Scottish Parliament, 8 June 2006

353 contributions from 76 members. The official report.

Official Report 8 June 2006

Regulatory Framework

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion number S2M-4502, in the name of Sylvia Jackson, on behalf of the Subordinate Legislation committee, on its 21 st Report 2006, "Inquiry into the Regulatory Framework in Scotland—Draft Report".

I call Sylvia Jackson to speak to and move the motion. We have oodles of time this morning, so you may take as long as you like.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

As convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, it is with great pleasure that I open the debate on the committee's draft report, which follows its inquiry into the regulatory framework in Scotland. The committee does not often have the opportunity to blow its own trumpet. Indeed, this is the first time in the life of the Parliament that there has been a debate in the committee's name. However, that fact should not diminish the work that it does. Subordinate legislation is extremely important, but it has a reputation for being technical and complex and for being written and scrutinised by people who don anoraks and are fluent in Latin.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

And Greek.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Yes, and Greek. The committee's work is becoming more important as more legislation is delegated to secondary legislation. For example, in 2005-06 there were 19 bills, but the committee considered nearly 500 Scottish statutory instruments, which is an increase of around 40 on the previous year, 86 on 2003-04 and around 180 on 2002-03. That rate of increase shows no sign of slowing.

We published a report on phase 1 of our inquiry in June 2005. That report examined the wider issues of regulation and the better regulation agenda, including issues such as the understandability and accessibility of regulation, the use of plain language, electronic access to legislation and the Executive's improving regulation in Scotland unit.

Phase 2 of our inquiry considered how the Parliament handles and scrutinises subordinate legislation. We focused on the Parliament's procedures, the forward planning of subordinate legislation and timescales for scrutiny. We also examined consolidation, whether the Parliament should have the power to amend subordinate legislation and the current division of responsibilities between the Subordinate Legislation Committee and lead committees.

The current arrangements and procedures for subordinate legislation are contained in a transitional order and are based almost entirely on procedures that operated at Westminster before devolution. It was always the intention that the Parliament would develop procedures that were fit for purpose, and the report affords the Parliament a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to set down its own procedures for subordinate legislation. We are now seven years down the road; we know what works and what does not.

To help us in our consideration, we took oral evidence from academics, Parliamentary committees, the Executive and users of subordinate legislation. We received written evidence from a wide range of people at home and abroad and we visited Westminster to speak to committees there that work with the same system as we do.

In our draft report, we recommend the replacement of all the existing procedures by what we have called the Scottish statutory instrument procedure—I am sure that somebody will shorten that. We want to know what people think about it; we genuinely want people to tell us. We could, of course, have published our final report now and recommended the drafting of a bill to replace the transitional order. However, we recognise how important it is to make the right decision, which is why we have taken the unusual step of consulting on a draft report.

I will take a moment to address some of the issues that influenced our recommendations. For a start, we feel that the current system is far too complex and unwieldy. There are eight different procedures for processing statutory instruments, some of which are rarely used. We have various timescales in place for the consideration of instruments: 20 days for this, 21 days for that, 28 days for something else and 40 days for other things—the list goes on.

There has been concern about the potential lack of full and proper scrutiny. Committees told us that they are concerned that they are not always able to give as much consideration to an instrument as they would like, simply because of the lack of time available. That issue has raised its head again this week, as it does before every recess, when a large number of SSIs are laid by the Executive.

That impacts not only on members, but on the committee support structures, including the legal advisers, clerks and others. We must be able to scrutinise subordinate legislation properly. In order to do so, we need adequate time, and we need the Executive to plan better.

Another problem that arises is that some instruments are already in force when they are considered by committees, as will be the case with many of the instruments that have been laid this week. If a committee finds fault with an instrument, there tends to be a reluctance to recommend annulment, given the fact that people will already be working with it and the potential legal ramifications of that.

Committees are given no indication of what subordinate legislation is coming forward or when, unlike primary legislation, and they are therefore unable to plan that part of their workload properly.

The proposed Scottish statutory instrument procedure—SSIP—seeks to address all those concerns. It recognises that there will be exceptions to any rule, and it allows for those, for example in cases where an instrument must come into force immediately, perhaps for a public health reason. My colleagues may go into more detail about the features of the new SSIP and about how we arrived at our recommendations. I take this opportunity to thank committee members for the non-partisan way in which they conducted themselves during our inquiry. I also thank our special adviser, Iain Jamieson, to whom we are indebted for guiding us through a difficult subject and for his input to the draft report.

We believe that our recommendations will make a difference. We want to work with members and the Executive to improve the system that we have. I hope that members will contribute their views, if not today, then in the coming weeks. The draft report is already out to consultation, with a deadline for responses of 8 September, and we aim to publish a final report before Christmas.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the 21st Report 2006 (Session 2) of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Regulatory Framework in Scotland - Draft Report (SP Paper 564).

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I will echo some of Sylvia Jackson's comments. I express my thanks to the clerking team, the legal advisers—who we could not do without—and particularly the adviser to the inquiry, who gave us an enormous amount of help throughout. I also thank both current and past committee members. One or two of them are here today, and I hope that they will contribute their thoughts on where we have ended up following an inquiry that has taken more than two years.

As Sylvia Jackson said, our committee operates under a transitional order. It has always been the case that we were going to consider the arrangements and design our own system for dealing with subordinate legislation. In effect, we aimed to design a system that was fit for purpose for this Parliament. It is of course no surprise that we have been operating under a transitional order, as there was simply not enough time for Westminster to consider new subordinate legislation rules between the 1997 election and devolution coming into effect two years later. Moreover, as I said, the committee has taken more than two years to reach this point, with a draft report and recommendations.

The system that we use is a direct copy of the Westminster system, not because we think that it is fit for purpose here, but because the transitional order was the quick and easy way to get the system in place by 1999. However, we have now been in operation for seven years, and it is time to replace the temporary system with something that will last into the foreseeable future.

The SLC has a bit of a reputation, as many members know. When I was first appointed to the committee in 2003, people asked me what I had done wrong. Who had I offended to end up on the gulag of committees? I think that that was unfair. [Laughter.]

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

It was a punishment.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Over time, Jamie Stone will come to love the committee, as others do.

That view is held not because of the work that the committee does or the broad range of subjects with which it deals—it deals with almost every subject that comes before the Parliament—but because of the system under which it has to operate. I certainly took a long time to get used to the process; there is a steep learning curve for those who join the Subordinate Legislation Committee.

It is no wonder that members steer clear of the committee when they hear about affirmative orders; negative orders; draft affirmative orders; draft negative orders; super-affirmative orders; the 21-day rule; the 40-day rule; the 28-day emergency rule; Henry VIII powers; and laying orders before making orders, unless they are made before they are laid. The list goes on; the process is complex and difficult to understand. The system is opaque, with archaic rules and language. It is designed to put people off, but it does not need to be that way. The report sets out the reasons why that is the case.

When we visited Westminster, we asked MPs whether, if they had the chance to design a system to deal with subordinate legislation from scratch, they would design the system that they have currently. After the laughter died down, they said "absolutely not". They are stuck with their system because it has been built up over a long time.

When we began our inquiry, most, if not all, members of the committee thought that what we had to do was fix the current system. We could tinker around the edges, make a few changes, add a few bits in and take a few bits away and end up with a system that was fit for purpose. However, as the inquiry progressed and we spent more time considering the issues, it became clear that we should go back to first principles and ask the fundamental questions: what is the purpose of subordinate legislation and why do we have it? Once we had addressed those questions, it became obvious that we had to design a bespoke system for subordinate legislation that was fit for the new Parliament and that such a system would not be an amended version of the current system but a new, simple, straightforward, clear and easily understood system. That led us to devise the SSIP.

One of the problems with the current system is that it forces the Parliament and its committees to waste time going through the motions—no pun intended—with some SSIs, while not allowing enough time to scrutinise those that are important. The SSIP will allow Parliament to concentrate on the instruments that matter. It will allow committees to see the upcoming instruments and focus their efforts on those that are controversial or of particular relevance or importance. At the same time, committees will be able to deal quickly with routine and uncontroversial instruments. Parallel consideration by the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the lead committee will mean that lead committees will have a maximum of 40 days, rather than the current 20 days, in which to do their work. The SSIP will also allow committees to deal with routine instruments in much less time than it takes at the moment.

The system will focus attention where it should be focused. It will free up the time of ministers and officials, who will no longer have to attend committees when it is not necessary to do so. How many lead committee meetings have we attended to which a minister comes along and makes a statement on an instrument, after which there are no questions and no debate and the instrument is just voted through? That is a waste of ministers' and officials' time. They should come to committees to discuss SSIs only when it is relevant and the committee thinks that it is appropriate to have a debate and ask questions.

One of the other great advantages of the SSIP is that all instruments will be laid in draft and will be able to be modified to remove technical and typographical errors without the clock stopping, although not to make policy changes, for a number of obvious reasons. Last week I asked the committee clerks, half jokingly, how many typographical errors we advised the Executive of informally in the past year. The number was about 400. I had thought that there were more than that, but it is still an incredible number of typographical and minor errors that could be corrected if we were allowed to modify the instruments without the clock stopping. Providing for changing the draft instruments for technical reasons is a good and sensible suggestion. It will result in a real saving in time and effort for everybody, because there will be no need to withdraw instruments and re-lay them or to introduce amending instruments in the future. I believe that that process will mean that—at the point of making the instruments—Scotland will have some of the most error-free instruments of any Parliament in the world.

On the face of it, it could appear that we are lessening parliamentary scrutiny procedures because every instrument is effectively a draft—or a negative, to use the old terminology. However, the opposite is the case: scrutiny will be increased. Last year, only 84 of 500 instruments were subject to the affirmative procedure. The rest were subject to the negative procedure, which means that they go through no real procedure in the Parliament. The SSIP will allow us to focus on the real instruments and deal quickly with those on which we do not need to spend time.

I am not sure that there is a cutting edge of subordinate legislation, but if there is such a thing, what is in the report is probably it. It will generate interest in Parliaments and legislatures around the world in what we are thinking and how we are developing the use of secondary legislation.

The SSIP is an example of better regulation in general. We want to sweep away from regulation the nonsense, bureaucracy and unnecessary rules and that is also what we want the proposed SSIP to do—we are sweeping away what is unnecessary and focusing on what is important.

The detail of the report is irrelevant in many ways; it will be the subject matter of a later debate. It is the bigger picture that is important—what we are doing and where we want to go. We will get into the detail as we go through the debate thereafter. That is why we have presented a draft report and why we framed it in that way.

I echo what the convener said: this new Parliament has a once-in-a-lifetime chance to put in place a system that is fit for purpose and designed for the needs of a 21st century Parliament, rather than a 19th century one. We should grasp that opportunity to get it right. I commend the report to the chamber.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I start by associating myself with the remarks of Sylvia Jackson and Stewart Maxwell about the work of the clerks and advisers to the committee.

In the first stages of his speech, Stewart Maxwell indulged in a bit of humour, which demonstrated to the chamber the camaraderie in adversity that tends to link present and past members of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. Those who serve on it in the future can be consoled by that thought.

That sense of a shared purpose has helped to inform the recommendations in the report, which is non-partisan, as the convener said in her opening speech. We do, of course, have our moments of political banter and teasing, but in carrying out this particular project we have attempted to concentrate on the task in hand, which is to deliver a better system of scrutiny. We sincerely believe that our proposed model will do that. We hope that the minister will regard it in that spirit and ultimately accept it.

Both Sylvia Jackson and Stewart Maxwell referred to the transitional order. I would like to start there as well, and reflect on why there is one. Under the Scotland Act 1998, there are transitional orders here and there that, during the first two sessions, we have slowly whittled away. Why did Westminster not define subordinate legislation procedure instead of covering it with a transitional order? Surely the explanation is that the ministers who framed the Scotland Bill in the first place knew, whether consciously or instinctively, that a system that had evolved at Westminster was ripe for reform and should be looked at again in the context of a newly devolved Parliament.

Paradoxically, although subordinate legislation is not intrinsically fascinating, does not the mere fact of transitional orders hark back to the excitement and radicalness of devolution—the sense that we could go back to first principles and build something from scratch that would work better and be distinctive? I think that we have done that. We have operated under the Westminster system by default, but we have been challenged to devise our own procedures. Can we do it better? I think that we have suggested how we can.

It is important to speak about what we have not challenged and what we have agreed is common ground. We have not challenged the concept of subordinate legislation. We accept that what is on the face of the bill is appropriate and that what is in subordinate legislation is the filling out of detail, the elaboration of policy and the arrangements for implementation—the practical nuts and bolts that do not need to inform the debates in principle when we pass a bill, but which are properly the subject of ministerial actions, subject to approval, in the years that follow the passage of the bill. Opposition and Executive members agreed that ministers should get on with the job. If policy is agreed, the task of the Executive is to develop the detailed regulations and implement the legislation. We are not in any sense attempting to interfere with the job that ministers do; rather we are attempting to help them interact better with the Parliament in the interests of better legislation.

Our role is to scrutinise subordinate legislation. Everyone agrees that ministers are responsible for subordinate legislation; however, when the distinction between primary and subordinate legislation was made, no one ever suggested that that meant that subordinate legislation should not be subject to scrutiny. Of course it should be: it should be subject both to the technical scrutiny of the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the policy scrutiny that lead subject committees undertake if they see fit.

That process is more important today, given that one of the unnoticed revolutions in Government over the past decade has been the move towards skeletal bills. Because such bills outline broad frameworks and principles, but leave more and more detail to be determined by subordinate legislation, there is more of a requirement for effective subsequent scrutiny of any regulations that might be issued. Evidence that we received from subject committees strongly suggests that they need more time to consider certain policy choices. After all, although many instruments might deal with routine administration matters, many others set out important policy choices that ministers have made. Sarah Boyack highlighted the best example of that, which related to regulation governing the less favoured areas support scheme. The Environment and Rural Development Committee, of which she is the convener, would have liked more time to scrutinise the detailed allocation of what I believe was £60 million of public money. Committee members saw some scope for carrying out work on the matter; however, the negative instrument was already in force by the time they came to discuss it and they felt that they had not been able to interrelate with ministers and satisfy themselves that the decisions that had been taken fully accorded with the policy.

Committees want that kind of improved scrutiny. They do not want to take every statutory instrument to bits and analyse it in fine detail; instead, they want to be able to be selective and say, "We feel that it would be useful to examine this matter and want some time to discuss it with ministers". Moreover, we in the Subordinate Legislation Committee are acutely conscious of the tight timetables to which we make hard-pressed staff work and would like to have more time to conduct our deliberations on those instruments. As a result, because the current process unduly constrains the scope of the subject committees, we have suggested that instead of reporting first to subject committees our committee should work in parallel with them.

There are many reasons why we have proposed the new procedure, but one that I want to highlight is the amending of statutory instruments. I do so deliberately because, in the course of our deliberations and discussions with Executive officials, it became clear that they were very concerned about this matter. I think that it is important for everyone to understand what we are talking about.

When we took evidence on the principle of overall amendment, some suggested that committees should be able to amend statutory instruments. After carefully considering that proposal, we rejected it, because we did not think that, once Parliament had approved the principles of a piece of legislation, ministers who introduce regulations or orders should be made to re-open the whole matter by subject committees lodging amendments. There is simply no time for that, and we could see no justification for covering that ground again.

However, we think that technical amendments—manuscript amendments, if you like—that ensure that instruments are fit for purpose would improve the system. Stewart Maxwell referred to the number of typographical errors in subordinate legislation; sometimes there are also erroneous references to the parent legislation and other orders. Indeed, in response to our questions on an instrument, the Executive might accept many minor amendments that can be made if the instrument is at the right stage; however, the instruments are often unamendable and the Executive will simply say, "Yes, we recognise the problem, but we don't think it will affect the way the instrument works." Some errors can be so severe that the original instrument has to be withdrawn and a revised instrument issued later on. That cumbersome and unsatisfactory process means that stuff that is not correct is left on the statute book simply because we reckon that it will do. That is not a good way of governing or legislating.

Under our proposal, the amendment process would be initiated by the Executive. Although, technically, the Subordinate Legislation Committee would initiate amendments to an instrument by drawing the points to the Executive's attention, the Executive and the committee would have to agree that the instrument has to be amended. That process would allow us to get better legislation on to the statute book first time. That is not something that the Executive should be concerned about on procedural, policy or practical grounds.

