.

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 exciting issues they will discuss. (S2F-2230)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister, but I will be delighted to meet, with other members, Scotland's winning rugby team from this year when they arrive at the Parliament with the Calcutta cup shortly after First Minister's questions.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I think that we can all share that sentiment.

I do not know whether the First Minister managed to catch any of what was a constructive debate this morning about drugs—I hope that we can maintain that constructive tone in this exchange. Does he agree that drug misuse is at the root of many of the problems that we face as a society and that tackling it must be a priority?

Cracking down on dealers is an on-going challenge and we should congratulate Strathclyde's police on their efforts in Glasgow this morning. Does the First Minister agree with me—and with many of the speakers in this morning's debate—that access to the most appropriate treatment for addicts who want to give up drugs is absolutely essential?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It goes without saying that drug misuse is at the heart of many of the social problems that we have in Scotland today. We need to have a consistently implemented strategy that deals with both supply of and demand for drugs. That entails the extensive use of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency and local police forces throughout Scotland, not just in Strathclyde, where this morning the largest ever series of raids took place. I hope that that has tackled effectively a number of people who are alleged to be involved in the drugs trade in the west of Scotland. Earlier this week, we saw similar effective action by the local force in Aberdeen. It is essential that such action is taken locally and nationally.

However, it is also essential that we tackle the issue of demand, because without demand there is no need for supply. That is why drug education programmes and drug rehabilitation programmes are so important and why we have increased significantly resources for both.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I acknowledge the success in tackling the supply of drugs and the attempts that are being made to improve rehabilitation and treatment services.

The First Minister will be aware that before an addict can receive appropriate treatment, they have first to be assessed. I refer him to a contribution made this morning by Jeremy Purvis—not a man I quote often—who expressed concern about an addict who had to wait three weeks just to be assessed for treatment. Is the First Minister aware that two years ago, 30 per cent of addicts referred for treatment had to wait more than three weeks for assessment? Is he concerned, as I am, that two years later, the official statistics show that more than 50 per cent of addicts now have to wait more than three weeks to be assessed for treatment?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It depends on the context. If, as in other areas of the health service, the priority has been to reduce the longest waits for assessment and treatment, which has resulted in a small increase for those who have previously experienced shorter waits, that would be justifiable, at least in the short term. However, it would not be justifiable in the longer term. We have to ensure that initial assessment, treatment and access, if necessary, to proper rehabilitation facilities—preferably away from the home, where it can be so difficult for people to give up their addiction and sustain their progress—are more available, more consistently in more parts of Scotland. That is why we have increased investment and made this area such a priority, and we will continue to do so.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The fact that more addicts are waiting more than three weeks for assessment is a matter of concern.

I put it to the First Minister that there is an even bigger cause for concern. He mentioned the longest waits. I draw his attention to information that was provided to my office during the Easter break by the Government's statistics department. It shows that in the last quarter of last year, of the 7,000 new addicts referred for treatment, nearly 1,000 waited more than six months just to be assessed for treatment, and 400 waited longer than a year. Does he agree that, when we have a strategy that rightly encourages addicts to seek help and to take personal responsibility for their lives, such waiting times are just not acceptable and will undermine an approach that we all support?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Ms Sturgeon started well and consensually but, as ever, she managed to depart from that approach. Over the past six months, we have seen consistently the utter distortion of waiting times statistics by the Scottish National Party. Last year, the health service in Scotland made a concerted effort to reduce the longest waiting times by tackling the cases of those who had the longest waits, which has produced the statistics that Ms Sturgeon quotes month after month. It is a good thing that the people with the longest waits were treated and that the longest waits, therefore, came down. That was the right thing for the health service in Scotland to have done, and I will justify it whenever I have to, including here at First Minister's question time.

