Scottish Parliament, 15 June 2006

328 contributions from 76 members. The official report.

Official Report 15 June 2006

Senior Judiciary (Vacancies and Incapacity) (Scotland) Bill (Emergency Bill)

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The first item of business is consideration of motion S2M-4536, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the Senior Judiciary (Vacancies and Incapacity) (Scotland) Bill be treated as an emergency bill.

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

I wish to move that the Senior Judiciary (Vacancies and Incapacity) (Scotland) Bill be considered under the procedure for emergency legislation. I will briefly outline why I consider that it is important that this short but critical piece of legislation should be handled under those exceptional procedures.

The need arises because Scotland's senior judge, the Lord President of the Court of Session, has been ill for some time and there is no indication of when he will return. Under the present law, a number of important functions may be carried out by the Lord President alone. His extended absence is already causing difficulties for the administration of the courts. The second most senior judge, the Lord Justice Clerk, has asked ministers to take early action to deal with this gap in our law. The only way in which we can remedy the situation is to legislate to put beyond any doubt that the Lord Justice Clerk may act in place of the Lord President during the Lord President's incapacity.

If the Parliament allows the bill to be dealt with under the emergency procedures, I will explain the background in more detail in the debate that will follow. However, for the time being, I think that it is important to put on record the fact that we are proposing a commonsense set of provisions that will deal with the immediate situation before us and will ensure that there is no disruption to the orderly conduct of business in the courts. I should add that the senior judiciary have been consulted about the bill, that they are entirely content with what ministers are proposing and that they agree with the need for an urgent solution.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Senior Judiciary (Vacancies and Incapacity) (Scotland) Bill be treated as an Emergency Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Senior Judiciary (Vacancies and Incapacity) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4542, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the general principles of the Senior Judiciary (Vacancies and Incapacity) (Scotland) Bill be agreed to.

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

I thank members for allowing the bill to be considered under the procedures that enable legislation to be passed swiftly. I acknowledge the co-operation of the various political parties in the chamber.

The bill is short, but it concerns an important measure. The aim of the bill is to ensure that there is no disruption to the smooth running of the courts or other aspects of public administration when either or both of the two most senior judges are unable to carry out their duties owing to ill health or when one of the posts is vacant. The judges in question are the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk.

I do not want to dwell unnecessarily on the background, but it might be helpful to remind ourselves of the circumstances that the First Minister outlined in his statement on 1 June.

As members will be aware, the Lord President is currently unable to carry out his duties, owing to ill health. There is no firm date for his return to duty. In the meantime, the Lord Justice Clerk is presiding over the courts. The uncertainty about when the Lord President will return is causing some difficulty because, as the law stands, the Lord President alone may take certain actions and make certain decisions, and the functions of the Lord President extend quite widely.

In addition to matters concerned with the operation of the courts, the Lord President has a range of important responsibilities in other areas of public administration. For example, there is a statutory requirement to consult the Lord President before a recommendation is made by the First Minister for the appointment of a sheriff, and it is the Lord President who appoints the members of the tribunal that investigates questions about the fitness of part-time sheriffs. Acting with the Lord Justice Clerk, the Lord President also has important functions relating to the investigation of misconduct by full-time sheriffs.

It is also a traditional role of the Lord President to recommend persons for appointment as Queen's counsel. The Lord President alone has responsibility for appointing people to a range of tribunals, and he or she is also the rule-making authority for a number of tribunals and bodies. As there is no mechanism for such functions to be carried out other than by the Lord President, his or her absence for any length of time has the potential to be disruptive. I am sure that members agree that such disruption is not acceptable to those who use our tribunal systems, for example, or who otherwise rely on the Lord President fulfilling the functions that are placed on his judicial office. The measures in the bill offer a straightforward, commonsense way of filling the gap in our law.

I assure members that, in preparing the bill, we have fully respected the independence of the judiciary. We are committed to that fundamental constitutional principle, and the measures that we propose have the support of the Lord Justice Clerk and other senior judges. Equally, and for completeness, I should say that our proposals do not affect the First Minister's power under the Scotland Act 1998 to set up an independent, judicially-led tribunal to investigate any question of fitness for office; nor do they affect the important role that the Parliament has when the report of such a tribunal is laid before it.