The committee has also asked for the right to debate the annulment of an instrument. At the moment, that is open only to the subject committee. We have done that because we can conceive of occasions—during my time on the committee, there have been two instruments, about the vires of which we have worried seriously—when it would be appropriate to discuss the matter with the minister and to provoke a debate at committee, which, if it went satisfactorily, need not then be repeated in the chamber. Now and again, there are vires issues or technical issues that lead us to say that, although the subject committee might be happy with the policy, the Subordinate Legislation Committee is rather worried that the instrument could be challenged on its vires. We therefore think that we should have that right to annul, but nobody on the committee intends that we should go round trying to annul instruments because they contain a reference to paragraph 6(d) when it should have been 6(e). We would rather sweep that kind of point—technically important but trivial in terms of our time—out of the way by using the power of amendment.

We have made recommendations on consolidation, on publication, on a forward work programme and on rules of court, all of which are designed to improve the flow of business, to increase transparency and to improve scrutiny. We think that ministers should go to committees to discuss statutory instruments when committees want to scrutinise those statutory instruments and do inquiries, but we do not think that there is much sense in ministers having to go to a committee 84 times in the course of a year because they have to be there to move an affirmative instrument to which nobody takes exception and about which no one wishes to create any debate. Let us use ministers' time more fruitfully as well.

My final point is about emergency and exceptional procedures. We were extremely sensitive to the importance of introducing a new procedure that would command everyone's support and would be seen by the Executive as fit for purpose. In our discussion with Executive officials, we were able to flesh out many areas where it was clear that the new procedure, as envisaged in outline form, would not be fit for purpose, because sometimes the Executive has to act quickly. An emergency instrument is a clear case in point, but there are other examples. For instance, a European directive may need to be introduced throughout the United Kingdom on an agreed date so that the system here replicates that in England. If I may say so, the fact that Scottish National Party members, who might have wanted to make a political point about that, accepted that that was valid within the existing constitutional framework points to the maturity and sense of shared purpose in the committee and to our commitment to getting things right.

The fact that we were careful to shape a procedure that accepts those legitimate targets of Government demonstrates that we are looking for something that will improve the system of government, for Executive action as much as for legislative scrutiny. It is for those reasons and within that framework that the committee has produced an important, radical and challenging report, but one that still accepts the overarching framework of subordinate legislation operating within a system of division between primary and secondary legislation. That system allows the Parliament to focus in its plenary time on policy debates, lets the committees get on with the scrutiny of those instruments that they think should be scrutinised, and allows ministers, members and those regulated to understand, appreciate and participate better in the process of formulating a most important body of work.

I have great pleasure in supporting the convener's motion and in indicating my support for the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report.

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

I woke up this morning and looked out the window, saw that it was a bright, cheerful day—and then remembered this debate. I joke. I am the newest member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee and I point out to members that I actually volunteered for the committee. That caused some shock among members of the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party—Margaret Smith had to take two pills and think about it—but here I am.

I do not have much to add to what has been said, save to say that Sylvia Jackson, Stewart Maxwell and Murray Tosh could not have done better in bringing to life an important subject. If one wants to understand the nuts and bolts of how the Parliament works, the Subordinate Legislation Committee is important, and I have found my involvement with the committee a most interesting experience. I was not sure what to make of it at first but, once one gets into it, it becomes extremely interesting.

Sylvia Jackson referred to the number of bills that the committee has scrutinised and to the fact that 500 instruments have been placed before the committee in the past year. That is a huge number.

I take on board the thinking that lay behind the transitional order arrangements that Westminster gave us. Perhaps Jim Wallace can enlighten us a little on the matter when he sums up for my party. What we have heard so far—that things were deliberately done in the way that they were in the hope and expectation that we would develop our own rules—is probably correct.

If primary and secondary legislation are to work, it is important that things are done in the simplest possible fashion. When I first appeared at the committee and heard about Henry VIII powers, I did not know what on earth they were.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I bet that made your eyes light up.

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

I hear what the minister says. Whether I understand what they are even now is debatable. I will not say anything about what I thought when I heard the word "laid".

On a serious note, I associate myself with what has been said about the clerks. I am new to the Subordinate Legislation Committee and value the support and advice that I have received from them. I also give credit to my fellow committee members, who have been patient with me and have drawn me into the committee. As Murray Tosh said, the committee has a very collegiate attitude. It is one of the most practical, let's-get-on-with-it, let's-try-and-do-things-together committees that I have come across.

Murray Tosh made interesting remarks about how we have whittled away—I think that was the expression he used—the transitional orders during the Parliament's two sessions. He was right to say that the challenge of devising our own fit-for-purpose procedures that will work is important.

We are rightly proud of the fact that people can go online to find out what we do, but what we say online must be understandable to members of the public. Expressions such as "negative instruments" and "Henry VIII powers" are meaningless to the public. The Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Parliament have a duty to make things as accessible as possible.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

Does the member think that the document uses too many acronyms? Members of the committee may know what all the initials stand for, but could not things be made much easier, plainer and simpler for members of the public who go on to the website? Rather than there being a series of initials, what those initials stand for could be stated.

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

There is a lot in what John Swinburne says. He is probably going in the same direction as me. It is worth pointing out, as members have done, that the report is a draft report—it is work in progress. If we can improve it, that would be well and good. That is why we are going back to the Parliament and the Scottish people and saying, "Come forward with suggestions and answer the questions that we have put." We want to hone things down.

Murray Tosh mentioned the point Sarah Boyack made, which is crucial. The importance of rules about how we treat emergencies has also been mentioned—there must be such rules.

I do not have much more to say. The report is interesting and worthy. I joined the committee fairly late in the report's development. Getting as many people as possible—members of the public as well as politicians—to give their opinions on it between now and the beginning of September will be invaluable.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We move to the open debate, in which I am not imposing any time constraints on members.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Some—although perhaps not all—members know that subordinate legislation is not used in every legislature. In fact, some of our European colleagues are shocked that we give ministers powers to make rules and regulations that implement primary legislation without any effective scrutiny by the Parliament. They believe that we are foolish—it happens in the Commonwealth nations, too—to allow our ministers such powers.

Jamie Stone referred to the Henry VIII principle, which involves the power to amend primary legislation by using secondary legislation and therefore gives ministers enormous power.

We have heard about the number of instruments that come before committees and the Parliament. I venture to suggest that—apart from members of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, or members who are particularly interested—nobody reads those instruments. Nobody knows what they say, what their impact is, who they will affect, or whether they make a major change to primary legislation.

Subordinate legislation is important: it puts the flesh on the bones of laws; it says what is allowed and what is not; and it deals with sanctions such as criminal penalties. In evidence to the committee, the Federation of Small Businesses said that it believes that subordinate legislation is extremely important, and I think it supported the committee in its view that changes should be made.

Regulation by subordinate legislation is one of the things business complains about most. I and some others in the chamber were lambasted at a Hansard Society event by representatives of the chemical industry about the plethora of regulations and because of the frequent and minor changes that are made and that are not explained to the industry in an understandable way. Such changes are sometimes like the amendments to motions that we consider in this chamber: one word, as many of us know, can make a great difference. Is it "may" or "shall", or "could" or "would"? The choice can wholly change the focus of a piece of legislation.

In 2003, when I came to the Parliament, I began on the Subordinate Legislation Committee—and I did not regard it as the gulag. In my previous life, I had worked with such rules and regulations and I knew how important they were. I knew how difficult life could be when they were wrong or not as effective as they might have been, or when they clashed with other regulations. We have all despaired over trying to implement policy when there is conflict between two sets of regulations, perhaps for two different pieces of legislation.

Regulations affect more people than just those in business. They affect the voluntary sector, public agencies, the environment and, ultimately, every person in Scotland. It is therefore important, in this second phase of the work of the committee—which, of necessity, focuses inwards on the technicalities—that we keep our eye firmly on the external effects on business, on the public agencies, on the voluntary sector and on our communities.

In 2005, the Hampton review into better regulation in Westminster said that

"different regulators find it hard to join their systems or operations"

and that that could

"result in missed opportunities".

The report also highlighted the inconsistencies in regulation that I have referred to.

With such points firmly in mind, the Subordinate Legislation Committee considered what might be good for Scotland. The major recommendation in its report is that the system should be simpler. Members have spoken of the complexities, of the different forms of instrument, and of the terminology. John Swinburne is quite right to talk about the acronyms, but it is not only the acronyms; it is all the terminology.

From my time on the committee, I remember Alasdair Morgan showing off his Greek.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

His Greek what?

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Well, I notice that he is dressed in furry lining and anorak colours today. Is that deliberate for such a technical discussion? I withdraw that question. It is a wonderful suit.

We should simplify the system and make it particular to Scotland—but do so while acknowledging that regulations are also made at Westminster and that they may sometimes support the same piece of legislation or the same European directive, which will have to be commenced at the same time and which will affect businesses or others that operate both north and south of the border.

We should keep policy and technical scrutiny separate, but work on them concurrently. I hope that the minister will consider that recommendation carefully, because it makes sense. It would allow the time—the 40 days or whatever—to be used much more effectively, and would greatly increase the Executive's ability to make any necessary changes.

The Executive should plan the process and publish that plan so that users know what is coming. That is one of the report's key recommendations. I am not surprised that most businesses have little knowledge of the technicalities of the process, but it is really important.

Consolidation and updating are important, too. On numerous occasions I have listened to the committee recommend unanimously that a piece of legislation is due for consolidation, only for the Executive to tell us that it does not have time to do that. I say to the minister that it is important that that issue be examined seriously and that time and resources be made available to tackle it.

There should be an exceptional procedure for emergencies. Every piece of legislation should include provision for emergencies and exceptional circumstances, because one size never fitted all. The system must be flexible.

Finally, I have a request that I am sure the minister will find easy to meet. The improving regulation in Scotland unit—IRIS—plays an extremely important role in liaising between Government and business, but two changes need to be made to it. First, its membership should be expanded to include non-business members because it is important that the voluntary sector and other organisations that are affected by subordinate legislation and regulation are represented. Secondly, it should be moved from the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department to the First Minister's office. That would reflect the position of the unit at Westminster—it is within the Cabinet Office—and give IRIS the status it deserves. It would send a clear message to users of subordinate legislation and the people who are affected by it that that area of legislation is as important as primary legislation.

I welcome the report and hope that members and others out in the wider Scotland will give their views on its recommendations. I am pleased to support the motion.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I apologise to Christine May, but I have not had time since she made her remark to rush out and change my suit, so she will have to put up with this one. In my defence, I do not think that I have ever shown off in a committee, but if a statutory instrument that contains Greek comes before us—as happened when I was a member of the committee—we should at least ensure that it is correct.

I suppose that my speaking in the debate shows the truth of the old adage that you can take the man out of subordinate legislation, but you cannot take subordinate legislation out of the man—or perhaps it just shows that I have a very sad personal life.

I congratulate the committee on the report, which represents a good step forward. The procedures that it suggests will be much fitter for purpose than those that we have at present. I also congratulate the members of the committee on their modesty because the report is one of the few committee reports that does not contain the names of the members of the committee—they must be blushing violets.

There is no doubt about the importance of subordinate legislation, as several members have said. The first paragraph of the report states:

"Most statutory law is not contained ... in Acts of the Scottish Parliament or the Westminster Parliament, but in what is known as subordinate legislation".

It has already been mentioned that, as far as business in both rural and urban areas is concerned, the detail of statutory instruments is much more important and has a much greater impact than the provisions in the acts of Parliament that we pass.

The convener noted that there has been a vast increase in the number of statutory instruments that have been made, even since the Parliament was set up—I had not been aware that the number was so great. That should make us all pause for thought, especially given Christine May's observation that some legislatures manage to get away without having any statutory instrument procedure at all.

I want to deal with two particular areas that are mentioned in the report, the first of which is amendments to statutory instruments. The proposed procedure is important, particularly the provision that would allow the clock to stop ticking when the committee suggested technical amendments to a draft instrument so that the Executive could adopt them. Another significant proposed provision is the one that would allow parallel consideration of an instrument by the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the relevant subject committee. That would ensure that the 40-day consideration period was more likely to be a true 40-day period.

I am not particularly happy with the inability of subject committees to amend or to suggest amendments to statutory instruments. I know that I will not win the argument, but I want to put it anyway. In defence of committees' inability to amend statutory instruments, the Executive states:

"it is entirely possible for the Parliament to reject an instrument and, in doing so, to make clear that specific changes are required".

However, that flies in the face of the reality that we know. We know what arguments ministers will trot out when the instrument comes before the committee. They will say that the instrument must be approved because it is absolutely essential. Often, because instruments are quite complex, a committee may have problems with only a small part of a statutory instrument. The committee is then in a no-win situation. Should it reject the entire instrument and throw out the baby with the bath water? In truth, it never does.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We understand the point that is being made, but does Mr Morgan envisage the Parliament having the resource and the time to deal with amendments, possible amendments and probing amendments to 500 instruments per year?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

That is the difficulty that we have. It is difficult to see what the alternative is. To a large extent, we must look to the Executive to play the game as well, because of the constraints that have been placed on committees in dealing with statutory instruments. Statutory instruments are a powerful tool that we give to the Executive. Part of the bargain in our giving the Executive that tool is that it should not abuse the privilege. None of us could put our hand on our heart and say that it is never abused by any Executive of any party.

Paragraph 133 of the report cites the following statement by the Executive, in which it defends the position that there should be no amendments:

"We can envisage circumstances in which an instrument as amended does not necessarily reflect the policy intention of the original act".

That suggests that only a committee might come up with wording of a statutory instrument that changed the policy intention of the original act. Surely the Executive is just as liable to do that, especially if the act was passed not in the previous week or month but 30 or 40 years beforehand.

In evidence cited in paragraph 134, the Executive states that

"Parliament had agreed the policy decided by the Executive"—[Official Report, 22 November 2005; c 1375-77.]

The instrument was just about how that policy should be delivered.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I understand that, 40 years down the road, the Parliament and the Executive that is in power may have an entirely different view of legislation. Would not the appropriate way to deal with that be to amend the primary legislation to enshrine different policies in it, rather than to amend subordinate legislation?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Yes, but we are dealing with a situation in which a committee is presented with a statutory instrument to which it must say yes or no. That is the difficulty. As the Subordinate Legislation Committee points out in paragraph 137 of the report, and as Mr Tosh said earlier, acts are often simply frameworks for Government legislation. For that reason, I do not agree that the power to reject instruments is sufficient. We need to strike a balance. I see the difficulties in allowing every committee to lodge amendments to subordinate legislation, but if we are not to allow that, we must stop passing skeletal acts and leave much less to be decided after bills are passed.

We should have much more detailed decisions within bills. If SIs contained only detail that it is not appropriate to have in the relevant bill, all would be well—but I often have the feeling that details are not included in the bill not because that is not the place for them but because ministers have not yet worked out what they want the detail to be. SIs are simply a way of speeding up the procedure.

The second area that I want to cover is consolidation. Acts are complex and statutory instruments are complex. Five statutory instruments that amend each other and an act is even worse. It is wrist-slitting stuff. Nobody can ever work back through the chain of these things.

In paragraph 158, the committee says that it thinks that the Executive lawyers have a cut-and-paste version of the current legislation. In paragraph 161, the Executive says that it

"would not want to share something that might not be wholly reliable."

If the Executive's view of what it thinks current legislation is is not reliable—if no one actually knows what the up-to-date situation is—what does that mean for the ordinary people and businesses in this country that are meant to obey the rules and regulations? There is a strong case for consolidation to be an on-going process.

The Executive says that considerable resource implications might be involved in consolidating subordinate legislation. What would a Daily Mail editorial make of that? Effectively, the Executive is saying that we have so much legislation that we cannot keep pace with it and ensure that it is up to date. The Daily Mail would suggest that that means that less legislation should be passed. We should think about that. If we cannot ensure that the legislation that we are passing is consistent and clear and enables the people who have to obey it to know what it is that they are supposed to be obeying, we should think seriously about what we are doing.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, Presiding Officer. I was not planning to do so, but I am happy to make a contribution.

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

Are you really happy, Ken?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Well, one of the reasons why I argued in the committee that we should have this debate today was so that we might engage members who are not involved in the Subordinate Legislation Committee. Unfortunately, looking around the chamber, I see that we have comprehensively failed in that task.

The fact that we are having this debate means that the debate is not being held just in the confines of the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the various departments in the Executive. We are asking members from all parties to consider these bold, innovative and quite radical proposals.