The real issue is whether the drugs strategy is working in practice. This morning in the west of Scotland, it has been shown yet again that the resources that have been allocated and the policies that are administered by the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency are working, because officers are out there tracking those who are accused of supplying drugs on our streets, catching them and ensuring that they are put through the proper prosecution procedures. We know that the number of problematic drug users among young people is going down. For the first time in a long time, the use of drugs by schoolchildren is stable. Since 1999, acquisitive crime by drug users has fallen by 24 per cent. This is still a huge problem in Scotland, but we are tackling it. Tackling supply and demand—ensuring that we deal with both—is the right approach. That approach is now proving effective across Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I remind the First Minister that I acknowledged the successes of the Government's drugs policy. However, consensus does not mean sweeping problems under the carpet—it means being prepared to turn our minds to seeking solutions to those problems. I ask the First Minister to turn his mind to a very simple question and, for a change, to try to answer it. What specific action is the Scottish Executive taking to reduce substantially waiting times for assessment for drug addicts who want help to get off drugs?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As I have already explained, there are additional investments in the health service to deal with assessments. There are also significant new investments to ensure that people have access to rehabilitation treatment that was not available before. In many parts of Scotland, the waits were not just long but at times completely open ended. Families whom I met would tell me about the agonies that they were going through in order to get their youngsters into rehabilitation places. It is critical that we tackle the supply of drugs and enforce the law effectively. We are doing that more effectively than we have ever done. However, we also need to tackle demand. That means having education programmes to stop youngsters getting into drugs in the first place and ensuring that those who are addicted are able to go through the right process and programmes to rid themselves of addiction. The additional investment will make even more of a difference than the previous investment has already made.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2231)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Cabinet will discuss a range of issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

I can report to Parliament that yesterday the Cabinet congratulated the Lord Advocate on his elevation to the House of Lords. It is entirely appropriate, especially post devolution, that our Lord Advocate should represent Scotland in the House of Lords. I am delighted to congratulate Colin Boyd here again today.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I do not wish the Lord Advocate any ill will at all, but it is perhaps unfortunate that, having got into the House of Lords, he seems to have suffered from political ambivalence and is having to sit as a cross-bencher. Then again, if the Scottish Executive does not know its political colours, what hope is there for the Lord Advocate?

Since I last raised the subject of Scottish Enterprise with the First Minister, disturbing headlines in various newspapers have suggested that the organisation is squaring up for a fight with the Executive and is being unco-operative about appearing before the Parliament's Enterprise and Culture Committee. Although I gather that Scottish Enterprise officials will appear before the committee next week, the episode only adds to the growing public perception that a major part of the problem with the organisation is that it is becoming a law unto itself. Will the First Minister remind it that, as a public body funded by taxpayers, it is accountable for its actions properly and timeously to the Parliament and that the Parliament has a duty to hold it to account?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There is no need for me to do that, because the board and officials of Scottish Enterprise are well aware of their responsibilities to and their relationship with Government in Scotland and this Parliament. I understand that the report of the organisation's internal audit committee will be made available to the Enterprise and Culture Committee in the timetable that was set down, and we will publish the report on Scottish Enterprise's financial position that was commissioned by the minister from the auditors KPMG LLP.

That said, although the current flurry of activity by the Conservatives and nationalists to rubbish Scottish Enterprise might suit their goal of reducing its budget and level of activity, it does not suit Scotland's goals. During the tartan week celebrations, I had the pleasure of announcing a deal between Wyeth Pharmaceuticals and Scottish universities that is one of the biggest for the future of our biotech industries and life sciences. The deal could have been concluded only through Scottish Enterprise's strong leadership and determination to focus on national priorities and to make a real difference not just to the organisation itself, our Government or this Parliament but to the future of Scotland. The right strategy is to focus on the right long-term objectives, and we support Scottish Enterprise in implementing that strategy.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have never rubbished Scottish Enterprise. Indeed, such language is unhelpful to the political debate. The organisation might well be in grave danger of rubbishing itself with its activities, but that is a matter for it to determine.

The other public concern is that an agency charged with improving our economic performance does not seem to be able to balance its own books. Indeed, Karen Gillon has expressed the fear that the problem with Scottish Enterprise is similar to the situation with Scottish Opera

"in which an organisation believed that it could spend ad infinitum"

and

"that, at some point, the Executive would probably have to bail it out."—[Official Report, Enterprise and Culture Committee, 28 March 2006; c 2863.]

To allay those very legitimate fears, will the First Minister make it absolutely clear to Scottish Enterprise that the party is over, that it will not be bailed out again and that, like every other organisation that receives public money, it must learn to live within its means?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I want to make three brief comments in response to that question. First, it would be wise for us to wait for the publication of the audit reports and to examine them before we pass judgment on what has happened. However, I am certain that, if procedures require to be improved, Scottish Enterprise will make those improvements.

Secondly, our budget decisions will be based on Scotland's needs and the need for investment in certain areas. As ever, we will make those decisions properly and annually.