As I said, the proposals in the bill are straightforward. Two basic situations are covered: vacancy, and incapacity owing to ill health. Although the pressing need is to deal with the present and most unfortunate incapacity of the current Lord President, Lord Hamilton, the bill includes provisions to deal both with the incapacity of the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk and with those offices being vacant. That will ensure that the bill's effectiveness will not be undermined by unforeseen circumstances.

I will outline some of the basic principles of the bill; there will be an opportunity to consider points of detail later today. The basis of the provisions is that, when the Lord President is incapacitated or the office is vacant, the Lord Justice Clerk, who is the second most senior judge, will carry out the Lord President's functions. It is important to note that the Lord Justice Clerk will not become the Lord President, but he or she will have the legal authority to carry out functions that fall to the Lord President under the law. While the Lord Justice Clerk is doing that, the functions of the office of the Lord Justice Clerk will be carried out by the senior inner house judge.

When the offices of Lord President and Lord Justice Clerk are both vacant, or when both are incapacitated due to illness—if such an unfortunate situation arose—the structure of our proposals will ensure that their functions can be carried out by the senior and second most senior inner house judges respectively.

I turn to the circumstances that would trigger the provisions. We do not consider it necessary to make provision for any special procedure in the case of a vacancy. A vacancy in one of the judicial offices arises when something definite occurs. The office holder might give notice of an intention to resign from a given date. Indeed, that is what happened when Lord Cullen retired—he gave notice that he would retire from office on 25 November 2005. Had the provisions in the bill been in force at that time, they would have been triggered when the vacancy arose. On 26 November, the Lord Justice Clerk would have had the power to carry on the functions of the Lord President until the new Lord President took up office.

A person's inability to carry out the duties of office owing to ill health is, of course, a different matter. It is here that we have been most careful to avoid anything that might be considered interference with the independence of the judiciary. The bill therefore provides that incapacity will be determined by the most senior judges—that is, the judges of the inner house. At least five of them must be satisfied that there is incapacity and must sign a declaration to that effect. The Lord Justice Clerk must be among those who sign the declaration. When the judges' declaration is received by the First Minister, the powers to act under the bill will take effect.

The end of the process will be triggered in a similar way. Five judges need to be satisfied that the incapacity has come to an end. They need not be the same five judges who signed the initial declaration, although, again, their number must include the Lord Justice Clerk. That approach means that the serious step of certification is carried out by our most senior judges, in whom we have the utmost confidence. Members will wish to know that the proposed approach to certification has the senior judges' support.

I should also say that although we have not consulted on the provisions in the bill, we consulted on the underlying principle in our wider consultation on reforms to the judicial system. Respondents to that consultation broadly supported a provision that would allow the Lord Justice Clerk to undertake the Lord President's functions during temporary incapacity and at any time when the office was vacant. I am therefore confident that I present to Parliament proposals that those who have dealings with our judicial system will welcome.

We would do our citizens a significant disservice if, during times of illness or vacancy, there were no way to perform the functions that have—rightly—been entrusted to our most senior judges. We need to fill the gap in the law without delay. I therefore hope that members will agree that the bill offers a simple and effective remedy that fully respects the independence of those whom it concerns. I commend the bill to Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Senior Judiciary (Vacancies and Incapacity) (Scotland) Bill.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I thank the minister for her eloquent explanation of the bill. The Scottish National Party fully supports the action that the Executive has taken. Some things in life and in legislation cannot be foreseen; they simply happen. Some situations could be surmised, but if that were always done, we would legislate daily for issues that might never arise and the Parliament would be unable to get on with its day-to-day business.

The situation is rather unfortunate. Perhaps we have simply been fortunate in the past. Given the history of the office of Lord President and the actions of some of their lordships in years gone by, perhaps it is simply by the grace of God that such a situation has not arisen before. However, it has now arisen, which is unfortunate for Lord Hamilton and his family and for the administration of justice, and we require to address it.