My colleagues have already outlined many of the reasons why we have gone down this route. I do not wish to repeat what they have said, but I will say that there is a danger that, in the face of the complexity of the current system, we will end up dealing with subordinate legislation in a formulaic manner or, at least, we will fall into bad habits. Although we are dealing with more and more subordinate legislation, many of the instruments, following their scrutiny by the Subordinate Legislation Committee, receive little more than cursory examination by the lead committee—I know that from my experience of sitting on lead committees.

I believe that the Subordinate Legislation Committee spends far too much time correcting or flagging up all the typos, which Stewart Maxwell and Murray Tosh alluded to. We end up acting as some sort of quality control mechanism for the Executive, which should not be our role. If we are to scrutinise effectively matters ranging from the trivial to the serious, the attractions of this new system are many, particularly the potential for the Executive to amend bills using the parliamentary process, which Murray Tosh talked about.

The process could clearly be far more interactive and it should certainly be far better than the current, frustrating stand-off that we sometimes have between our committee, with our legal advisers, and the Executive, with its lawyers.

Having outlined my support for the proposals for the new, open and accessible system, I would like to strike a note of caution. Whatever the failings of the current process, it works. We need to improve the Parliament's ability to scrutinise the Executive and statutory instruments effectively, but we need to be careful that we do not create a new series of problems. This is already a slow and bureaucratic process. Is there a possibility that we might end up making it even slower?

There is a possibility that the new system could be abused by those who might wish to slow down the business of government. I do not think that ministers will be called to attend every meeting of the Subordinate Legislation Committee under the new system, but I imagine that the Executive will be slightly apprehensive that that is exactly what will happen.

This morning, we have made a virtue of the fact that the current system is not party political and that colleagues work together effectively across party boundaries to make subordinate legislation work. Is there a danger that, by introducing the new system, we could make it more party political? That would not be a step forward.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is perfectly possible under the existing system to bring ministers to every committee to discuss every statutory instrument, simply by lodging a motion to annul, but nobody does that. Why should things change under the new system? Why should we fear that committees will start to harass ministers, given that there is ample opportunity to do so at present but nobody does it?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I agree with Murray Tosh. I believe that the new system will be a huge improvement on the current system. There are clear attractions in it, not just for the Parliament and the Subordinate Legislation Committee but for the Executive. It will benefit the business of government because we will spend time on the more important points of subordinate legislation rather than on the trivia.

I do not think that people will abuse the new system. What I am saying is that there must be doubt, if not in the Executive's mind then perhaps in the machine that is government and in the minds of civil servants. I do not want to give civil servants a bad name, but they are used to the current system and any step into the unknown creates anxiety.

The committee could have followed a different route. We could have made a series of recommendations to improve the current system incrementally. For example, whatever happens, we want parallel consideration of subordinate legislation by the lead committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee and we want to place far more emphasis on prior consultation and planning so that Parliament knows what is coming up and things are not sprung upon us. In effect, our workload should be managed better.

The change is a step into the unknown, but it has many attractions—not just for the Parliament, but for the Executive and the business of government in Scotland. I hope that the minister will recognise that. We need to ensure that the Parliament and the Executive work together. The balance of power between the two bodies could change, but if we work together we can maintain the trust that currently exists and design a system that is better both for our new Parliament and for our new system of government in Scotland. I hope that the minister and members—including those who are not present this morning—will engage with the committee's draft report.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I must be the first member to speak in the debate who has not been a member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate, which has been constructive, and I congratulate the Subordinate Legislation Committee on the service that it has done not only the Parliament but the wider Scottish body politic by publishing its report.

Like Alasdair Morgan, I was a member of the Westminster Parliament that passed the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Statutory Instruments) Order 1999, which was secondary legislation. Perhaps Alasdair Morgan, with his classical background, can tell us the difference between a transitory provision and a transitional provision. Murray Tosh and Jamie Stone speculated about why that order was made. I believe the reason was that we needed to have some procedures in place when the Scottish Parliament was established. It is obvious from the committee's report and from members' speeches today that the flow of statutory instruments never stops, so when Parliament was established there had to be a procedure in place to deal with them.

Equally, however, it was recognised that it was important that our Parliament would in time devise its own means of dealing with secondary legislation. We have done that. That has not been rushed in any way and the experience that we have gathered in the past seven years has influenced the report. Many of the recommendations in the report would help to improve matters.

In spite of the fact that we inherited a system from Westminster, I can identify two areas in which we do things better. In the Scottish Parliament there is an opportunity to examine properly instruments that are subject to the negative procedure. At Westminster, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments does a technical job but, as I remember, if one wanted to debate such an instrument, one had to table a motion. The chances of such a motion's ever being debated are at the grace and favour of the Government of the day. I remember that the Opposition parties sometimes used to compete to table such motions first; members would keep going to the table office to find out whether the instrument had been laid, because if we were allowed to debate the motion, whoever had got in first to table a motion would have the chance to lead the debate. We deal better with legislation that is subject to the negative procedure.

I do not recall a piece of secondary legislation ever being withdrawn when I was at Westminster, but I know from my ministerial experience that secondary legislation has been withdrawn here, and not only for technical reasons. Gordon Jackson will remember that, in the early days of the then Justice and Home Affairs Committee, an order was produced that would increase the threshold for small claims and summary cause cases. It attracted technical objections and involved policy issues that led to its being withdrawn. As John Home Robertson has just pointed out, we still await its return.

I welcome simplification and parallel consideration, which would provide more time. I was sceptical about the Executive's having to produce a programme for statutory instruments in the next three months or six months—perhaps that feeling was born of experience—but a programme would provide discipline. If we had had such a programme back in 2001, we would not have missed the order to continue tolls on the Erskine bridge. If such a programme allowed the Subordinate Legislation Committee to identify issues on which to focus, it would be welcome.

The report is useful for reminding us of issues that arose from phase 1 of the committee's inquiry. They are set out in annex 2, which refers to the importance of regulatory impact assessments. Those are vital not just for business, but for others. A presumption should be made in their favour and some of the means of ensuring scrutiny of regulatory impact assessments should be imported into standing orders.

As many members may know, I am examining on the European and External Relations Committee's behalf whether the transposition of European Union directives is gold plated. It would be premature to give conclusions on that, but issues have been identified, such as consultation at early stages and at the time of transposition. If legislation must be introduced in the next session of Parliament to implement recommendations in the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report, I hope that that might be considered in the round and in relation to better transposition of European Union legislation.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The debate calls to mind the halcyon days that I spent discussing statutory instruments in the Subordinate Legislation Committee on Tuesday mornings during the previous parliamentary session in committee rooms on the Mound. I have a sense of nostalgia when I remember those days when we few, we happy few, we band of brothers and sisters joined together to discuss interesting subjects. [ Interruption. ] Murray Tosh suggests from a sedentary position that I want my old job back, but I think that I will leave that until later in my career, if I can.

Members who sit on the Conservative side of the chamber have a clear view of the public gallery—it has been interesting during the debate to watch people take their seats and leave quickly thereafter. It is clear that the debate has not attracted the level of public interest that some recent debates have.

The debate has been important, though. In the brief time that is available, I will highlight a few matters by drawing on the report and on my experience on the Subordinate Legislation Committee. One important point to which the report refers is that many errors appear in statutory instruments. Stewart Maxwell referred to the fact that the report says that 20 to 30 per cent of instruments that go before the committee have errors. It is interesting that the equivalent figure at Westminster is only about 5 per cent. There are two possible explanations for that: one is that our Scottish Executive drafters are poorer than those at Westminster, which is possible, and the other—which I suspect is more likely—is that the Subordinate Legislation Committee's staff are better at picking up errors than are staff at Westminster. It is only right that we give credit to the committee's staff. Anybody who has served on the committee will know that, were it not for the assistance of the committee's staff and legal advisers, committee members would find their work much more difficult.

The time pressures on staff are a serious problem. After instruments are laid, the legal advisers have only a short time in which to examine them in order to draw members' attention to any errors. That can be an issue, in particular towards the end of the parliamentary session or the week before a recess when dozens of instruments—up to 40 or 50—might be laid. That puts a lot of pressure on the staff, so the timescales should be ironed out. I am pleased that the report comments on that.

The Subordinate Legislation Committee is important to Parliament because it keeps technical issues separate from political judgments on instruments. There is nothing automatic about our having such a committee. I understand that the Northern Ireland Assembly does not have a committee that does such work; rather, it is done by a civil servant who reports to the lead committee. However, it is an advantage to have the Subordinate Legislation Committee; its decisions have more weight than if they were made by a civil servant.

I will comment briefly on the recommendations in the report. It makes sense to have a simplified procedure. I spent two years on the committee, but am none the wiser about the differences between affirmative and negative instruments—

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

Henry VIII provisions.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Or Henry VIII provisions.

I am sure that members who have not served on the committee are even more confused than I am. It would make sense to simplify the procedure. We should also reconsider timescales, which would be good for the staff who serve the Subordinate Legislation Committee. As Murray Tosh said, let us consider giving the committee the power to recommend amendments to instruments rather than simply to report to the lead committee, and let us also consider having it report in parallel with the lead committee, which would save time.

This has not been the liveliest debate for the people in the public gallery, but it has nevertheless dealt with some important points. I commend the committee's report.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Raising the subject of subordinate legislation, even among the political anoraks who occupy this building, tends not to get much response other than people's eyes glazing over rather quickly. I must therefore congratulate colleagues who have taken part in this morning's debate for at least holding members' interest—then again, all of us have probably paid our dues as members and former members of the Subordinate Legislation Committee of the Parliament.

The debate and the draft report could well mark a turning point in the life of the Parliament, and be the final break from a complex, arcane and archaic way of making legislation that we inherited from Westminster.

The committee had two options from which to choose in drafting the report. One was to go for improvements to the current system and, where it could, to streamline but maintain in essence the existing machinery. The other option was much more radical: it was to start again from first principles and devise a system for subordinate legislation that is not only fit for purpose for a new Parliament in the 21st century but, perhaps more important, which ordinary mortals might be able to access and understand. That is the committee's ambition for the Scottish statutory instrument procedure. It is to the committee's credit that it has taken the latter course, but we will have to weigh the issues raised during consultation on the draft report very carefully before we confirm our recommendations.

Sylvia Jackson highlighted the large volume of subordinate legislation that comes before Parliament and the considerable experience that members have gained. Now is therefore a good time to replace the transitional arrangements. She also pointed to the need for proper scrutiny and highlighted the fact that subject committees often struggle with time constraints when they carry out such scrutiny. Reform is needed.

Stewart Maxwell highlighted the fact that the SSIP will allow Parliament to concentrate on the instruments that matter and to get quickly through routine instruments. Murray Tosh underlined the non-partisan nature of the committee's reflections on the reforms that we are advocating and rightly emphasised that we are making no attempt to interfere with the Executive's ability to make subordinate legislation. His clarification of what we mean by being able to make amendments effectively with Executive approval should reassure the minister.

Similarly, Christine May rightly pointed to the considerable powers that ministers possess in being able to make subordinate legislation, and she indicated how such legislation significantly affects business in other organisations. Making the system simpler will lead to better and less burdensome regulation.

I hope and trust that the minister's response to the draft report will not be opposition to it. We are not trying to limit the Executive's ability to progress its legislative programmes—quite the opposite, in fact—but we want to ensure proper and efficient scrutiny. As other members have said, this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to effect a truly modernising change in government. I hope that we take it.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I have never been a member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, although I obviously have ministerial responsibility for it. I do not know whether that allows me to be part of the merry "band of brothers and sisters" to which Murdo Fraser referred, but the fact that I have found the debate interesting surely qualifies me for membership.

I should say on behalf of the Labour group that we do not regard membership of the Subordinate Legislation Committee as a kind of punishment for bad behaviour. I am sure that Gordon Jackson, who is just about to leave the chamber, would confirm that. [Laughter.] I turned round at just the right moment.

We welcome the debate and I hope that I will not strike a tone of opposition. Certainly, since I have been the Minister for Parliamentary Business, I have tried to engage constructively with the Subordinate Legislation Committee. I appreciate its non-partisan and professional approach—the committee works in the interests of the whole Parliament, which is greatly appreciated on our side of the table. I hope that such dialogue can continue.

I obviously have responsibility for ensuring that we keep the show on the road and get to the end result; it is not just about the process, but the outcome. I may raise doubts and questions in my speech, but I will do so from within a framework of wanting to hear the arguments and iron out the detail. We welcome many parts of the draft report and we will move on that once we get to the details. We suggest that we can continue the discussion, as time goes on, through the Executive officials and Subordinate Legislation Committee officials who are clearly engaged with the detail. I hope that what I say will be viewed in that context. I want to thank officially Sylvia Jackson and the committee for the work that they have done and the manner in which they have conducted discussions with the Executive.

The report is substantial and what it says is significant, so we must consider it in great detail. The report requires full consideration and careful study from our side of the table. We will engage in and continue with that work. As I said, however, I want to flag up a couple of issues; I hope that members will bear with me as I do that. Again, I emphasise that we do not dismiss what the committee has said in relation to the points that I will address. It is just that we believe that we must think through certain issues as we move forward.

In particular, we must think through the recommendation on the 40-day draft instrument laying period. We regard that as the main recommendation and will pay particular attention to it. A maximum normal laying period of 40 days for most draft instruments, even the most routine instruments, would add considerably to the work and timetables in making SSIs. Again, I am not saying that there are not things that we can do to improve our procedures or that we should not address issues in our internal working arrangements.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

I just want to point out that for instruments that have little or nothing wrong with them, the period would be much shorter than 40 days.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I appreciate that point, which suggests the kind of detail that we need to iron out as we go forward. We need to think through the consequences of what Sylvia Jackson just said. However, our view is that the committee's 40-day proposal would subject a range of what we regard as routine instruments to an unnecessarily long period of scrutiny and delay.

I accept the point that Sylvia Jackson made in her opening speech about exceptions to the rule and the detailed procedure for amendments. We will seek clarification of what that would actually mean in practice, particularly in terms of the respective roles of the Executive and Parliament in making decisions. Again, the Subordinate Legislation Committee will appreciate that we think that the 40-day proposal needs more work to be done on it so that it can accommodate instruments that are also subject to procedures at Westminster or which are intended to progress in parallel with corresponding instruments at Westminster. We have a number of doubts about the practicality of the main proposal. We need to consider it in more detail and more work needs to be done on it before we can make a formal response to it.

However, the debate has flagged up significant issues that are mentioned in the report and which we need to address, such as the time for lead committees to scrutinise instruments and the lack of planning for SSIs, which leads to bulges in the workload and a lack of advance notice. We support a number of options to tackle those problems. For example, parallel working by the Subordinate Legislation Committee and lead committees or a short extension—to 28 days—of the period before an instrument comes into force could provide lead committees with more time to consider SSIs and the Subordinate Legislation Committee's comments on them. The implications of an extension to 28 days require more detailed consideration, but they are likely to be considerably less than the implications of the proposed 40-day period.

I accept the committee's points about bulges in the workload at certain times. If we can, we will seek to improve our planning procedures to address that issue and iron out, as Murdo Fraser suggested, a number of the associated problems. I do not dismiss the possibility of improvement. Jim Wallace made a compelling point about instruments in which mistakes have been made. If I could, I would try to avoid such mistakes with all human resource, but I am, simply because of the way in which financial years, parliamentary time and parliamentary business work, not sure that we can avoid all the log jams. However, we can discuss that point in detail.

The debate has been helpful for Parliament's scrutiny of subordinate legislation and for improving its procedures. It will, as Christine May said, improve the outcome of the process and the impact of subordinate legislation. When I work with other ministers, I take great pains to stress the Subordinate Legislation Committee's and, increasingly, lead committees' views about the range of subordinate legislation and the emphasis that is placed on it. That is now embedded into our procedures and thinking.

I look forward to continuing our discussions and the partnership working that we are developing and I hope that we will be able to come to an agreed resolution of the issues.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

I am conscious that time has gone and everything has been said, so I will briefly say one or two things about the committee and what it is doing.

It cannot be said too often that the committee owes a debt to its clerk, legal advisers and special advisers. The work that they do is amazing.

I say again to the minister that the committee operates in good faith. Tory, Scottish National Party and Executive-party colleagues operate with one common motive: to get statutory instruments right. We are not about politics or policy, but procedure—the minister may laugh but, on this occasion, it is true. We suggest that the committee should have powers to amend instruments not to inhibit ministers, to stop them doing their jobs or to second-guess previously decided policy, but with a much more definite motive.