Thirdly, despite the need for Scottish Enterprise to address the current financial issues and to take action on various internal procedures, I believe that its strategy is right. Because of its considerable success in implementing that strategy, it deserves more support from this Parliament than it appears to have received from Opposition parties over recent weeks.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The fundamental problem is that Scottish Enterprise is an unwieldy, bloated organisation. I am delighted that the Executive has made a start by acting on my suggestion that Careers Scotland should be removed from its functions. However, what other functions does the First Minister think could be stripped out or cut back to streamline Scottish Enterprise?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We would look at any proposals of that sort on their merits, but it is important that we have an economic strategy that is based on the skills of our people and on the knowledge of our universities, companies and research establishments. That is how Scotland will compete in the future, so there is a clear need for Scottish Enterprise to be involved in regeneration, in the promotion of Scotland overseas, in support for the creation and building of successful Scottish companies and in skills. Those things should always be kept under review as we focus in on the right economic strategy for Scotland and implement it. In the meantime, the key priority must be not to shake up Scottish Enterprise or to act on the Tories' proposal to cut back its activities, but to support Scottish Enterprise in implementing Scotland's economic strategy, in creating jobs for Scotland, in building investment and in building Scottish companies. That is what we should be about.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I shall take two back-bench supplementaries, the first of which is from Dr Elaine Murray.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

The First Minister may be aware of two announcements that were made last week, about the closure of the Ring True call centre in Dumfries and about the Hunter Rubber Company going into administration. Almost 100 jobs have already been lost in the town through those two events, and a further 60 may be lost if a buyer is not found for the Hunter Rubber Company. Does he agree that those are significant losses for a town with a population of 35,000? How can he and the Scottish Executive ensure that the internal problems of Scottish Enterprise do not diminish its efforts and its role in securing new businesses to take over both those high-quality sites and provide employment for those whose jobs have been lost or are in jeopardy?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We would clearly wish to support those affected by those decisions and to assist the local agencies that have responsibility to assist the individuals involved and to promote the economy of the Dumfries and Galloway area. I am sure that the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning would be willing to meet Elaine Murray to discuss those issues in more depth in the weeks ahead.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Last evening, I was contacted by some distraught parents in the north-east of Scotland about the threatened closure of Keith Lodge in Stonehaven, which is a facility for young people with disabilities of varying kinds that also provides respite care to people who do not come only from the north-east of Scotland.

Keith Lodge is run by the Church of Scotland, which claims that it cannot afford to keep the doors open. I recently got an answer from one of the ministers indicating that, because the facility was run by an independent organisation, the Executive had no role. I beg the First Minister to intervene in the situation to see what he can do to provide not only a short-term solution to the loss of that care facility but a long-term solution. It is a public matter and public money is used to support those young people and their families, for whom I think that we have a duty of care. Therefore, I ask him to agree today to intervene personally in the matter.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I did not have any advance warning that that specific issue would be raised, but my guess would be that the funding relationship with that institution has been dealt with in the past through Aberdeenshire Council. I am certain that the minister responsible will be willing to try to facilitate discussions between Aberdeenshire Council and the Church of Scotland on the issues, although we must be careful not to be seen to intervene in the internal decision making of the Church of Scotland, which is clearly an independent organisation. I would be deeply concerned if young people who needed access to services were being affected, but there may be other local factors that we need to consider, and I am sure that the relevant minister will be happy to respond.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister when he next intends to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2244)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although I expect to have a conversation with him next week.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

When the First Minister speaks to Gordon Brown next week, will he tell him that, given that this week of all weeks is the 20 th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster and that the death toll from that nuclear explosion could exceed 100,000, Scotland does not want nuclear power stations? Does he agree that the £70 billion earmarked by Gordon Brown for the second generation of reactors would be better spent developing renewables and other safer forms of energy? Will he take the opportunity today to come out categorically against more nuclear power stations in Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am happy to repeat the points that I made yesterday in my speech to a conference organised by the trade union Amicus.

As a devolved Government, we have a strong policy not to endorse the creation of new nuclear power stations in Scotland in advance of any proper resolution of the issue of nuclear waste. I posed two questions yesterday, and I pose them again today. Organisations and individuals who are opposed to the development of further nuclear power in Scotland have to answer the question of where the power will come from that is currently provided by nuclear power stations in Scotland. [Applause.]