Legislation is needed expeditiously, so we fully support the Executive's action to take the appropriate steps. The consultation that would normally happen on a bill could not take place, but full consultation has taken place and no suggestion is made that any political party or, more appropriately, anybody who is on or involved in the judicial bench feels aggrieved or has had no opportunity to participate.

As I said, speed is of the essence. The circumstances have arisen and it is important to keep the show on the road. To an extent, we have had a similar experience in our day-to-day lives in the Parliament with the beam incident and the problems that arose from that. It is essential that the administration of justice continues, just as the administration of the Parliament and the functioning of the legislature continued because expeditious action was taken. In the circumstances, we are more than happy fully to support the Executive's action and the bill.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The offices of the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk are the two most senior in Scotland. The Lord President is the head of the Court of Session—Scotland's superior civil court—and the Lord Justice Clerk is the next most senior judge.

Those two judges plus 32 senior colleagues make up the Court of Session. Judges in the Court of Session are also judges in the High Court of Justiciary—the superior criminal court—whose head is the Lord Justice General, an office that is held by the Lord President. The Lord Justice Clerk is the next most senior judge in the High Court.

It is clear that those two offices are hugely important to our justice system and to the efficient running of our most senior criminal and civil courts. Crucially, the judicial business that is undertaken in those courts depends on the ability of the powers and duties that are attached to those offices to continue to be exercised in unforeseen circumstances.

The bill is necessary because of how current legislation stands and the current Lord President's unexpected incapacity. Under current legislation, provision is made for the Lord President's depute—the Lord Justice Clerk—to fill any vacancy temporarily and to carry out some of the Lord President's duties, but no provision is made for the Lord Justice Clerk to carry out the Lord President's statutory duties. It is therefore not only eminently sensible but essential for the Parliament to address the situation through the emergency legislation.

In effect, the bill does four things. First, it provides a catch-all provision that will ensure that, if the Lord President becomes incapacitated or if a vacancy arises, all the various statutory powers and duties that are attached to the office of Lord President are transferred to the Lord Justice Clerk temporarily, together with existing powers that are automatically conferred on him, until the vacancy is filled by a permanent appointment or the Lord President is deemed by a majority of his fellow judges in the inner house of the Court of Session no longer to be incapacitated.

A further provision puts in place a mechanism to empower senior judges to take action when the need arises by issuing a declaration as a result of at least five judges of the inner house of the Court of Session, including the Lord Justice Clerk, deciding that the office of the Lord President is vacant, or that the office holder is incapacitated or is no longer incapacitated. That declaration is to be intimated to the First Minister, who in turn passes it to the Scottish Parliament's Presiding Officer. The bill also makes provision to deal with the domino effect created by the office either of the Lord President or the Lord Justice Clerk becoming vacant, or the respective office holders being incapacitated.

Crucially, the bill maintains the independence of the judiciary, which is a vital cornerstone of the justice system, by empowering judges in the circumstances outlined to take action free from ministerial interference. The Scottish Conservative party therefore has no hesitation in supporting the general principles of the bill.

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

The Lord President's extended illness is a source of regret. As Kenny MacAskill said, we are in the fortuitous position that, since the creation of the office of Lord President, which, as is stated in the consultation paper "Strengthening Judicial Independence in a Modern Scotland", dates from

"the institution of the College of Justice in 1532",

we have not needed legislation on the post either in the old Scots Parliament or since, but we do now.

The consultation document rightly states that the role of the Lord President

"is largely undefined in statute."

It also states that

"We do not consider this an entirely appropriate arrangement for a devolved Scotland, or one that gives the judiciary a fully effective structure within which to modernise and develop itself in the interests of those it serves."

The document states that there is an intention to confer

"on the Lord President in statute certain powers and responsibilities."

In that context, if there is extended incapacity because of ill health, it is right that the Parliament responds to requests from the judiciary when there is clearly a need for action.

The First Minister made a good statement that outlined some of the difficulties that we face in relation to the smooth operation of our justice system. The Minister for Justice outlined those again today. The Lord President carries out important functions, so it is important that we have a response to either an extended inability to carry them out due to ill health or a vacant position.