The committee has been accused of not blowing its own trumpet, so I will do that. We know what we are talking about; we have worked hard at the inquiry and we really understand our job. The convener said that we know what works and what does not, which is true, so I do not apologise for our making the proposals; we have thought about them carefully.

Our approach is simple: we want to make the procedures simpler and easier to understand. Murdo Fraser said that he had been on the committee for two years and still does not understand some of the differences between procedures. I mean no disrespect, but I suspect that if I were to ask members who have never been on the committee about the different forms of subordinate legislation procedure, I would find—if I could get them to wait until I had finished the question—that they did not have a clue what I was talking about. That is not a criticism of members; it demonstrates the point that the procedures are far too complex. We are anxious to simplify them, which is why our proposed new single procedure offers a way forward.

We also want to give Parliament a proper opportunity to scrutinise subordinate legislation. The present system is a problem in that regard. Some members might suggest that the proposed new system is a problem because all instruments would, in effect, be subject to the negative procedure but, as Stewart Maxwell suggested, the new proposal would actually enhance the ability of members to scrutinise instruments.

The suggestion to allow a laying period of 40 days, or less, has been raised. I appreciate that fine tuning is required on that, as with any proposal, but our suggestion would give lead committees and the Subordinate Legislation Committee the opportunity properly to scrutinise, which the lead committees have told us they need.

My main personal aim, which I think is also the aim of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, is that we produce better legislation, which is why we are interested in the power to amend instruments. I say to Alasdair Morgan that I do not think that we should give every committee the power to amend, although I understand why he referred to that idea. I think, as Murray Tosh thinks, that the practicalities would not work. The Subordinate Legislation Committee does not want the power to amend in order to cause the Executive bother or to second-guess policy; we genuinely believe that such a power would produce better legislation. We constantly find things that are wrong with instruments, and we are left with the choice either to stop an instrument completely or to let it get on the statute book wrong, which does not seem to be a terribly wise or appropriate system to me. As I said, our intention is to produce better legislation.

I am more encouraged than I thought I was going to be by what the Minister for Parliamentary Business said in her speech. We do not expect a rubber stamp to be given to our proposals. There is a sense that Governments are always conservative, but not as in the Conservative party. In their own way, all Governments tend to be conservative and might be afraid about changes such as the Subordinate Legislation Committee is suggesting.

There is a danger, however, of missing an opportunity. We have taken lots of evidence, and we are currently working according to what is only a transitional procedure. I have absolutely no doubt that the proposed radical changes would be a good thing for Parliament, its committees and, I believe, the Executive, even with respect to the freeing up of ministerial time.

Not everyone will be happy right away and things will need to be changed, so we have in a sense backed off a step, but in a wise way. As Sylvia Jackson said, the committee could have produced a bill and taken things to the wire, but we have no interest in doing so. We have taken the unusual steps of presenting our proposals, declining to draw up a bill and offering to reconsult. I am encouraged by what the minister said, and I think that we will re-engage on the issues that have been raised in the inquiry and take the opportunity to produce much better legislation in the future. I commend the committee's draft report to the Parliament.

Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill: Stage 3

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is the continuation of stage 3 proceedings on the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill. On 26 April, Parliament resolved that stage 3 proceedings that day be adjourned in order to clarify uncertainties that had arisen during those proceedings. Members have before them a second marshalled list, containing an amendment that seeks to clear up those uncertainties. The amendment will be debated before the motion on whether to pass the bill is considered.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Amendment 35, in the name of Brian Adam, the member in charge of the bill, is the only amendment in the group.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Before I get into the detail of amendment 35, I offer my apologies to members for the confusion that occurred around this issue during the previous debate. We have worked hard to ensure that the amendment before members today meets the concerns that were expressed. I hope that members have had an opportunity to look at the note explaining the background to the amendment, which, as I promised, was circulated to all members.

The principal reason for amendment 35, which confers power on the Parliament to modify the schedule, is to enable us to keep the requirements of the legislation current, relevant and pertinent in the future. Without such a provision, the only way in which we could amend the requirements that are imposed on us by the schedule would be by way of a further bill. Given that it has taken us seven years to reach this point, I suspect that not many members would be keen on that approach.

In other bills, power is given to the Executive to amend similar provisions by way of statutory instruments. Ministers accept that it is not appropriate in the special circumstances of a bill that is solely about members that they should be given responsibility for that. The amendment utilises a fairly common approach to changing administrative matters by requiring that any changes be agreed by the Parliament. Because any changes would amend the provisions of an act, which in turn could affect what constitutes a criminal offence, it is important to have some means by which the Parliament's resolution is made public. Members will see that, for that reason, the terminology has been revised to refer to a "resolution" of the Parliament, as opposed to a "determination".

Proposed subparagraph (2), which amendment 35 would insert into the schedule, applies the relevant provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (Statutory Instruments) Order 1999 to the resolution, which should enable publication by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Members were particularly concerned about how the process would operate in practice. It is envisaged that the Procedures Committee will consider whether there is a need for any changes to the standing orders to set out the process under which Parliament would consider any such resolution. I anticipate that the Standards and Public Appointments Committee will, as part of its existing remit, alert the Parliament when any change is required. Thereafter, I expect that all members will have an opportunity to participate in a debate and to vote on any changes before they are made.

Officials supporting the Standards and Public Appointments Committee, of which I am convener, have advised the Subordinate Legislation Committee of the proposed change and I understand that it is content with the approach. I commend the amendment to members, because it will allow the requirements imposed on members to be kept up to date and sets out an appropriate approach to making any necessary, agreed changes.

I move amendment 35.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

During the earlier stage 3 proceedings, I do not think that members were against a provision that would allow us to change the schedule without having to revert to primary legislation. However, many of us were concerned that a procedure was being put to us that had not been explained to us in advance and of which we did not have the details. Many of us were rightly unhappy about that.

I accept that the procedure has still to be implemented, potentially through changes to our standing orders, but I think that we are a lot clearer now about what is being suggested. The Scottish National Party will support amendment 35.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I start by commending staff of the directorate of clerking and reporting for the drafting of the note that was circulated to all members. A number of members who were particularly exercised about the issue when we last debated it on 26 April have obviously been completely satisfied by that note, because they ain't here this morning. That is also commendable.

There has been a positive outcome, considering the almost shambolic way in which the previous stage 3 proceedings drew to a close on 26 April. That situation arose because of considerable confusion and consequent uncertainty among members of all parties as to the procedural niceties of what was meant by a "determination". It is, of course, vital that any legislation that we pass, particularly on a matter of this nature, is clearly understood by all members. The positive outcome is that when that threatened not to be the case, we identified a procedure that would allow us to revisit the matter after due consideration, without having to abandon the proposed amendment or drop the bill altogether. I take great comfort from the fact that our procedures allowed that to happen.

I hope that members are now absolutely clear about what is being proposed. It is right that Parliament will be able to alter the bill, when enacted, with the benefit of hindsight, without recourse to primary legislation. I endorse whole-heartedly amendment 35.

I applaud the convener of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee for the way in which he handled the fairly bruising experience that he went through on 26 April. He did so with his customary good humour, for which I commend him. His clarification, along with the note that was circulated, means that amendment 35 is completely worthy of members' support. I urge members to support the amendment, because, by doing so, they will strengthen the bill.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

We did indeed have difficulty on 26 April, and it was helpful that we had procedures in our standing orders that allowed us to pause at that point and reflect on the issues that were raised. It is particularly important in a unicameral Parliament that we were able to do that and that the culmination of seven years of hard work by a number of members in two sessions was not lost on a technicality.

I appreciate the comments of the other two members who took part in this short debate on amendment 35. We are not in a position to spell out in detail the mechanism that will be used to modify the schedule; that will be a matter for the Procedures Committee. It might even be a matter for the Procedures Committee in the next session of Parliament.

Amendment 35 agreed to.

Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4218, in the name of Brian Adam, that the Parliament agrees that the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill be passed. Bill Butler has seven minutes in which to speak to and move the motion.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Thank you for that generous amount of time, Presiding Officer. I do not know whether I will need it all.

This subject directly impacts on all 129 members of this Parliament. I thank members for their participation and contributions, not only this morning, but at earlier points in the process.

I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Standards and Public Appointments Committee and especially to the convener, Brian Adam, as Alex Fergusson did in the previous debate. Although Brian Adam did not, in the debate on 26 April, persuade every member on the subject of determination, what he said made perfect sense to me. However, now that we have changed "determination" to "resolution", I hope that we will now resolve to get on with things. We have agreed to do so, and that is good.

I also pay tribute to members of the committee's clerking team, who were excellent, as usual. Without their help, it would have taken us even longer to reach this stage. I also pay tribute to past members of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee for their contribution.

I mention in particular the members of the Interests of the Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill Committee, which was formed to scrutinise the bill at stage 2. They had the unenviable task of getting to grips at fairly short notice with a sometimes technical policy that was formed by two separate committees over almost two sessions of the Parliament. They have the thanks of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee for engaging with the bill and staying with it beyond stage 2. I believe that they also have the thanks, quite rightly, of the Parliament.

The bill has taken a long time to make its way through the process. In October 2000, the then Standards Committee started to look at replacement legislation for the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (Statutory Instruments) Order 1999—the members interests order. It is perhaps a good thing that the bill's progress has been measured. As times change, new issues naturally emerge, and members have had time to reflect on the experiences of the past few years. No doubt, some of us will make similar utterances in a few years' time, if or when we review whatever legislation is then governing members' interests.

At this moment in time, the Scotland Act 1998 is the starting point for any bill on members' interests. The requirements of the 1998 act have to be reflected in the provisions of any bill that the Parliament produces. The 1998 act requires that we make provision for the registration of members' financial interests. One of the main areas of discussion at each stage of the bill has been whether non-financial interests should be registered. It is only sensible that I leave more substantive comments on the issue to the committee's convener, Brian Adam, who will sum up following other members' contributions to the debate.

Suffice it to say that in any matter in which 129 people have a shared interest, there is room for divergent opinions. Even given the time that the bill, in whatever form, has been under consideration, we have probably not managed to produce something that fits everyone's expectations. It has been healthy to disagree about and discuss aspects of the bill, and the fact that we have done so is probably also a healthy sign that all MSPs do not think alike, even on shared concerns about members' interests.

Of course, members are open to many influences. Although that is sometimes perceived as a good thing, more often than not it is portrayed as a bad thing. Parliamentarians should be accessible to people and organisations as they consider and act both on issues that affect their local communities and on national matters. However, all members have their personal baggage, and deliberately hiding certain interests or experience could be portrayed or perceived as wrong. For example, the provisions on paid advocacy have quite rightly provoked no argument. However, members have wrestled with ideas about the other influences that should be required by law to be registered and the extent to which such requirements would intrude upon the right of every person to a private life. That aspect of our debates has been interesting and—dare I say it?—compelling.

To conclude, I return to our starting point, the Scotland Act 1998, which requires that

"Provision shall be made for a register of interests of members of the Parliament".

We are currently working under the members' interests order that was laid at Westminster in 1999. Its full title tells us that it is a "Transitional and Transitory" piece of legislation, and its final article states that the order will

"cease to have effect on the day appointed by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament."

I have to say that I am not sure about the difference between transitory and transitional and, after the debate, I will seek Alasdair Morgan's advice on that matter. In any case, I hope that if this afternoon Parliament agrees to pass the bill, as amended, we will be a step nearer to that act.

Overall, the Standards and Public Appointments Committee has tried to hold to the original consultative steering group principles of transparency, openness and accountability, and we hope that they are all reflected in the bill.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill be passed.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

In response to Bill Butler, I say that I hope that this Parliament will be a transitional one between the Westminster Parliament and a full independent Parliament, whereas I know that the current Executive is transitory.

Substantial amendments have been made to the bill as introduced, the most significant of which have been the deletion of the requirement to register non-financial interests; the change to the threshold for registering financial interests; changes to provisions on the financial interests of spouses and other relatives; and the fact that, under amendment 35, the schedule can now be modified by a "resolution" instead of by a "determination". Bill Butler said that Brian Adam had managed to persuade him that the word "determination" was perfectly clear; if so, with amendment 35, we appear to have improved on perfection.

The bill has been driven by the need for transparency in the extent to which financial inducements might influence our dealings and the need to give the people of Scotland confidence that the system in place will achieve that. We also wanted to avoid a system that might result in unnecessary bureaucracy and intrude unnecessarily into what remains of members' private lives and, more important, into the lives of their relatives.

Because of the media's criticism of many MSPs, some of us were, at one stage, prepared to declare that which should not be declared. However, over the past couple of months, many of us decided that, regardless of what we did or how open and transparent we were, we were still going to be criticised by some people.

We therefore came down on the side of doing what was sensible, rather than pandering to those who wanted us to expose every detail of our personal lives and of the lives of those around us. It is a balancing act between transparency, the need to give confidence to the people of Scotland and our rights and the rights of our relatives not to be subjected to unnecessary scrutiny. I hope that we have struck that balance. Only time will tell, but I certainly recommend the bill to Parliament.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Eventually we get to discuss the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill. The bill has been a long time in the Parliament's committee system and was delayed again for further clarification, so I am glad that we have now got that clarification out of the way this morning.

In session 1, the Standards Committee considered a draft bill and left a legacy paper for those who were to become the members of the committee in session 2, to ensure that the Parliament complied with the transitional arrangements contained in the Scotland Act 1998. When the current bill was introduced, it was vastly different from the proposals of the session 1 committee. All of us will ask why that should be, and my view is that our attitudes had changed and that we also had experience of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, which contributed significantly to members' changed views.

It is also true to say that the decisions that we have taken at stage 3 further demonstrate that changed view. Many of the issues that are now included in the bill will make it much easier for MSPs to operate and will also give members of the public a clearer understanding of what is involved. I find it significant that the bill also relieves the Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner of the burden of interpretation, as happens under the current legislation.

It is also the case that a more confident approach has been taken to the provisions of the members' interests order. The most important decision of the Parliament, in my view, relates to the non-requirement on a member's spouse, civil partner or cohabitant to provide details of their financial interests. That is a bold decision and it represents how relationships are now viewed in today's world. The changes to the members' interests order that have been brought about will stand the test of time and will provide an appropriate basis for those members who are returned next year, even if it took us seven years to achieve.

Some might continue to argue for other changes. The absent Mr Sheridan has tried on a number of occasions to include a reference to allowances in the register of members' interests. That is clearly a separate issue, and I have every confidence in the current Standards and Public Appointments Committee, which will consider the matter when it reviews the code of conduct. I am also confident that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body will examine aspects of the allowances system.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the work undertaken by the committee that was established to consider the bill at stage 2. All those involved were somewhat thrown into a process that they had never before been involved in. It was new to us and we did not know how the process would work, but we soon found out. We were able to examine the provisions and we also went as far as proposing a number of amendments. I thank my colleagues on that committee—Jamie McGrigor, Mike Rumbles, Susan Deacon and the late Margaret Ewing—for all their work at stage 2. I also thank Stewart Stevenson, who acted as Margaret Ewing's substitute on the committee.

We now have a replacement for the members' interests order that reflects the society in which we live. It is clear and open and, above all, it is workable. I commend the bill to Parliament.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

As other members have said, the theme that has come across repeatedly in this debate is that the bill has been a long time coming, and I have to say that it must be the bill on whose consideration we have spent longest.

It took a year for the Standards Committee even to consider the matter in the first session, after which there were three years of work before a draft bill was produced. It has taken the subsequent committee another three years in this session to reach where we are now. Therefore, the issues in the bill have been examined for six years.

I was responsible for the draft bill in the first session, and it was interesting for me to take a place on the ad hoc committee in the second session to examine Brian Adam's work on the bill as introduced. As Margaret Jamieson mentioned, a good amount of time was spent scrutinising the bill. A few changes were made, but the two main changes resulted from Susan Deacon's amendments, which related to non-financial interests and the need for a modern examination of the relationship between members of the Scottish Parliament and their spouses in the 21st century. I was initially a great supporter of including non-financial interests in the draft bill, but as a result of experience over the six years, I took the view that if we could not identify the non- financial interests that we should declare, we should not declare non-financial interests at all. I feared that if we left things as they were, there would be confusion and a lack of clarity.