Before the enthusiasts cheer too loudly, there is an equally important question for them. Those who support the development of further nuclear power in Scotland must answer the question of what we will do with the waste that currently exists and what will be done with waste in the future. Given the talents and abilities that we have in this country of ours—academic talents, natural talents, commercial talents and technological talents—it is not beyond our wit to make a major contribution to those two debates, but both must be carried out properly and openly.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I am grateful to the First Minister for asking the questioner a question. However, I already replied to it, from the perspective of those who are opposed to nuclear power, in my initial question. The answer is to develop renewables and other safer forms of electricity generation.

Given that spent nuclear waste remains extremely dangerous for a thousand years, given what happened at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and given the post-9/11 threat, does the First Minister understand why the Scottish people will not accept his promoting further nuclear power generation? Does he accept that his current position puts him on a collision course with Tony Blair, who has set his sights on building several more nuclear power plants, irrespective of the conclusions of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management? Tony Blair argues that nuclear power plants meet CO2 emission targets and provide stability, in comparison with gas. What assurances can the First Minister give that his view, and not that of the British Prime Minister, will hold sway in this Parliament and that the views of the Scottish people will be protected?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will try to be brief. First, I restate our commitment to renewable energy. I remind Parliament of the significant investment that has been made in and progress that has been made on renewables in recent years and the further progress that we hope to make, particularly in biomass and, potentially, in wave and tidal energy in the years to come.

Secondly, although there is scope for the further development of renewables—we have set a very high target—and for greater energy efficiency, we need to be certain that there will be an appropriate level of energy supply for domestic and commercial use in the years to come. That is why the question about supply is so important.

I say clearly to Colin Fox that the decision on whether a new nuclear power station will be built in Scotland will be made by this devolved Government. We have the responsibilities and we will take them seriously. We—and no one else—will take the decision.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

To ask the First Minister whether enough precautions are in place to combat bird flu. (S2F-2236)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The response to the single case that was identified recently showed that contingency plans were well prepared and comprehensive.

I would like to thank the minister, Ross Finnie, other ministerial colleagues, the state veterinary service and the other officials involved for their quick and effective response, which involved close work with other agencies, such as Fife Council and the emergency services. I am sure that the whole chamber will join me in thanking them. [Applause.]

Subject to no further findings of disease, I expect that we shall be able to lift the wild bird protection zone on Saturday 22 April, followed by the lifting of the surveillance zone and the risk area on 1 May.

I would like to record how proud I am of the behaviour of people throughout Scotland, who have not panicked and have responded calmly and reasonably to the incident. I think that we all know the damage that can be done when people panic—it is normally wise not to do so.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Does the First Minister agree that during the recent episode, when an infected swan was found in Fife, the emergency services, the relevant authorities and, in particular, the public of Fife demonstrated a commendable ability to react vigilantly and proportionately? Can he assure the public of Fife that all that can be done will continue to be done to help them to move on from the incident?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Clearly, my comments about people throughout Scotland reflect particularly well on the people of Fife. They were the focus not only of what could have been a scary incident for them but of national media attention, which is probably at least as scary for people who have not experienced it before. We should acknowledge the contribution made by the people of Fife and the agencies of Fife, who worked together very effectively.

I assure Helen Eadie that, although we hope to have the risk area and the zones lifted within the next 10 days or so, we will continue to monitor the situation not only in Fife but across Scotland. The ministerial group on civil contingencies—which is chaired by the Minister for Justice—will meet shortly to ensure that any lessons that have to be learned from the recent incident are taken on board in our precautionary procedures for the future. We will continue to liaise closely with the United Kingdom Government and with other agencies outside Scotland to ensure that any required improvements in liaison are put in place—and before any further incident that might take place.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am the MSP for Cellardyke, where the swan was found, and I add my personal thanks to the various agencies that were involved. I particularly thank the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie.

Will the First Minister add his congratulations to those already offered to the folk of Cellardyke on their good sense and on the way in which they reacted to the situation? [Interruption.]

Does the First Minister agree that the important thing now is to make it clear to the people of Scotland and the wider world that Scotland is still open for business and that there is no immediate risk of bird flu? Does he further agree that it is important that, this weekend, we build on the successful tourism week in Cellardyke and ensure that people return to the east neuk of Fife and take advantage of our facilities? Finally, does he agree that our poultry farmers in particular must be assisted so that there is no lasting effect on the egg and chicken production industries in Scotland? [Interruption.]