The bill is measured and is a good response. I welcome the fact that it limits the definitions and retains the independence of the judiciary. One could question why such legislation has not been needed before. The Executive had, of course, asked that question when consulting on the proposals that were set out in the consultation document. It seems slightly ironic that we probably cannot proceed with the consultation process on reforming the position of the Lord President because the Lord President is unable to respond to the consultation.

The bill may benefit from a sunset clause or a statement of intent from the Executive on its intentions in bringing forward legislative proposals in the wider context of the role and position of the Lord President. It would be helpful for the Parliament to get clarity from the minister with regards to whether the provisions in the bill will be extant when that further legislation is brought forward, or whether they will fall and be subsumed into wider legislation. That said, the Liberal Democrats will support the general principles of the bill today.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

I suppose that I should begin with a declaration of interest. I am—some people will be surprised to learn this—a practising member of the Faculty of Advocates. That makes me technically eligible for the office of Lord President—I have to say that we do not get much more technical than that.

I have one problem in speaking in the debate: there is little to say. This unanimity is fabulous. I was, however, attracted to a comment that was made in both the policy memorandum and the minister's speech that the bill is in no way an attack on judicial independence. I liked that, particularly given the present climate, as anything that emphasises judicial independence is to be welcomed. If I am honest, I suppose that that is because most people in the legal profession are a wee bitty worried about the whole subject. I do not think for one minute that the Executive operates in bad faith. I know that Cathy Jamieson, Hugh Henry and, indeed, the Lord Advocate, value the principle of judicial independence. I am not hinting otherwise.

I do not agree with all the comments that were made recently by, for example—to name no names—retired judges. Their attack on the judicial appointments system is not well founded. We need to bear in mind the fact that, in the past, Colin Boyd could have appointed anyone, including himself, if the mood had taken him—[Interruption.] He says that that would not be a bad thing.

Having a more open system is hardly a ground for criticism. The problem is that, although no one would seek to undermine judicial independence, that can happen in society in an almost incremental way, particularly if there is the sort of press pressure that operates here. Last week—or this week—one newspaper ran a front page that had a picture of eight judges on it. Basically, the paper was calling for the judges to be sacked because each of them had passed a sentence with which the newspaper disagreed. At least one of the judges—again, I name no names, but he will know who I am referring to—could hardly be described as soft by any standards whatsoever. He would be insulted by the very suggestion.

On reading the article, I found not the slightest indication that the writer had in front of him a full, detailed and balanced view of why the judges did what they did. However, the effect of the piece was to undermine public confidence in the judiciary. That is why I keep saying that I am glad that Cathy Jamieson emphasised that we will never do that.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I welcome the fact that Gordon Jackson is contributing to the debate. Given his experience, I ask him to comment on one of the bill's provisions. The Lord Justice Clerk has to sign both the declaration of incapacity—which is fine—and the lifting of the declaration. The provision gives the Lord Justice Clerk a veto: he can say, "The Lord President remains incapacitated until such time as I say otherwise." Is that a proper provision, given that he could be the person who succeeds to the office on the Lord President demitting it?

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

I think that we will leave that one to the minister. As always, Stewart Stevenson has thought of something that never occurred to me. I suppose that he is saying that, once the Lord Justice Clerk gets in, we might never get him back out again. I am not quite sure about that; I am sure that it would not happen.

In talking about judicial independence, I am not suggesting that judges should be put on a pedestal and given undue reverence. By way of balance, I should say that I have spent most of my adult life trying to knock judges off their pedestal.

Someone one said—it was a judge who said it—that judges are like chimpanzees: the higher they climb, the more you see of their less attractive features. Of course, some judges are better than others. However, it is vitally important that, even though judges get it wrong from time to time, we maintain a respect for the office and not just the people. Unless we do that, the whole of society will be the poorer.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

I am sorry, but I am almost finished.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

It is on that point.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

All right.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I acknowledge much of what Gordon Jackson says about the independence of the judiciary. However, for the justice system to work, the overall perception of the public is all important. Where there is a growing perception of dissatisfaction, would he care to comment on whether the problems that are facing judges have been made by this and other Parliaments?