I understand why, in the stage 3 debate in April, the Standards and Public Appointments Committee brought back items for discussion that the ad hoc committee had rejected. Members wanted to ensure that all 129 members had an input into the decisions that were made. However, I think that that approach helped to sow confusion in the debate, during which members of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee stood up to oppose amendments that the convener had lodged on behalf of that committee.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I agreed to the committee lodging certain amendments at stage 3. As I tried to point out in the debate on 26 April, we lodged those amendments to ensure that the whole Parliament and not only members of the committee could determine the outcomes. I hope that Mike Rumbles understands that. That was the right approach.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I have worries about that process. A little bit of confusion was caused by the attempt by the convener of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee to bring back on behalf of the committee amendments that members of that committee opposed. That is why the Parliament decided to invoke—for the first time, I think—the procedure that has been followed, which has brought us to today's debate.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I hope that Mike Rumbles will reflect on the fact that the opportunities for discussions to which he has referred were nothing to do with why we had to continue the matter and complete it today. I do not think that the fact that we allowed all members of the Parliament an opportunity to debate issues relating to non-financial interests, to which he has referred, and spouses, civil partners and co-habitees caused any confusion at all. In fact, an exciting and interesting debate took place and we resolved in a determined way how to proceed in the future. We had a little difficulty with a technical matter, which has now been clarified.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

My perspective on the matter is different from that of Brian Adam. The Parliament had rejected what the committee wanted to do several times and we were left with suggestions that the committee wanted to do this and that, which upset many members who did not see what it was trying to do. The Parliament had rejected what the Standards and Public Appointments Committee had wanted to do, so the committee asked the Parliament to do something else, which caused confusion. As I have said, I understand why the committee did what it did—it was to allow everybody to have an input.

This is a very good bill—it would have to be after six years of examination, and there would be something wrong if it was not. It gives openness and transparency, but above all else it gives clarity. MSPs know exactly what they have to declare and what they have to register. There is no confusion. The bill is absolutely clear, and that is as it should be.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

As many members have said, the bill has been a long time coming. It has taken seven years and the input of two committees to get where we are today.

The bill is hugely important. The process has been a little messy on one or two occasions, but it has brought out what I believe to be the very best in the Parliament. Individual members have been forthright in questioning the advisability of an ever more intrusive requirement to register not only our own interests—it is reasonable that we should do so—but the interests of spouses and partners.

I have often stressed the need for simplicity and clarity and, indeed, a level playing field. Previous contributions from Susan Deacon, Donald Gorrie, Ken Macintosh, John Home Robertson, Mike Rumbles—for whose Damascene change of heart on some issues I applaud him—and others have shown that a level playing field, vital in a members' interests regime, simply cannot be achieved.

I greatly applaud the stand that those MSPs and others took. Members had the courage to back the removal of some stage 2 amendments that would have required a level of transparency and intrusion—Alasdair Morgan used the word "intrude"—that would simply not have been fair to all members and would not have achieved the desired outcome. As I have said at every possible opportunity, every attempt that we have made in this Parliament to be open and transparent has simply given those who would do us down an increased amount of ammunition—and they have used it.

If passed this afternoon, as it surely will be, the bill will make it far less likely that people are put off becoming members of this Parliament. That is another issue that I have referred to in the past. Furthermore, the bill is considerably clearer, simpler and easier to understand than it might have been had members not taken, on 26 April, what Margaret Jamieson described today as "bold" decisions.

I have very much enjoyed being a member of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee while we have been considering the subject. In answer to Mike Rumbles, I say that I have no regrets that some amendments proposed by the Standards and Public Appointments Committee were rejected. However, as I said on 26 April, my agreement to amendments in committee did not always signal my approval of them. It was important that the committee supported amendments unanimously, even if some members voiced reservations, so that the Parliament as a whole would have the opportunity to come to a determination. This has been a completely unwhipped debate.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I want to draw a distinction. When the convener of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee, on behalf of the committee, lodges amendments at stage 3, that has a different level of importance than when an individual MSP lodges amendments. An individual MSP would have been perfectly able to lodge those amendments at stage 3, but because the convener was lodging them on behalf of the committee they had a certain status. I am not sure that that was helpful to the debate.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Had decisions been forced on the committee, amendments would have been backed only by a majority of the committee. I do not think that that would have been helpful. The fact that amendments were lodged by the convener on behalf of the committee—after notice had been given that, in the debate, individual members would voice their reservations—has not done either the procedure or the Parliament any harm. It was absolutely right that the whole Parliament should take those decisions. In doing so, it has in many ways shown a maturity and some sheer common sense of which many would have previously suggested we were incapable.

I whole-heartedly commend the bill to the chamber.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I start by thanking Margaret Jamieson for her courtesy in extending thanks to other members of the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill Committee, on which I served. Of course, my period of service on that committee was not a happy one, given that Margaret Ewing was then extremely frail. The last parliamentary action in relation to Margaret was her election as the convener of the committee, but alas she was unable to attend any of its meetings.

As much as Margaret Ewing was a politician, she was a parliamentarian above all else. What we debate today is a bill about parliamentary activity. It is a debate for which no party in the Parliament is whipped—apart, perhaps, from the party whose members are absent from the back benches—and in relation to which we will have to exercise our judgment individually when we come to decision time. However, it is clear that what our collective judgment will be has been established and that we will support the proposed changes.

We must consider both the bill and the whole system that is implicit in it in a particular way. The bill is a legal document that will lay down legal requirements on members of the Parliament. However, that is not enough—that is the minimum standard that we must achieve. The bill uses words that make it clear that we will continue to have to exercise judgment; it does not represent a simple tick list or formula that we can apply.

When we look at the prejudice test, it is clear that we must exercise judgment. The bill states:

"An interest meets the prejudice test if, after taking into account all the circumstances, that interest is reasonably considered to prejudice, or to give the appearance of prejudicing, the ability of the member to participate in a disinterested manner in any proceedings of the Parliament."

That is a very high test, which we, as members, must apply for ourselves. At the point at which we have to exercise that judgment, the interest in question may be known only to us and to no one else. Although it may, of course, emerge at a later stage, that will be no justification for our failure to apply proper judgment at the point at which we should have put it on the register of interests.

However, there is an extent to which we will have to have psychic powers. Although the Parliament is constrained with regard to what it may legislate on, we are not constrained with regard to what we may debate. If I had a nephew who lived in Australia in a town where the Commonwealth games were to be held and who intended to lease his house during the games, I would have a familial interest in the profit that would be made from that. If the Parliament was then to debate the Commonwealth games, would that interest meet the test? Only I would be able to make that judgment. We can all come up with examples. The bottom line is that the bill will not relieve us of individual responsibility.

There are other difficulties that we must consider. From the outset, I concluded that the way in which the members' interests order dealt with shares was inadequate, because its test relates only to the nominal value of shares, which often bears little relation to their actual market value. Voluntarily, I have registered most but not all of my shareholdings. The shareholdings that I have not registered are quite small—they have a value of a few hundred pounds. For example, I am in the process of acquiring shares in a co-operative that operates a wind farm in my constituency. I expect to invest £500. As drafted, the bill will catch that because what it says about shares makes it clear—to me, at least—that it is the aggregate total of my shareholdings that matters, not the individual value of an individual shareholding in an individual company. I agree with that provision.

I will now be mischievous by attempting to wind up anyone who wants to be wound up. We may not have excluded the requirement to register the interests of our partners. I use that word very carefully, because in the schedule the bill makes it clear that we must register gifts

"Where ... a partnership of which the member is a partner"—

it does not say a legal partnership—

"receives, or has received, a gift of heritable or moveable property or a gift of a benefit in kind"

and the value of the gift on that date exceeds the amount specified.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is easy to wind him up.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Stewart Stevenson missed out part of the quotation. The bill states that gifts that are received by

"a member or a company in which the member has a controlling interest or a partnership of which the member is a partner"

are to be registered. It is quite clear.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I view my relationship with my dearly beloved as a partnership of equals. That is my point. My comments are intended merely to illustrate that we must read the bill and ensure that we understand exactly what it says.

It gets even more complicated, because there may be some shares that pay no dividends. I have held shares in a number of companies that do not pay dividends. Microsoft, one of the biggest companies in the world, does not pay dividends. Capital appreciation may be postponed to a far-distant point, but there are still issues. The prejudice test is the key. It is good that that is spelled out in the bill.

It is somewhat ironic that we are concluding the parliamentary process on the bill on the very day that the Parliament has probably—I do not make the claim absolutely—become the first Parliament to publish all the receipts for members' expenses, albeit that we have more to publish. That bespeaks our openness and preparedness to be accountable, as does the bill. I notice that the public gallery is rather sparsely populated and that the press gallery is entirely empty. I am sure that the press are fair cumsnuggered as they look through the 15,000 receipts that have been published. It will keep them out of mischief for at least three hours.

It was a privilege and a pleasure to participate in the work of the committee. There is no hiding place in a five-person committee. We had genuinely engaged and serious discussions about some of the issues. I did not agree with all the conclusions, but that is all right. The bill that is before us reflects the sweat, work and intellectual endeavours of two generations of parliamentarians. Like almost all other members—certainly all members of good common sense—I will support the bill at decision time.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

It says in my notes that I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and indeed I do, although I do not want to get caught in the crossfire that is going on. As I said during the stage 1 debate, my role is merely to emphasise the Executive's shared interest in ensuring that the Parliament passes robust and effective legislation. In essence, the bill is a matter for the Parliament and the Executive has no further interest in it per se.

Previously I highlighted the importance of seeking to produce a framework that takes account of what people outside the Parliament might deem to be relevant. We must have that at the forefront of our minds. Of course, as members have said, we must also develop a framework that respects members' privacy and wider responsibilities.

The framework must be clear—ambiguity does not assist us in any way. Members must not be unfairly compromised or penalised. That point was well rehearsed at stage 2 and during stage 3 consideration of amendments. We must be transparently accountable. We now have a system that will allow us to do that, to build on the respect that the Parliament has already gained and to agree to legislation that supports the principles that I have outlined.

The legislation is key in underpinning our accountability to the electorate and the propriety of decisions that we are in the privileged position of making on its behalf. Now and, hopefully, in the future, it protects members who seek to focus on the interests of Scotland, while ensuring that we have a proper and effective system of accountability. Equally, it minimises the opportunities for those who set out to undermine the Parliament's work.

The Executive has monitored the progress of the bill during its amending stages. Members of the ad hoc committee had a difficult task in seeking to refine the details of the bill and I am sure that the chamber will join me in expressing gratitude to the committee for its thorough consideration of the policy issues. I pay tribute to Margaret Jamieson for all the work that she did in relation to that committee. Further, I pay particular tribute to Margaret Ewing and associate the Executive with Stewart Stevenson's words in that regard. She was a committed parliamentarian and knew her responsibilities clearly. I want to take this public opportunity to emphasise the loss to us all that was caused by Margaret's death.

I restate my thanks to Brian Adam in relation to the work that we have done over the years in terms of expressing the Executive's interests, where appropriate. Brian Adam has conducted himself in a non-partisan and collegiate way in his post. All members of Parliament appreciate that. Further, I think that he has come to appreciate the life of a minister and the fact that irritating members can annoy us because they simply will not be told how clear things are. Much as I appreciate Brian Adam's many talents, however, I think that his party loyalties will prevent him from holding ministerial office—I say that to reciprocate Alasdair Morgan's points. I am glad that Brian Adam acknowledges the pressure that we are under.

The process has been a useful one for the Parliament to undertake. I appreciate that we have done this work as a group of members rather than as party representatives. I think that the Standards and Public Appointments Committee and others have discharged their responsibilities effectively. It is to be hoped that, at last, we are at the end of the process.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

At the end of the passage of any bill, thanks must be given. I associate myself with the remarks of other members who thanked members of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee and the previous Standards Committee, which did the initial work in the previous session, and the members of the ad hoc committee. I would also like to associate myself with the remarks that others have made about the involvement of Margaret Ewing. Although she did not attend any of the formal sessions, she attended some of the informal briefings that helped us to develop the appropriate debate that took place in public—we had to gather information and ensure that we were well informed before we could properly scrutinise the proposals.

I thank the members who have engaged with the bill and the members of staff who have helped to deliver it. We can express our views but there are a lot of technicalities involved in the legislation and the clerking staff and the staff of the non-Executive bills unit helped to deliver the bill.

As others have said, legislation that relates to members' interests should be about openness and transparency but it should be measured. We had a debate about how that should happen in a measured way.

Mike Rumbles said that, in his view, some of the difficulties that we had in the previous stage 3 debate on the bill might have been caused by the fact that amendments that were lodged on behalf of the committee did not carry the support of the committee. To that, I would say that those amendments were in my name and that that position mirrors the approach to Executive bills, which involves the minister being in charge. In that regard, I say to Margaret Curran that she should reflect on the fact that I might just be getting in a little practice for next year. The committee might have discussed the amendments, but they were not committee amendments as such. I had the agreement of members of the committee, but the purpose of the amendments was purely to enable all members to have their say. I, along with the convener or the deputy convener of the ad hoc committee, tried to create a climate in which debate could happen and in which we could engage not only the seven members of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee and the five members of the ad hoc committee, but all 129 members. In that sense, we achieved our objective.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I think that Brian Adam misunderstood my point. I did not say, nor did I wish to imply, that his amendments did not have the support of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee. What I said was that some members of the committee opposed the amendments. It was evident that the amendments that were lodged on behalf of the committee by the convener did not have the support of the Parliament, and that led to confusion and delay. The point that I was making is that amendments that are lodged on behalf of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee by the convener have a different status from amendments that are lodged by individual members.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I understand the point that Mike Rumbles is trying to make, but I do not accept that that is the case. There is a difference between an Executive bill and a committee bill, particularly one that affects all members. My duty was to ensure that there was a full debate and I made sure that that happened by lodging the amendments.

One reason why a little confusion may have arisen is that members were allowed to debate the matter and had to accept responsibility for their decisions without the guidance of whips. It is unusual for that to occur throughout a debate. We have free votes in some circumstances, but they do not usually apply to a whole bill and a whole debate. I think that that enhanced the debate. It might have contributed to the confusion, but we were doing something new and we had the opportunity to exercise a little-known part of our standing orders. The guidance that we received on that from the Presiding Officer team was greatly appreciated, certainly on my part. The fact that we stretched the Parliament as part of the process is a positive thing. However, I do not want to labour the point.

I turn to the remarks that were made by my colleague Alasdair Morgan, who was perhaps single-handedly responsible for our having to come back to the debate today because he said that he did not understand what "determination" meant, what its consequences would be and how the procedures for dealing with it would be arrived at. I am glad that he graciously recognised that we are now a little further forward. It is clear that he is determined to achieve change and the Parliament has determined that resolution is the better part of determination. We could spend ages dancing on the head of a pin; I am not sure that the word "resolution" is very different from the word "determination", but members understand the former a little better.

The key difference today is the one that means that there will be an opportunity to publish the intention to change, which will also put it into the public domain in a more formal way than might otherwise have been the case.

Mike Rumbles was correct to say that the change in attitude has been driven by experience, particularly over the past 18 months. That is perfectly understandable.

Margaret Jamieson said that the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 had influenced her thinking on the matter. She was correct to say that we now have a more confident approach to asserting what we think is a proper balance. In the past there was an attitude that we needed to be as open as possible, but we have to get the right balance. The Parliament has had the opportunity to debate the matter and it has clearly decided in which direction it wants to go.

It is true that some changes that we have introduced reflect changes in relationships that the Parliament has acknowledged as important by amending family law to recognise civil partnerships and cohabiting couples. Having done that, the Parliament has decided to alter declarations of interest that involve members' partners.

Margaret Jamieson was right to say that issues that relate to allowances are not matters for the bill. They are primarily for the Parliament as a whole, but the Parliament has given the corporate body the authority to deal with those matters, where they properly reside.

Alex Fergusson was right to say that the whole Parliament has now had the opportunity to have a debate. That was what was wanted by the ad hoc committee and the Standards and Public Appointments Committee, which was charged with producing the bill. The Parliament has had that debate, primarily at a previous meeting.

Stewart Stevenson highlighted two principal changes that will take place as a result of the bill and which were agreed without significant debate beyond the debate in the Standards and Public Appointments Committee. The objective prejudice test, which is widely recognised as a significant advance, places much responsibility on members to make a judgment. The individual member's judgment will be considered by the electorate eventually and in some circumstances by our independent Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner. Some members had concerns about that and we debated how much should be left to the commissioner to interpret. If the Parliament passes the bill, it will have decided that the objective prejudice test is the direction in which it wants to go.