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

This is a very serious issue—it could have been very serious for people in Fife—and the behaviour of some members today while questions are being asked has been unacceptable. It shows disrespect for the individuals and businesses that could be affected.

Businesses across Scotland have reacted and responded well to the appropriate agencies' need for further information. It is because of their response—and because they have been shown to be good businesses—that we have been able to decide to lift the zones over the next 10 days.

Bird flu is not a human disease. That is one reason why we have put out a very strong signal that people should still come to visit Scotland. This is a great country to visit, and there is no reason why people should not come. I am delighted that it appears that—even in Fife last weekend—the numbers visiting are up. I hope that, over the summer, our investment in tourism will lead to more visitors coming to Scotland, not fewer.

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

To ask the First Minister what guidance the Scottish Executive will issue to police forces in relation to the new offence of glorifying terrorism, created by the Terrorism Act 2006. (S2F-2243)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Terrorism Act 2006 is reserved legislation and the Home Office has issued a circular on its application. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has received a copy of the circular, and it is also available on the Home Office website for everyone else to see. It is largely informative and does not include instructions to police officers about the investigation or reporting of offences.

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

The First Minister will be aware that the guidance in the circular states that

"glorification of distant historical events is unlikely to be caught"

by the 2006 act. That is a relief, given the violent past of both the Borders and Scotland. However, does he share the deep concern that the circular contains no reference to the need for the right to freedom of speech—a cherished right in Scotland—to be protected? That right is often challenged by people with abhorrent and disgusting views, and it should not be put at risk by this United Kingdom legislation.

Does the First Minister also agree that much of the guidance offers the police and prosecutors subjective views on what is indirect encouragement of terrorism? What will he do with regard to policing in Scotland? What discussions will he have with the Lord Advocate to ensure that the right to freedom of speech—which is often challenging—remains robust and protected in Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

My understanding of the circular is that it is an information circular that describes the legislation rather than a circular that expresses any opinions or gives any guidance to police officers or others on the implementation of the legislation.

It is clear that the provision of guidance to police officers in Scotland would be a matter for the Lord Advocate, but he would rarely issue such guidance because responsibility for the operational activities of police officers in Scotland lies with the chief constables. The Lord Advocate would intervene only when he felt that there was a need to give detailed guidance. However, it is appropriate for him to be responsible for the provision of any operational guidance to procurators fiscal. Such guidance will come from his office in Scotland rather than from the Home Office.

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

I thank all MSPs and Parliament staff for their messages of sympathy and condolence over the past weeks, which have been of great comfort to me and the Ewing and McAdam families.

To ask the First Minister what improvements have been made in respect of the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of osteoporosis; what further plans the Scottish Executive considers should now be made, and over what time period they will be implemented. (S2F-2233)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I thank Fergus Ewing for his comments. It is good to see him back in the Parliament. The memory of Margaret will always remain with us.

The clinical guidelines on osteoporosis that were published in 2003 set out the best ways to support people who have osteoporosis in managing their condition. We expect NHS boards to implement those national guidelines locally. In addition, we have increased the local availability of DEXA scanners throughout Scotland and there is a scanner at the Golden Jubilee national hospital that is available to the whole of NHS Scotland. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will publish an appraisal of drug treatments for osteoporosis later this year.

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

I thank the First Minister for that answer and for his kind comments.

Yesterday, as the Parliament's representative, I attended a meeting of the European Union's international panel on osteoporosis. Delegates from other countries recognised that progress has been made in Scotland, not least by the fracture liaison unit in Glasgow and through the fracture audit work that has been carried out in Edinburgh and Aberdeen. I can tell members that delegates from England were particularly jealous, as well they might be on many counts. Does the First Minister accept that early identification, diagnosis and treatment of people who are at the highest risk of sustaining fragility fractures because of osteoporosis should be a priority in our health care strategy?

I have a further, specific question, of which I gave the First Minister advance notice this morning. Yesterday I learned that the Austrian presidency of the EU is making osteoporosis and the care of fragility fractures a priority. The issue will be discussed at an informal meeting of health ministers at the Council of Ministers next week. Given that one in two women and one in five men in Scotland who are over 50 face fragility fractures and the misery and diminished quality of life that they entail, does the First Minister agree that, like Cyprus, Latvia, France, Germany and Austria, the nation of Scotland should make the issue a priority for the hundreds of thousands of people whose lives could be improved immeasurably?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am getting looks from the Presiding Officer about the time, so I will be very brief.