Perhaps the position on shares will be a little clearer, because the requirement to register will relate to the actual value of shares rather than a notional value. I am not sure that Stewart Stevenson was quite right on a couple of points. An interest in shares could include that of a marriage partner, but only if they were subject to the member's control or direction. Given that Parliament has already interpreted that, that is not really a runner. In relation to gifts, the word "partnership" takes its ordinary legal meaning. We will pass a law today, so that will be the meaning that applies. That meaning does not include marriage partners.

It is important that any person who observes their elected member going about their parliamentary duties should have a sense of what drives that member. The subject that perhaps provoked most discussion was registering non-financial interests. The intended policy of the Standards Committee at the end of session 1 and the current Standards and Public Appointments Committee was that registering non-financial interests should be mandatory rather than voluntary as it is at present.

There is no doubt and no one disputed that non-financial interests can shape a member's views. However, the questions with which we have all grappled are the extent to which non-financial interests should be required by law to be registered and, if registration were required, how that would impact on private and family life.

Parliament has agreed not to force registrations, for the reasons that a wide variety of members have given, which I understand perfectly. Parliament has agreed to leave the onus on members to decide whether a non-financial interest is relevant to their Parliament work, with the option to register such an interest voluntarily, which is exactly the present situation.

Another interesting deliberation was about the interests of non-MSPs—the people who are closest to us, such as spouses, civil partners or cohabitants. Members picked over that issue in the stage 1 debate and in the bill committee at stage 2, which resulted in food for thought before stage 3. As members we put ourselves up for election and for public scrutiny, but Parliament has agreed that our family members do not necessarily do so. Members are responsible for whether a family interest should be voluntarily registered. We can choose to make that registration, but it will not be compulsory.

It is worth restating that the register is about influence and what may make a member act in a certain way. When a member has to register something, chooses to register something or declares something it does not preclude them from participating in full in parliamentary life. It does not preclude a member from contributing to debates or from voting on an issue. The purpose of the register is to show what may influence a member or make them act in a certain way. It is important that the public are aware of that and the onus is on members to let the public know about it. Some registration will be compulsory, but I hope that some of it will continue to be done voluntarily. The register will inform anybody who is interested in what is going on that a member has an interest in, or even knowledge of, the subject under debate.

Subject to the bill being passed this afternoon—I hope that we will not have to revisit the matter again—the provisions of the act will affect members who are returned to Parliament following the election in May 2007. We will then see the legislation at work and we will be able to keep an eye on it to check that it meets the public's need to have information about what might be considered to be a possible influence on the conduct of a member, whether that strikes the appropriate balance with the rights of members and whether adjustments will need to be made over time.

The bill does not sit in isolation. The code of conduct is currently under review. At the risk of causing confusion, Mr Rumbles, I encourage members to take an active and early interest in the current review of the code of conduct rather than to engage in the debate at a later stage. It is wonderful that members have engaged in this debate, but it might have been helpful and would perhaps have caused less confusion if we had had a wider debate at an earlier stage. I invite members to engage now in the review of the code of conduct.

The committee's intention is to change the arrangement of the code of conduct by dividing it into three parts. The first part will set out the aspirations; the second part will set out the rules and regulations in the code; and the third part will offer guidance on how those might be applied. That should help members to understand where they are in relation to the code. It should also help the public to understand what members are doing and it should help the commissioner to interpret the rules.

Once again, I extend my thanks to members for their input and I trust that they will agree that the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill be passed.

Point of Order

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have notice of a point of order.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Before we start questions to ministers, I ask whether the Presiding Officer has observed that for environment and rural development question time this afternoon neither question 1 nor question 2 has been lodged and question 9 has been withdrawn, and that for health and community care question time question 1 has been withdrawn? As someone whom the computer has not favoured with my name coming out of the hat since April 2005, I wonder whether it is possible for you, when questions are not lodged, to consider taking the next people on the list, who in this case would have been in the 11 th and 12 th positions, so that they have the opportunity to lodge questions? That would give those of us who regularly put our name in each week with little result a little more chance to ask questions and hold ministers to account.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I understand the member's point and where he is coming from, but members will be aware that such matters are matters for standing orders. A change in procedure to effect what Mr Stevenson requests would require an amendment to standing orders, which in turn would require a motion to that effect from the Procedures Committee. All I can suggest to Mr Stevenson is that if he fleshes out his proposal and submits it to the Procedures Committee, it will no doubt care to consider it in the fullness of time.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

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

To ask the Scottish Executive what action is being taken to ensure that reparation actions in Scottish courts are processed efficiently. (S2O-10160)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The Scottish Court Service has targets for the throughput of civil business in the courts, including reparation actions. As I announced during the civil justice debate in April, we are in discussions with the senior judiciary about a judicially led review of the civil courts. One of the aims of the review will be to identify how to improve further the efficiency of the civil courts.

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

I have written to the minister about the case of a constituent who has approached me. On 27 October 1998, a lorry reversed and crushed her head against a wall. She was not expected to live, but she did and she is pursuing a case against the driver and his company. The hearing has now been booked for 16 January 2007, which will be eight years and four months after the accident. Does the minister agree that that is absolutely unacceptable? Further, has the Executive carried out research into whether the new procedures for personal injury actions in the Court of Session that were put in place in April 2003 have been effective, so that cases such as that which my constituent has endured are not repeated?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I share the frustration of Jeremy Purvis and his constituent. Anyone who must wait more than eight years for justice to be delivered clearly has not been served well. However, it would be wrong of me to comment on or intervene in individual cases. I am not aware of the circumstances that have led to the delay. We share the view that justice should be delivered speedily. That was one of the reasons why we set up the new procedures, to which Jeremy Purvis referred, which from all reports are working well.

I confirm that we have analysed the new procedures, which have been independently evaluated by the University of Edinburgh. We expect to receive a report in the summer but, from what we have heard so far, the new procedures are working well. However, I do not think that we can be complacent. Even if the new system is shown to be working well, there are clearly still problems, as Jeremy Purvis indicated, that we need to address.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

I am aware of cases that were delayed not just on one occasion but on several, then were finally dropped. Is the minister aware of the number of cases that are significantly delayed, and will that issue be part of the civil justice review that he will embark on?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I cannot comment on the number of cases that are delayed or, indeed, ultimately dropped. However, the intention of the civil justice review is to consider the processes, how the courts operate and how people can get better, easier, speedier and more cost-effective access to justice. I have been heartened by the discussions that we have had so far. I think that everyone shares the view that if sensible improvements can be made, they should be made.

The Parliament has invested a huge amount of effort in tackling many of the problems in the criminal justice system. It will be incumbent on the next Parliament to consider the need to address problems in the civil justice system.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

More generally, on the efficiency of courts, including the criminal courts, does the minister agree that if a court considers that a supervised attendance order is the most appropriate punishment for an individual, it should be available as the first-instance disposal rather than, as at present, being available only when someone has defaulted on a fine? If so, will the minister make the necessary changes to ensure that supervised attendance orders can be used as the first-instance disposal?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

That does not sound terribly much like it is about reparation.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No, it has nothing at all to do with reparation. I suspect that Margaret Mitchell has simply seen an opportunity to raise a different issue.

We believe that supervised attendance orders and other disposals make a contribution. We will work to ensure that they are used effectively and we will consider the efficiencies of measures at all costs. However, those matters can be considered in other debates at other times.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will provide a progress report on the commitment in "A Partnership for a Better Scotland" to reduce secondary 1 and secondary 2 class sizes in English and maths to 20 by 2007. (S2O-10102)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

There are no interim targets for the delivery of our commitment to reduce S1 and S2 class sizes in English and maths to 20 by August 2007, but I can report that very good progress continues to be made in training the teachers who are needed to meet our target.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Having taught secondary mathematics from North Berwick to Fort William over the past three years, I confirm that there is no evidence to support the minister's optimistic view. Average S1 and S2 class sizes in maths and English are still around the 30-plus mark. Will the minister give a commitment that he will not only secure maths and English teachers—I appreciate that he is talking about teacher numbers, but we are considering maths and English teachers specifically—but make classroom space available? I know the capacity of the existing schools. A twofold approach is necessary: we need teachers and class space. A wary teaching profession eagerly awaits the minister's response.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

First, I welcome the fact that Dave Petrie chose to train as a teacher late in his life. I am sure that those skills will become useful again in a year's time, when he will require a job.

I would genuinely like more people to make the decision that Dave Petrie made and enter teaching. Indeed, huge numbers are doing just that. The number of entrants to maths teacher training is up by 116 per cent, while the number of entrants to English teacher training is up by 145 per cent. This year, 257 maths teachers and 328 English teachers will emanate from our colleges and universities.

We are making significant progress. I am glad to tell the Parliament that, since the Tories left office in 1997, teacher numbers have risen by 5 per cent and the number of teachers in training has increased by a staggering 75 per cent. In the same period, primary class sizes have fallen by 4 per cent and primary 1 and 2 class sizes are down by 8 per cent. Pupil to teacher ratios have improved by 12 per cent since the Tories left office. They were rising under the Tories, but they have been falling since Labour won the election in 1997. That is good news for Scotland, and I wish that the Tories would welcome it for a change.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I take it that the minister will join me in wishing the Educational Institute of Scotland well for its conference, which starts today in Dundee.

Does he acknowledge that English and maths teachers constitute the largest number of teachers in our secondary schools, that 17 per cent of teachers are over 55 and that, despite the late but welcome recruitment of new teachers in those subjects, there has been only a 5 per cent increase in new recruits? The reason that there are no interim measurements is that the policy is less a target to benefit pupils than more wishful thinking from the Government.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

It is far from wishful thinking. I must say that I enjoyed dinner with the EIS last night, as I am sure Fiona Hyslop did. We are working with the EIS on future class sizes and how we manage them beyond the targets that we have set, which we will hit.

It is important to understand that we have modelled the number of teachers whom we need to recruit on the profession's age profile. We have done that systematically and in a much more sophisticated way in recent years than in the past. Teacher recruitment is buoyant and our universities are bulging at the seams. There are 3,860 probationers in the system this year. We are spending an extra £18 million this year and giving local authorities an extra £44 million the following year to employ those extra teachers, which will bring huge benefits to Scotland's classes. I wish that the Scottish National Party would join us in welcoming all those new teachers to the classroom and welcoming the big difference that they will make to Scottish education.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the specific programmed dates are for the start of construction of the six improvement schemes on the A75 between Stranraer and Dumfries. (S2O-10080)

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Expressions of interest from contractors have been received for the schemes at Barfil, Newton Stewart and Planting End. Tenders are expected to be issued in August 2006, and the projected construction start is April 2007. Transport Scotland's intention is to publish draft orders for the schemes at Dunragit, Hardgrove and Cairntop in the next two months.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thank the minister for that answer, which is more positive than any of the others I have received since I first started asking the question in 2002. Even yet, the start date is slipping by another year, and it is now in the financial year 2007-08. Does the minister accept that it is important for the communities along the A75 that there are no more of the interminable delays that have occurred with those six important projects since 2002?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am pleased that the member is pleased with the response. I restate that we expect the construction of the first three schemes to commence next year.

When the concept of providing guaranteed, unambiguous overtaking lanes was first proposed, it was insufficiently detailed for all the value-for-money issues to be identified and addressed. I acknowledge that that process has taken some time, but we are now beyond it and we are moving towards construction. The Minister for Transport and Telecommunications and I regret that the process has taken some time, but we are now in a position to move forward with those important works on the A75.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Does the minister accept that the unusually high percentage of heavy goods vehicles that use the A75—as borne out by the Executive's own figures—the effect of which will be greatly exacerbated following the construction of the joint port facility at Cairnryan, more than justifies giving a different weighting to any modelling exercise on the A75, as seemed to be acknowledged by the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications when he visited Galloway and Upper Nithsdale? Does the minister accept that we urgently require not just a start date for those six agreed projects—I welcome the minister's reply on that issue—but several more projects, including bypasses for the two villages that will be left without one, Springholm and Crocketford?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I recognise the issues that the member raises, which I understand he has discussed with the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications. I will certainly pass on to him the concerns that the member raises once again today. I am sure that those issues will be addressed under the forthcoming review of transport projects that the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications announced recently.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

To ask the Scottish Executive what issues are being considered in its consultation on the national transport strategy. (S2O-10085)

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The national transport strategy consultation paper, which was issued on 20 April, sets out the issues under consideration. The paper poses questions on a range of issues, including how we continue to build a sustainable transport system for Scotland. The Minister for Transport and Telecommunications looks forward to considering views on the paper after the closing date for comments, which is 13 July.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

It is always a pleasure to hear the Deputy Minister for Finance, Public Service Reform and Parliamentary Business deputising at questions on transport in the absence of the real-life Minister for Transport and Telecommunications. I am sure that it is a great pleasure for George Lyon into the bargain.

I ask the minister to reflect on the clear demand in my constituency and in constituencies in the north of Scotland for the transport strategy's road safety priority to be realised through the implementation of a dual carriageway between Perth and Inverness, which would ensure that motorists from this country and from abroad do not have to drive on the most dangerous trunk road in Scotland.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The national transport strategy will inform the strategic transport projects review, which will consider the future transport interventions that will be required to deliver the strategy in the 10-year period beyond the current committed projects running to 2012. Given its role and adequacy, the A9 between Perth and Inverness has been identified as one of the candidates for priority consideration under the STPR. Some preparatory work is now being commissioned to identify the practicalities of dualling north of Ballinluig. I hope that the member will accept that as a positive step in addressing the concern that he has raised once again today.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Question 58 in the national transport strategy consultation introduces the idea of abandoning the national target to quadruple cycling. Can the minister explain how abandoning that target can be squared with the Executive's stated commitment to a shift away from car use towards safer and more sustainable alternatives, including cycling? If the national target is replaced by local authority targets, will the minister consider that providing leadership on promoting cycling remains one of his key duties?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am sure that I do not have to point out to the member that we expect him to respond to the question in the consultation on the national transport strategy. As I said to Mr Swinney, the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications will look forward to reflecting on the views that are expressed in response to his consultation. We look forward to hearing Mr Ballard's response.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will consider the outcome of the guide to railway investment projects stage 4 assessment of the dynamic loop on the Kilmarnock to Glasgow rail line. (S2O-10125)

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Strathclyde Partnership for Transport has commissioned Network Rail to progress work towards implementing a loop between Kilmarnock and Glasgow. Transport Scotland is working with both parties to accelerate work on the project.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The minister's answer will go some way to clearing up the misinformation that has been circulating locally. Will the minister indicate the possible timetable for completion of the GRIP stage 4 assessment?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

We anticipate that the current feasibility work will be completed in early 2007 and will identify the main activities, estimated costs and timescales for implementation.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what importance it places on encouraging enterprise in education. (S2O-10141)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

): Enterprise in education is a key priority for the Scottish Executive. The £86 million that we have made available to deliver "Determined to Succeed", our strategy for enterprise in education, is a clear mark of the scale of our commitment.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Will the minister join me in welcoming the innovative range of projects undertaken by young people in North Ayrshire as part of "Determined to Succeed", including the design and production of costumes for Scottish Opera by pupils of Irvine royal academy and the production of a Largs tourist brochure by Brisbane primary school pupils? Does the minister believe, as I do, that as well as learning about the world of business, enterprise in education allows young people to develop report-writing, negotiating, financial and team-building skills? Will he join me in wishing North Ayrshire's entry, Stanley primary school, every success in the final of the tomorrow's inventors competition at Glasgow Science Centre next week, as I am sure that his deputy, Allan Wilson, would, given that it is in his constituency?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I am pleased to send my good wishes to the school and to compliment North Ayrshire Council on all the excellent work that it is doing to deliver on "Determined to Succeed". More than £1.8 million of funding has been allocated to North Ayrshire Council to enable it to deliver enterprise education. In April 2006, it reported that it had met the targets set in "Determined to Succeed"—every pupil from primary 1 to secondary 6 now has an annual entitlement to enterprise activities. Each of the 10 school clusters in North Ayrshire has more than five business partnership agreements in place. The total number of formal and informal business partnerships in the area is 527. That has helped us to meet and beat the 2006 target to have 2,000 such partnerships throughout Scotland. The initiative is a shining example, not only in the United Kingdom but in Europe, of what can be achieved through enterprise education. We are well ahead of our targets for delivery.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to carry out an audit of youth facilities across Scotland. (S2O-10110)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The Scottish Executive has no plans to carry out an audit of youth facilities across Scotland.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Many young people in my constituency have approached me to complain about the lack of youth facilities in their communities. I am sure that that is the case in other members' constituencies throughout the country. Will the minister outline what assistance his Government gives local authorities to build new youth facilities? Does he agree that carrying out an audit would provide a national picture of where the gaps in youth facilities lie throughout Scotland, so that we could do something about them?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I acknowledge Richard Lochhead's interest in the matter. Two mapping exercises have been carried out. One was by YouthLink Scotland in 2003 and one was a performance information project carried out by Communities Scotland in 2005, which related largely to the United Kingdom sector. That is part of the national picture. Local strategies, however, are for local authorities to make. A large number of youth facilities exist in local areas, not least of which are the Elgin youth cafe and the outfit initiative, which were recently visited by the First Minister and Peter Peacock.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2340)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As ever, we will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

I congratulate Newcraighall primary school in Edinburgh, which I visited this morning, on the occasion of its centenary. I am sure that we all extend our congratulations and wish the school all the very best.

I also wish to express my concern about Margo MacDonald, who is spending some time in hospital. She is a powerful member of the Parliament and I am sure that we all wish her very well. [Applause.]

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I wish the school a very happy birthday and I wish Margo MacDonald a speedy recovery and return to the chamber.

We heard this week that some local authorities in Scotland are rationing free personal care because of a lack of resources. What action will the First Minister take to ensure that old people get the care to which they are legally entitled?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I make it very clear that local authorities have an absolute duty to deliver that service properly. The local authorities in Scotland that deliver the service willingly by using their budgets properly are to be congratulated. Those local authorities that do not should step up to the mark and meet their obligations; if they do not, there are clear procedures that will be followed.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is it not the case that half of all councils operated waiting lists last year and that several councils, including North Lanarkshire Council in the First Minister's area, are already doing so this year? The First Minister's answer suggests that he thinks that that is not acceptable and that there is no excuse for it.

I draw the First Minister's attention to a letter that I received from him just last week. It says:

"Local authorities have an obligation to deliver or secure services once an assessment has been made ... but, before doing so, may consider the availability of resources. Operating a waiting list ... may therefore be appropriate."

It is signed "Jack". Is it not the case that despite all the tough talk about going in to sort out errant councils, the First Minister condones waiting lists?

Is that not a betrayal of the policy of free personal care?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It took Ms Sturgeon two weeks to read the letter enough times to be able to take out of context a couple of sentences and misinterpret them. She has been slower than she normally is, although still predictable. As I am sure she will confirm, the letter also states clearly that even if local authorities are not in a position to make available the practical services that people might require immediately following an assessment of need, they have an absolute duty to secure appropriate services for people and to manage them until other resources are available.

It is of course right that any guidelines spell out clearly what should happen where there are practical difficulties at a local level, but it is essential that every local authority in Scotland assesses the need of the elderly people in its area and then ensures, first, that those needs are met as quickly as possible and, secondly, that where those services are meant to be delivered free, they are. Free personal care is one of the best policies that the Parliament has made and Scotland's councils should be delivering it.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Can I get this right? The First Minister has confirmed what he said in his letter, which is that he thinks that, where resources are not available, it is appropriate to operate waiting lists. That is rather different from what he said to me in his first answer.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Read out the whole letter.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am happy for the whole letter to be read by anybody who wants to read it.

Is it not the case that the policy of free personal care for all who need it has turned into nothing more than a postcode lottery? Some councils have waiting lists; others do not. Some councils charge for food preparation; others do not. As the First Minister acknowledges in his letter, the reason for that is that there is an issue with resources and with how money is allocated to councils.

Instead of talking tough in public but giving the green light to waiting lists in reality, is it not time that the First Minister got it sorted and made sure that old people get the care that they need when they need it, as was so clearly intended by the Parliament?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I want to be very clear about the facts. First, we are proud of this policy, which we have delivered and fully funded. Indeed, given the policies that it would pursue in many other areas, a nationalist Government would never be able to fund it. Secondly, a clear majority of Scotland's local authorities are using the allocated resources to implement the policy in full. The councils that are not spending this money that we give them on elderly people should be doing so; if they do not, there are procedures that we can and will follow.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

A good place for the First Minister to start might be to stop condoning waiting lists. This policy is not being funded adequately, which is why many vulnerable old people throughout Scotland are on waiting lists for care that they are entitled to receive when they need it.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Read out the whole letter.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is it not time that, instead of trying to play the blame game with councils, the First Minister took some responsibility and sorted the matter out?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Ms Sturgeon has declined every invitation to read out the letter—

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

You read it out. [ Interruption. ]

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Order.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

What Ms Sturgeon does not say is that, first, the policy, as agreed by the Parliament, is crystal clear. Secondly, the policy has been fully funded on the estimates that local authorities have provided. Thirdly, a majority of local authorities deliver the policy as defined and within the budgets that we have given them. Councils that are not spending this money we have given them directly on older people should be doing so; if they do not, we will follow the procedures that are available.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2341)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I met the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary earlier this week and had a number of interesting discussions with them.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That must have been some convention of minds. Perhaps in the course of those discussions a succession was made clear.

With the passing of its Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002, the Executive promised that personal care would be free to the elderly in Scotland and that food preparation would be included in that right. Four years on, the Executive has breached that commitment. Will the First Minister explain why so many councils in Scotland are finding it almost impossible to meet the Executive's commitment to free personal care for the elderly and why there should be any doubt about the inclusion of food preparation?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Although I appreciate the reasonable way in which Annabel Goldie has put her question, I disagree with its content. First, the policy is very clear. Secondly, it has been fully funded on estimates that were provided by local authorities after our joint work on the matter. Thirdly, it has been described by a cross-party group in the Parliament as an excellent policy that is being well implemented. Fourthly—and most critical—the majority of Scottish local authorities are fully implementing the policy with the funds that have been made available to them. They all have an obligation and duty to do so, and those that are not meeting that obligation are diverting money into other areas. That should not be happening and, unless those councils start using that money to implement the policy, we will take action against them.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The First Minister seems to have suggested that some councils have received, but have misspent, their allocation. In response to Ms Sturgeon, he said that, where that unhappy circumstance has arisen, there are "clear procedures that will be followed". Elderly people are not interested in squabbles between councillors and the Executive and the problem will not be resolved by blaming someone else. If clear procedures will be followed to deal with this matter, does the First Minister accept that, having created the right to free personal care, the Executive has a legal responsibility to ensure that that care is provided when and where it is needed—not after someone has languished on a waiting list—and that that requires adequate funding?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The direct implication of Miss Goldie's question is that we should take the responsibility for delivering elderly care services away from local authorities and deliver them centrally. If that is what the Tories are suggesting, they should have been honest about that when the legislation was debated and lodged an amendment to that effect. If they wish to move such a motion now, we will happily debate it with them.

Our judgment is that, given the current distribution and the services that are provided through social work, local authorities are the best mechanism for making these decisions and for ensuring that services are properly delivered at local level. As I said, the majority of Scotland's local authorities deliver the policy in full within the resources that were agreed with them and identified by them as being required to deliver it. The minority of authorities that appear not to be doing so at the moment are wrong. They should be doing so and, unless they do so, we will move into the procedures that are available and will take action against them.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

A few weeks ago, we learned that the Executive was bailing out Scottish Enterprise to the tune of £45 million. In that case, an Executive agency had overspent, just as the First Minister states that certain councils have overspent.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Underspent.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The First Minister made it clear this morning that he considered that some councils had received money but had not allocated it to the intended use. The point is that he is alleging that there is a misallocation of resource by the councils. I am pointing out that, at the end of the day, there is a client group whose members are not getting the services that they were promised because of a breach somewhere along the line. The councils are arguing that absence of resource and lack of money are responsible. If the kernel of the problem is money, as certain councils are alleging, and if one council has totally closed the books, saying, "No resource. No cash. Can't provide the service," will the First Minister explain why he can bail out the enterprise agency but is not willing to step in now with his procedures—whatever they are—to implement the free personal care obligation that the Executive has placed on those councils?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

First, we agreed the amount of money required with the local authorities and their representatives. Secondly, the vast majority of Scotland's councils are delivering that service, as agreed by the Parliament, in the interests of elderly people, who should come first, and they are doing so within the resources that are available to them. Thirdly, those councils that are not delivering that service are failing to do so because they are underspending, not overspending. If they have been given money that they are not currently spending on the service, it would be a ludicrous outcome for us just to give them some more so that they can spend it somewhere else if they wish. They need to spend their budgets on the priorities that are needed by local people and on the needs that are assessed under the legislation, putting the individual elderly citizen first. When they do that, the policy will be implemented in full.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Is the First Minister aware of the death from tuberculosis of three of my constituents at Eastercroft House nursing home in Caldercruix? Can he assure me that a full investigation will be conducted into the outbreaks of that disease, that full consideration will be given to the steps that can be take to contain the spread of TB and that, if appropriate, improvements to action in such circumstances will be made to safeguard vulnerable residents and staff?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

First of all, we want to express our sympathy with the families of those who have been most affected by what appears to be an outbreak. We wish those who are currently feeling ill or who could be affected a full and speedy recovery. The outbreak team is meeting regularly and all the appropriate procedures have been put in place. However, it will be essential during and after the incident that we learn any lessons that have to be learned and that people across Scotland see the example of what has taken place and ensure that best practice is implemented elsewhere, should anything like this occur again. We must also look again at the way in which we educate those who run establishments, to ensure that they have the highest standards of cleanliness and hygiene at all times.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive is satisfied with its progress towards meeting its targets. (S2F-2348)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

With 11 months until the end of this parliamentary session, we have had sustained economic growth in every quarter since the previous election, health waiting times are at their lowest ever levels, attainment in schools is up on all criteria since devolution, crime is coming down, our courts are better at delivering justice and clear-up rates for crime are up. The policies of the devolved Government are helping to deliver real improvements in Scotland.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Given the Executive's target of reducing the number of pupils to a maximum of 20 in all secondary 1 and secondary 2 maths and English classes by next year, how on earth can it be satisfied with progress when the truth is that it does not know what progress—if any—has been made? The most up-to-date figures that the Executive has produced are for September 2003, when around 8,000 such classes had more than 20 pupils.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Even Mr Canavan—who, like me, is a former maths teacher—will acknowledge that as the policy was established in 2003, its achievements will not be measured by what happened in that year. It was precisely because of the 2003 figures that we decided that the big priority for secondary reforms had to be reducing English and maths S1 and S2 class sizes. There is a problem that other parties should recognise. Young people can have difficulties with the transition from primary schools, such as the successful school that I visited this morning, to secondary schools. We know that many disciplinary, achievement and attainment problems in our schools start in those years and classes. That is why there is a record number of people on teacher training courses and why there has been more than a 100 per cent increase in the number of maths teachers in training since 2003. We are well on track to delivering our commitment, which is important and central to improving the life chances of young people in Scotland.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Will the First Minister please stop waffling and answer the question? As a former maths teacher, he is surely capable of counting the number of pupils in all S1 and S2 maths and English classes and the number of maths and English classes that currently have more than 20 pupils. Is he aware that when I asked all 32 local authorities for their up-to-date figures, the 20 responses that I received indicated that more than 80 per cent of maths and English classes have more than 20 pupils? Will he therefore take urgent steps to assess and rectify the situation? At the current rate of progress, the Executive has as much chance of hitting next year's targets as Scotland has of winning this year's world cup.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have every respect for Mr Canavan as a politician, but sometimes I worry about his mathematics when he reads one of his pre-prepared speeches. Anybody with any common sense can see that it takes time to train maths and English teachers. The fact that the number of trainee maths teachers has increased by 116 per cent since 2003 and the number of trainee English teachers has increased by 145 per cent shows that additional teachers are being trained. The target does not relate to last year, the year before last year or the year before that—it relates to next year, when those teachers will have been trained and will be in classrooms and the target will have been met.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the First Minister what action is being taken to respond to the vote by court lawyers in the Glasgow Bar Association to refuse to defend sex offenders because of issues over legal aid payments. (S2F-2344)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I see no justifiable reason for legal professionals putting public safety at risk. We are ready to discuss with the Law Society of Scotland the offer that was made some weeks ago of a considerable interim increase in legal aid fees. However, we will make contingency arrangements for the possibility that people might carry out their irresponsible threat.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank the First Minister for his straightforward reply. He will be aware that when trade unions take strike action, they always seek to ensure that protection and cover are in place for the most vulnerable. Does the First Minister agree that, in light of the measures that the Executive has introduced to deal with sex offenders, it is unacceptable that lawyers—some of whom are very well paid indeed—could put public safety at risk, especially in the most serious cases, in order to negotiate a better pay deal? Furthermore, will he confirm that if private company lawyers do not think that representing sex offenders pays enough, public sector lawyers will represent sex offenders in the interests of public safety and to avoid delays in the dispensation of justice and consequent stress to victims and witnesses?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will make three points. First, we will of course put contingency plans in place and they will involve—in addition to any other measures that we identify—the use of the Public Defence Solicitors Office, which I assume is what Bill Butler refers to.

Secondly, it is important to acknowledge that the fees for solemn criminal work were increased in 2004 by 15 per cent for advocacy and by other figures above the rate of inflation for other areas of work. The offer on the table from us, as an interim increase, is 8 per cent for advocacy and 5 per cent for other work.

Thirdly, with such substantial increases already delivered and on offer, it is shocking and disgraceful that, in order to heighten public concern and to scare the public into putting pressure on us, the lawyers in the Glasgow Bar Association have threatened to create chaos in the prosecution of sex offences in particular. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should call the action off and get round the table to discuss the issue with officials from the Justice Department and then with the justice ministers, in order to reach a solution.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Although the action by the Glasgow Bar Association could not possibly be condoned, does the First Minister accept that action is being threatened because—among other issues relating to legal aid—the association and the Faculty of Advocates are furious? They agreed to co-operate fully and to change their work practices to ensure early disclosure and to comply with the Bonomy proposals for High Court reform—legislation that the First Minister is not slow to take credit for—but the promises that were made by the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition have not to date been honoured. In fact, there has been a downrating across the board.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have acknowledged that there was an issue to do with legal aid payments. That issue arose under the previous Conservative Government and continued after 1997. There was a lack of regular annual increases. However, the issue has been tackled with the substantial increase in 2004 that I have described and with the substantial increase that has been proposed as an interim increase for 2005.

It is interesting to note that the Conservative party, although it talks regularly about not putting the abusers' interests first, is very quick to defend those who are better off in society and allow them a free hand in making this kind of threat to members of the public. The Tories should put the victims and witnesses of crime first and they should stop defending those who are threatening to put our court system into some sort of chaos.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive will take to give effect to motions S2M-4485 and S2M-4486, agreed without dissent by the Justice 1 Committee on 1 June 2006. (S2F-2342)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Motion S2M-4485 concerns a report that was provided as part of a criminal investigation; as such, it is a matter for the Lord Advocate. Motion S2M-4486 is being considered by the Minister for Justice. We will try to find a way forward that will assist the committee while preserving the important legal principles that the Minister for Justice has previously set out.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I hope that the First Minister will accept that there is common cause to reinstate confidence in the fingerprint system in Scotland—which, of course, is why the motions were passed by a unanimous vote in the committee.

The First Minister mentioned the Lord Advocate. The report that is being sought is, in essence, in the public domain, but the detail behind it is not yet in the public domain. It would be of very great assistance if the First Minister could assure us that further efforts will be made. I hope that the First Minister is able to assure Parliament—and I invite him to do so—that the discussions that are currently taking place with the Minister for Justice will be rapidly concluded. The investigation by the committee is well under way and we have little time left.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

In some of the sessions of the Justice 1 Committee this week, we have seen the difficulties in this case and the difficulties in ensuring that a conclusion can be reached that will help to rebuild confidence in the justice system—not only in the fingerprint service but in other aspects of the system too. I absolutely agree with Stewart Stevenson if he is genuine about seeking common cause to restore that confidence. I welcome that indication and I hope that in the work and in the conclusions of the committee, we will see that that objective is clear.

It is my sincere belief that matters relating to reports commissioned by the prosecution in Scotland are not matters for politicians and I hope that the committee will take that into account. I believe that such matters are matters for the Lord Advocate, which need to be handled properly to ensure that our legal system is not put in a difficult position in the future by any precedents that would be set.