The phrase "national priority" has a particular connotation in the context of the national health service in Scotland and there are many demands for additional national priorities. What I would say is that the implementation of the guidelines for local health boards on the best ways to support people with osteoporosis should be a priority, and boards should be in no doubt that we expect them to treat the matter accordingly.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Education and Young People, Tourism, Culture and Sport

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many new schools being built under public-private partnership contracts are installing biomass heating systems. (S2O-9581)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Currently none is, but we are aware of several authorities that are considering employing such systems.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for that answer, although it does not take us any further forward. There is a real sense of urgency about the issue because the schools that are being built in Scotland now will be around for 20, 30 or even 40 years. If we cannot reduce emissions from those schools, how will we tackle climate change and make our contribution? I know that the Executive will have produced a biomass action plan by the end of this year, but that will be no use because many of the PPP contracts will be finalised in the meantime.

What action will the minister take to uphold the conclusions of the recent parliamentary inquiry into biomass, which recommended

"that the Executive ensure that as many as possible of the PPP contracts which have been specified but not yet delivered can also still consider biomass systems"?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The Executive is strongly committed to moving in that direction but, at the end of the day, local authorities have ultimate responsibility under PPPs for progressing the schemes. As the member is aware, there are projects in Perth and Kinross, the City of Edinburgh and the Scottish Borders, all of which are at an advanced stage and in which the question of biomass is being actively considered.

I think that I am right in saying that Perth and Kinross Council recently approved a preferred bidder. Following that approval, the Scottish Executive asked the Energy Savings Trust to undertake a technical and financial assessment of the biomass element of the project. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, that could get under way only once the preferred bidder was in place. That assessment will guide the direction of travel and allow us to make informed decisions about how we can continue to support such elements during the development of PPP projects.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The minister will be aware that I have raised with him on numerous occasions the installation of a biomass project at the new Breadalbane academy, which is one of the schools in the Perth and Kinross project to which he just referred. Will the minister share with Parliament further details of the process and the Energy Savings Trust project that he has just announced? How long will that process take? What work is being reviewed? When is the Energy Savings Trust likely to report? Is the assessment likely to have any impact on the decisions that Perth and Kinross Council must make if it is to make progress on the issue in a very short space of time?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I think that I am right in saying that the decision on the preferred bidder was taken by Perth and Kinross Council as recently as 7 April. I mentioned that the Energy Savings Trust arrangement could not proceed until that had been done, and discussions are currently under way on how to progress that matter. The Energy Savings Trust will be able to carry out the project. It is difficult to be certain about timescales because some aspects are quite unpredictable, but it is hoped that Perth and Kinross Council will be able to go on to the next stage of the process during the latter part of this year.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what key lessons have been learned from the Commonwealth games in Melbourne in developing Glasgow's bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games. (S2O-9518)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The 2006 Commonwealth games in Melbourne were a great example of how to showcase our country to the rest of the world, and in many respects the event acted as further inspiration to bring the event to Scotland. Our experience of the games has confirmed that we are on the right path, but we cannot be complacent about our bid. We need to continue the good work that we have started and ensure that a successful bid to host the games in Glasgow in 2014 will provide benefits for the whole of Scotland.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am sure that the minister will welcome the fact that Glasgow's bid has been endorsed and is being supported the length and breadth of Scotland, no doubt encouraged by the success of the Scottish team in Melbourne. Did the minister glean anything from the Melbourne experience about how other parts of Victoria and Australia were able to take advantage of the games' being held in Melbourne, rather than in those other areas, so that if Glasgow is successful—as we hope it will be—all parts of Scotland might share in the benefits?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The answer is quite simply, "Yes." In welcoming the support that has been evident throughout Scotland, I very much took to heart the need to respond to that support. Our experience of Melbourne proves that it is possible to spread the benefits around the country.

From the assessments that have been carried out, we know that the net economic impact for Scotland could be as much as £81 million. Obviously, that would be good, but we want to maximise that and use every opportunity to ensure that Scotland benefits from the games. The benefits will not be only economic. Although we hope that our economy and tourism industry will benefit, we also want to ensure that the health, sporting and confidence-building benefits that come from the Commonwealth games are spread around Scotland.