In relation to matters that affect the Executive and reports commissioned by us for legal advice in advance of cases in which we are defending the public interest, there are important issues to be considered. The Minister for Justice is happy to discuss those issues in detail with representatives of the Justice 1 Committee. A meeting has already taken place between the convener of the committee and the Minister for Justice. I understand that this week's meeting was a helpful initial attempt at finding a way forward. We are determined to assist the committee as much as we can.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The First Minister has alluded to the meeting that I had with the Minister for Justice this week at which, as the committee's representative, I set out the case for the committee to have access to both MacLeod reports and the Mike Pass report.

Does the First Minister acknowledge the cross-party efforts that the Justice 1 Committee has made to give an extremely important issue a public airing? Does he accept assurances from me as the committee's convener that we have no desire either to override the important issues that must be taken into account when the release of the reports in question is considered or to set a precedent? Does he agree that it is in the interest of the public and of the Parliament to ensure that we obtain all the information that is relevant to our important inquiry into the McKie case and the Scottish fingerprint service, so that we can make our findings?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is important that the information that is made available, the advice that we give and the assistance that we provide help the committee to conduct itself in a way that is helpful to ensuring that we restore confidence in the fingerprint service and the system as a whole. I welcome the fact that committee members from different parties have indicated that that is their objective. I simply counsel that there are important principles to do with the independence of the prosecution from politicians that the committee needs to heed in the work that it undertakes.

I believe that the committee has done a good job so far. It will be important for it to take further evidence—I understand that that is its intention. I hope that we can reach a conclusion on the issue speedily and that we can ensure that the committee's recommendations and the actions of ministers work together to ensure that people in Scotland can have faith in the system and can believe that, in spite of the disagreements that may exist among experts about individual fingerprints or anything else, the system as a whole is robust and that the principles of the Scottish legal system will be maintained.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will institute a study to assist with the reduction or simplification of paperwork undertaken by Scotland's teachers. (S2F-2351)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There have been a number of studies and action is being taken on them. If there are sensible suggestions for a further study that would add to the sum total of knowledge, we would be happy to examine them, but I remind the Parliament that we have reduced the administrative burden on teachers by increasing the number of classroom assistants, finding new ways of collecting data and introducing non-classroom support staff. The introduction of bursars in secondary schools and business managers in primary schools has been particularly important. Those measures are helping us to achieve the attainment levels that I mentioned in answer to Dennis Canavan's question.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Although I welcome the tone of the First Minister's reply, does he accept that it is unacceptable that five years after the agreement of the teacher's settlement, only 8.5 per cent of the teachers who were questioned by the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers said that their workload had reduced, whereas some 81 per cent of them wanted further reductions in the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy that they faced? Does he agree that, at least, the number of classroom support staff promised in the McCrone agreement should be available and that their deployment throughout Scotland should be more efficient so that teachers are freed up to teach, to plan innovative lessons and to provide constructive assessment to pupils? There is considerable evidence that the pattern of employment of classroom support staff is not uniform throughout the country but varies considerably from authority to authority.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I hesitate to talk too much about the workload of my former colleagues.

However, we all want to see reductions in workload—most people in most jobs would say that. What is important is that the workload in Scottish schools is right and is focused on the correct activities for teachers and other staff in the classroom and elsewhere in the school. More than 3,000 additional support staff members have been provided since the agreement, and there will be many more. Those staff are reducing the administrative and support burden on teachers.

The increase in the number of teachers is assisting not just teachers but, more important, pupils and parents to improve education and to achieve higher attainment levels. Our objective should be not to have an arbitrary reduction in workload but to secure improvements in the classroom. That means freeing up teachers for more preparation and marking time, which the agreement did. We must also encourage teachers and others who work in our schools to take part in extra-curricular activities, as they did when I started to teach back in 1983. That got lost in the 1980s and 1990s, but it needs to return.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Environment and Rural Development

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Questions 1 and 2 have not been lodged.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what importance it attaches to the contribution of incineration or energy from waste to diversion from landfill. (S2O-10149)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The national waste plan outlined a requirement to recover energy from around 14 per cent of municipal waste in order to meet landfill diversion targets by 2020. That could be achieved using a range of different technologies.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

Does the minister agree that energy from waste is at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, only marginally above landfill? Therefore, in assessing applications for grants under the strategic waste fund, will he downgrade those applications that are heavily dependent on incineration?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I agree with the general proposition, as I do not regard incineration as being much above the landfill option. The national waste plan makes it clear that the incineration of waste without the recovery of energy is not a viable option and that energy from waste can play a role only after recyclable materials have been extracted, in so far as that is reasonably practicable. The guidance also confirms that energy from waste must form part of an integrated waste management strategy, including waste prevention, reuse, biological treatment, recycling and landfill. Given that guidance, I share a degree of disappointment at the nature and content of some of the submissions that are made to us. We will apply the criteria in assessing the bids that are before us.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

The minister will be aware how controversial landfill sites are with local communities, especially because of the negative environmental impact that they can have. There is such a case in my constituency, near Abernethy, with the Binn farm landfill site. Does he agree that, until successful diversion schemes are in place, the regulatory role of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is absolutely vital? Does he, therefore, share my concern at the apparent reluctance of SEPA to act when there are repeated infractions, as in the case of the aforementioned landfill site?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I agree that SEPA has a crucial role to play. In my experience, it is unusual for SEPA not to use its powers. I am sure that other members in the chamber would attest to a rather overzealous approach by SEPA and perhaps regard this as a welcome counterbalance to that. Nevertheless, the point that Roseanna Cunningham makes is a serious one, and if what she says is the case I would be happy to receive any representations that she wants to make on the matter.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency have adequate resources in order for them to make representations to public inquiries on planning applications for large renewables projects. (S2O-10092)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

SNH and SEPA are statutory consultees under a range of provisions on development proposals, including renewable energy schemes. Grant in aid for 2005-06 for SNH is set at £63.697 million and for SEPA at £35.582 million. Funding for SEPA has increased by 21 per cent over the past two years, and SNH has seen an increase in funding of more than 5 per cent during the same period. I am satisfied that both SNH and SEPA have adequate resources to allow them to make representations to public local inquiries. Both organisations must exercise judgment about priorities.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the minister is satisfied that SNH and SEPA have the resources, it must be that they are simply not making those representations. I do not know whether the minister is aware of the frustration that exists among communities in Perthshire and the Ochils that are involved in public inquiries, opposing planning applications for large-scale onshore wind farms. They are having to find tens of thousands of pounds out of their own pockets to employ representation and expert witnesses to level the playing field with wealthy developers, while statutory consultees such as SEPA and SNH—which have objected to the proposals in writing—refuse to provide representation because of a supposed lack of resources. Surely the Scottish Executive should ensure that statutory consultees are in a position to back up at a public inquiry the evidence that they have given in writing.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I do not want to comment on particular cases but I reiterate that both organisations have received substantial increases in funding. Of course, SEPA and SNH will give a high priority to contributing to public local planning inquiries. They must decide whether that contribution will be oral or written, and they will base those decisions on the individual cases.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does the minister agree that it is a touch bizarre for the Conservative spokesman to be asking for increased taxpayers' money to be given to certain public agencies so that they can go along to public inquiries to oppose projects that, if they go ahead, will also be funded by the taxpayer?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

In general policy terms, our renewable energy targets are hugely important and seek to achieve the important environmental objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. SNH and SEPA recognise that. However, ministers will not grant consent in a particular case if the environmental impacts of the development would be unacceptable and could not be addressed by mitigation or compensation, for example. Those bodies have a clear role.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Helen Eadie does not appear to be here to ask question 5.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans for action to deter the practice of fly-tipping and discarding litter at roadsides and lay-bys. (S2O-10122)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The Executive has taken a number of steps to increase penalties for littering and fly-tipping and to improve enforcement. Substantial funding has been provided to undertake educational campaigns.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Am I right in thinking that the Executive's trunk road contractors are collecting more than 30,000 sacks of litter thrown out by drivers and passengers every year? I presume that as much again will be collected on local roads. What will the minister do about the filthy and decadent louts who are flinging cans, McDonalds wrappers and everything else on to our roadsides? Surely this is one area in which we have the devolved powers to address a genuine problem. Will the minister adopt proactive tactics—hidden cameras for example—to detect culprits? Why not compel offenders to spend time collecting litter as well as name and shame them?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The figures quoted by John Home Robertson are right. I know that, because they were contained in a letter from a colleague minister that indicated the volume of waste that is dumped.

The fact that a substantial number of the offences take place in the hours of darkness greatly complicates matters, although the police have been asked to consider the problem. However, we have made it clear to all authorities, in particular the police, that we have additional powers and that certain pollution offences, including fly-tipping, can carry fines of up to £40,000 under summary proceedings.

We have weapons, but they might not be being used. I take the member's point that we need to ensure that authorities realise that they have additional powers and that they are capable of using them to greater effect, because the volume of waste that is being collected and the unsightly mess that such waste makes of our countryside are simply not acceptable.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call Alex Fergusson. I am sorry; I meant Alex Johnstone.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Anecdotal evidence and, to some extent, personal experience indicate that a higher proportion of our police force is patrolling the roads in the current environment. Has the minister any views on whether the police have the necessary powers or the will to take greater action in an attempt to prevent this most heinous and highly visible environmental crime?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I see that the burden of proof has shifted from absolute assertions provided by factual information from a minister to anecdotal evidence. I repeat the point that I made to John Home Robertson. The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 includes additional provisions that double to £40,000 the maximum fine possible under summary proceedings for pollution offences, including fly-tipping.

I cannot possibly answer on what chief constables have in mind as their priorities, but we have made it clear—and we will continue to do so—that littering the countryside is a serious offence and that any perpetrators should be brought to book and should face the penalties that are now available within the jurisdiction.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Question 7 has been withdrawn.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made on the Aberdeen beach recharge scheme. (S2O-10113)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Aberdeen City Council is making good progress with its preparations and is on track to carry out the scheme this summer.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I welcome the investment in preserving the future of Aberdeen's beach following a campaign by Lewis Macdonald, who is the local MSP. Will the minister assure me not only that the Executive is ready to make speedy progress on the scheme but that dialogue is taking place with Aberdeen City Council to ensure that it makes timeous progress on putting in place the right consultation and planning processes to allow the scheme to proceed quickly?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Yes, of course. I, too, acknowledge Lewis Macdonald's campaign to save Aberdeen beach and I was delighted to be able to accept the council's business case for the scheme. As Richard Baker knows, we have agreed in principle to grant aid for the scheme, subject to it gaining statutory consents. I understand that objections were made to the granting of planning permission, but we expect a decision on the matter shortly.

The council decided to negotiate a single tender with an appointed contractor for the dredging and placing of the sand from Montrose port. The council has invited competitive tenders for the other works to be returned by 12 June. Subject to obtaining the necessary consents, sand recharge is planned to start in mid-July and take about one month. The other works will follow on no later than September and will take about eight weeks. My officials are working closely with Aberdeen City Council to ensure that the scheme goes ahead as planned.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

As one who spent many a long day on Aberdeen beach in my childhood, I am grateful for the actions that the Executive and Aberdeen City Council are taking to ensure that the beach is not only protected but built up to compensate for some of the losses that have been suffered in recent years. Given that the minister has now committed herself to improving the quality of the sand, can she do anything to improve the weather?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

That is a matter for the First Minister.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am advised that that is a matter for the First Minister, but I suspect that it is a matter for somebody up there.

I am delighted to hear that Alex Johnstone is pleased with the action that is to be taken to save Aberdeen beach. It is a great beach. I lived in Aberdeen for many years and used the beach on many occasions—but not often for swimming. I welcome Alex Johnstone's support.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Question 9 has been withdrawn.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We move to question 10, for which I call Alex Fergusson.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Well-recognised, Presiding Officer.

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to encourage the export of Scottish beef. (S20-10094)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The Executive is working closely with Quality Meat Scotland in its efforts to promote Scottish beef in mainland Europe. I have already attended events in Brussels, Monaco and Rotterdam to launch Scottish beef into those areas. Next week, I will attend a dinner in Bologna that will relaunch Scottish beef into Italy. We are also providing financial assistance towards the cost of QMS marketing agents in France.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am sure that all members will agree that the efforts that are being made could not be better directed.

Does the minister agree that an important component of the trade, especially for the dairy sector, is the resumption of live exports? Now that the rest of Europe is on the verge of adopting new rules on veal production, can he assure the Parliament that the Executive will not attempt to hinder that trade as long as all relevant welfare concerns are addressed and legislation is properly adhered to? Will he assure us that a tough line will be taken with any individual or organisation that attempts to hinder the trade?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Alex Fergusson certainly makes a valid point, in that substantial changes have been made to the nature of the regulations that govern the live-meat trade. I think that almost all European Union member states have now abandoned the old veal cages. That is to be warmly welcomed as we know that the resumption of the meat trade will bring the issue of live exports into play. It is absolutely clear that, as long as regulations on international trading and the welfare of animals are adhered to, there is no reason for ministers or any other Government to impede progress.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Clearly, British legations and consulates abroad potentially have an important role in the promotion of Scottish beef exports. Will the minister say what steps he is taking to ensure that the legations and consulates are aware of the fact that Scottish beef is now available for export once again and of the distinction between Scottish beef and beef from other parts of the United Kingdom?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I assure Alasdair Morgan that the respective British embassy—and, indeed, the respective British ambassador—was intimately involved in each of three events that I attended in the Netherlands, Belgium and France. They are part of the wide dissemination of information. The same process will be undertaken as we relaunch next week into Italy. I assure the member that all steps have been taken and the appropriate information has been provided to ensure that the attempt to launch and relaunch Scotch beef into mainland Europe is well co-ordinated.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In his primary answer, the minister indicated that he had been over in Europe promoting Scottish beef. I understand that the receptions were very successful. He indicated that there are one or two slots in his future itinerary. Does he have any plans to further extend this European tour to promote Scottish beef?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am sure that the member appreciates the infelicitous nature of the split infinitive "to further extend". I am sure that that was not quite what he meant.

It was very important for the Scottish Executive—the Scottish Government—to be seen at those events, which were well prepared and rehearsed. We were absolutely clear that the invitations should be extended to those with a genuine interest in the matter—leading chefs, journalists in the technical press, and those with a clear interest in the importation and processing of beef.

QMS has plans to ensure that the momentum of the initial launch is sustained. As we get into the autumn, I will want to meet QMS to review progress and to see whether it is appropriate for Government to give a further boost to that kind of promotional event. However, I rather suspect that the money that we are giving to assist in the appointment of agents in those key countries is now the issue and that, from now on, our main task will be to ensure that the message goes out about the quality of the product that we are selling on the ground and that key buyers are targeted.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The minister is aware that, pre-BSE, the beef export industry was worth £120 million. Has any work been done to estimate the potential market that is currently available to Scottish farmers? In addition to the answers that he has given thus far, does the minister have any further initiatives up his sleeve? I am thinking in particular of on-the-ground initiatives to promote Scottish beef in Europe.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am sorry that £10 million seems to have got lost in translation. The industry has generally regarded the figure as being £130 million, but there we are. If it helps the member, I can give the figure in euros—it is €200 million. I suspect that that remark might be rather more contentious. John Scott spoke about getting Scottish beef back into Europe. Of course, beef never left Europe; Scotland is in Europe. We must be careful about what we say in that regard.

As the analysis that QMS Scotland and others have undertaken shows, there will be a long gestation period before we fully re-establish these markets; time has moved on. The people I met during each visit told me clearly of their appetite to purchase Scottish beef—oh, that was a very bad pun. I should say that they told me of their willingness to purchase Scottish beef. However, the price, quality and all of those aspects must be set out.

Agents have been appointed in the Benelux countries and France and we are reassessing the situation in Italy. That work on the ground is absolutely critical. I have no reason to believe that, in a year or a year and a bit, we will not have gone way beyond the £130 million figure, but it would be foolish to pretend that that will happen overnight. We have had 10 years in which people have not had the opportunity to purchase the product. I am satisfied that the campaign has been structured very professionally indeed.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I welcome the fact that my question elicited a record number of supplementaries, but I modestly suggest that it would have been more in order to fill in the time available as a result of questions not being lodged, a member not being in the chamber in time to ask her question and questions being withdrawn. The situation highlights the point of order that Stewart Stevenson made this morning, when he drew attention to the problem of questions that are not lodged. I understand that the matter must be referred to the Procedures Committee, but could the name of the person who failed to lodge a question be published in the Business Bulletin before the phrase, "Not Lodged"? That might reduce the number of questions that are not lodged.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

That is a matter for the Procedures Committee, as the member knows, but we will reflect on what he has said.

Health and Community Care

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Question 1 has been withdrawn.