On a practical level, I was very much aware that the Scottish team at the recent games was based at a holding camp that was more than two hours from Melbourne. Other teams had similar experiences—they, too, occupied facilities around the country. Obviously, we will look for opportunities to spread that kind of impact around Scotland.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The minister mentioned the

"health, sporting and confidence-building benefits"

that could accrue from the games. Is she aware that last week the Republic of the Marshall Islands became an Olympic nation, despite their being little more than an American protectorate and having a population of only 60,400? Is she aware of the proposals for Greenland and the Faroe Islands to have their own teams and that the proposals have been supported by the Danish Government? Will she now add her support to the growing campaign for Scotland to have its own Olympic team in 2012?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

My focus is on ensuring that Scotland benefits from the 2012 Olympic Games in London and that we secure and benefit from the 2014 Commonwealth Games. I take the view of our athletes—especially those who compete alongside others—who say that their best opportunity for succeeding is to participate in a successful Great Britain team. We have seen many of our athletes succeed in that way in the past. We want to ensure that, come 2012, as many Scots as possible can stand on the podium.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met the Scottish Tourism Forum and what issues were discussed. (S2O-9578)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I and my officials are in frequent contact with the Scottish Tourism Forum on a number of matters. Those range from policy issues, such as the forum's view on our recently launched tourism framework for change, to tactical matters such as communications with the industry. Recently, a member of the Scottish Executive's tourism unit was seconded to the forum to assist with the organisation of the successful Scottish tourism week.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

When the minister next meets the Scottish Tourism Forum, will she ask it for its views on how VisitScotland's niche-market initiatives are progressing and whether the forum believes that VisitScotland is taking enough advantage of the historical context in which we live? I, for one, have been disappointed with the promotion of Robert the Bruce in the events over the past year, but a number of other opportunities are coming up. I commend to the minister the opportunities that will be presented by a number of forthcoming significant scientific anniversaries. We could encourage our universities to organise conferences on, for example, the discoveries of James Clerk Maxwell, the invention of penicillin or the development of magnetic resonance imaging scanners. All those opportunities should be used to promote Scottish tourism, even to niche markets such as scientists.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

At a time when we have so many conferences and events coming to Scotland, it is interesting that Mr Adam is so negative about the available opportunities. I point out to him that VisitScotland is very much involved in promoting the kinds of niche markets that he mentioned. Along with colleagues in EventScotland, VisitScotland will be very much involved in promoting events that are connected with the year of Highland culture next year and the Burns year of homecoming in 2009. This year, VisitScotland has been involved in marketing—successfully so far, although it is early days—Scotland and Edinburgh as part of the special campaign that it has put together for the movie "The Da Vinci Code". It is fair to say that VisitScotland takes every marketing opportunity to attract people to Scotland.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Is the minister aware of the continued unhappiness in the tourism sector about the centralising of power to VisitScotland and the corresponding loss of local control? Will she give a commitment to revisit the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill with a view to reforming VisitScotland so that it becomes a genuinely bottom-up organisation that can allow communities to exercise at least as much power over tourism in their areas as they were able to exercise under the old area tourist boards?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The simple answer to Mr McGrigor's question is, "No." To expand on that, I point out that the reorganisation of VisitScotland and the tourist boards that constitute it happened very much in response to the industry's wish to change and to move forward into the present day. I do not accept that there has been centralisation. Some 98 per cent of VisitScotland staff are based outwith Edinburgh, where its headquarters is located. The picture that Mr McGrigor paints is not fair and is not supported by the industry as a whole.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what cultural events it plans to hold to celebrate national veterans day on 27 June 2006. (S2O-9513)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

We are keen to ensure that the first national veterans day properly acknowledges and celebrates in Scotland the valuable contribution that is made to our society by all veterans. We are therefore currently in discussion with Scottish veterans organisations, the Ministry of Defence and the Veterans Agency about how the day can best be marked in Scotland.

The focus of the day in Scotland is likely to be in Dundee, where the Dundee Combined Ex-servicemen's Association is planning a parade and concert. We expect a number of other local events to take place. The Ministry of Defence is running a national art competition for schoolchildren and has written with details to all primary schools in the country. I encourage all primary schools in Scotland to consider how their pupils can participate.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

Veterans day is 11 Downing Street's latest ploy, as it pushes Gordon Brown's premiership plans. Does the minister agree that the proposed participation of the population in the project is a pathetic pretence at popularising and promoting to the Prime Minister a person who perpetuates penury and poverty among pensioners, who picks pockets every pay day through the pay-as-you-earn system, and who has presented these picked veterans and their peers with a princely 25p per week pension plus-up on their 80 th birthday?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I will try to rise to the challenge of working out what that has to do with the cultural events that may be planned and to which Mr Swinburne's original question referred. However, I congratulate him on his creativity in his supplementary question.

I do not accept that national veterans day is meant somehow to diminish the contribution of veterans. It is a day on which we will have the opportunity properly to recognise the contribution that they have made. It is one of a number of initiatives that the United Kingdom Government has taken in recent times to ensure that our veterans are properly recognised. As Mr Swinburne knows, war pensions, like other pensions, are reserved to Westminster. The Scottish Executive is tackling pensioner poverty in partnership with the UK Government. Of course, pensioners have the right to live in dignity. Since 1996-97, 120,000 pensioners have been lifted out of relative low-income categories, with three quarters of pensioners being lifted out of absolute low-income categories. If we add that to the work that is being done on central heating, free travel and free personal and nursing care in Scotland, it is clear that we are going in the right direction to ensure that our veterans are properly recognised and given the kind of gratitude that they definitely deserve from this country.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Executive what information it has on the average age of young people leaving care from (a) foster care, (b) residential units and (c) children's units. (S2O-9554)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The average age at which a young person beyond minimum school-leaving age leaves foster care is 16. The same is true for residential accommodation. Children and young people can cease to be looked after at a variety of ages up to their 18 th birthday, depending on their circumstances. However, children who cease to be looked after beyond school-leaving age continue to be eligible for aftercare support.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I would welcome further discussion with the minister on the matter. In the meantime, will he outline how he anticipates that the figures will change in coming years and will he say what steps the Executive will take to achieve such changes?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Janis Hughes's question raises a fundamental issue, which is close to my heart and to other ministers' hearts. How we give looked-after children a better start in life has been an extremely challenging issue to take forward. The throughcare and aftercare regulations, which came into force a while ago, were designed to try to take forward the support that young people in the age group that we are talking about need, against a background in which different kinds of barriers exist. Sometimes young people want out of the system and want to get away from statutory organisations because they feel that they have been in the system for too long. At other times, there are difficulties with placements and background issues or there are problems to do with settling people in accommodation and employment, of which Janis Hughes is aware. Often the underlying problem is a lack of coping and life skills and qualifications to enable matters to be taken forward.

In consequence of all that, we recently set up a looked-after children group under the chairmanship of the Minister for Education and Young People, Peter Peacock. The group has had several meetings and has done much valuable work to try to home in on what we can usefully do to improve outputs for such young people. For members' information, 12,185 children were looked after by local authorities as at 31 March last year—the figure is going up slightly. Some 57 per cent of those children were looked after at home with their parents or with family or friends, which helps to put into perspective the nature of the challenge that we face in that regard.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I welcome the minister's reply, but does he agree that care leavers require support to access accommodation, further education and training, and the jobs market? The statutory regulations to which he referred require local authorities to assess care leavers' support needs, to develop a pathway plan to be reviewed every six months, to appoint a pathway co-ordinator and to provide financial assistance and accommodation. Will the minister make certain that those requirements are adhered to in every case?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am grateful to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for his question. There is no question but that the throughcare and aftercare regulations and the structures around the regulations are central to securing a better deal for the young people whom we are considering. Obviously, the system is operated in practice not by the Executive but locally, but it is the endeavour of the Executive and other bodies that are involved in the system to ensure that people do not fall through the net and that they are given the support that they want and, in many cases, need. The problem that we face is complex and we must deal with a number of barriers. Central to the work of the looked-after children group is the attempt to ensure that there is a better outcome for young care leavers than has traditionally been the case.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many American tourists visited Scotland during the past year. (S2O-9587)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Last year, the number of visitors who came to Scotland from North America as a whole was estimated to be in the region of 543,000. A breakdown of the number of visitors from the United States is not yet available.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Figures from the previous year indicate that there has been a fall of 11,000 in the number of visitors from the US, although the Executive's expenditure on tartan week has risen significantly during a short period. Will the minister undertake to complete a detailed evaluation before next year's tartan week programme is finalised, to ensure that we do not fail to take advantage of the resources that are made available? Will she admit that such expenditure has so far simply had the effect of attracting more visitors to New York than to Scotland?