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

The system is good; it is just that a balance needs to be struck. Of course, we need to have public confidence in the judiciary, but if newspapers undermine that confidence in a way that is blatantly not always honest and fair, it is difficult to strike that balance. [Interruption.]

I worry about the way in which judges are serviced, in a manner of speaking. It is obvious that a modern judiciary needs proper levels of staffing. I know that others, including the dean of the Faculty of Advocates, have said that the judiciary should have the structure of an independent service; it should not be part of the normal civil service structure. I make a declaration on the point: I have a great deal of sympathy for that viewpoint.

The whole structure has three branches: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. That separation is important. The Parliament's staff are separate from the Executive civil servants. Every parliamentarian thinks that that is a good thing and would object if the situation changed. We should perhaps apply the same consideration to the judiciary. If the new judicial system needs staff, we should think about how those can be provided in a way that maintains that independence. That is just a wee thought. [Interruption.]

I support Cathy Jamieson's declaration about the independence of the judiciary. I echo what she said, but I suggest that we need to ensure that that independence is properly maintained.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I remind members that mobile phones must be switched off and not just kept on silent. Someone's phone is interfering with the sound system.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I strongly support everything that Gordon Jackson has just said.

I declare an interest as a non-practising QC. Indeed, I became an advocate a few months after Arthur Hamilton, who is now Lord President of the Court of Session. On what is in some ways a sad day, it is right that we should wish Lord Hamilton, who has always been known for his conscientiousness and dedication, a full and speedy recovery.

As the minister said, the bill will fill a gap in the law. It will provide a necessary safeguard to make certain that, in the best public interest, the courts have the highest standards. It is therefore also right that we should wish the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, and his colleagues every success in the challenges that lie ahead. When I was a law student at the University of Edinburgh, Lord Gill was a teacher of law there. His enormous ability was, and remains, well known.

Those of us who have been or are Scottish lawyers are very proud of Scotland's legal system. As both the minister and Gordon Jackson have confirmed, we are also proud of the independence of the judiciary.

This will not be the first time that we have supported emergency legislation in the public interest when issues have needed to be addressed, and we are glad to do so again today.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call Maureen Macmillan to be followed by Colin Jackson.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

As others have done, I wish the Lord President well and a speedy recovery. The Lord President represents the majesty of the law in Scotland. He is the spokesperson for the judiciary. His role in appointing judges and members of tribunals and in approving the rules of certain bodies guarantees the independence from the Government of those individuals and bodies.

In past times, of course, the Lord President was the Government. One thinks of Lord Stair and Forbes of Culloden. The latter's residence was situated quite close to where I live now. Forbes of Culloden was such a good friend of the Government that he was given the Ferintosh concession, whereby he was allowed to distil whisky on his land without paying duty on it. That ruined the whisky trade for all other distillers in Scotland, but Burns was very fond of Ferintosh whisky and celebrated it in his poetry.

Although the Lord President was in past times a very powerful person in the Government, I doubt that many people on the number 33 bus, or any other bus—apart from those who come up from the new town to Parliament House—have any idea of who the Lord President is or what he does. However, without that office, civic Scotland would be a very different beast.

What surprises me as a layperson is that, given the Lord President's importance and the fact that the office has existed since the 16th century, we do not have structures already in place to deal with the incapacity of the Lord President. In gentler times, things could be managed in an ad hoc way, but that is not possible today.

I welcome the bill. I am sorry that the Lord President's illness has caused it. It would have been better if the bill had been introduced when there was no pressing need for it, but we need to act now.

The bill will provide a seamless chain of command and has been approved by their lordships. It will put into the hands of the inner house judges the responsibility of declaring the Lord President's incapacity and the power to restore him to office. That is as it should be. I support the bill.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

It is clearly too early in the morning for me. I now call Colin Fox.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Presiding Officer, you must have confused me with another sprinter.

I apologise to the Minister for Justice for missing her opening remarks in the debate—I was taking my kids to school—but I am grateful to the Scottish Executive, the Minister for Justice and the First Minister for their contact with the party leaders. We have been kept informed of developments and plans at each stage of this unprecedented situation, which has arisen through the unforeseen illness of Lord Hamilton—or, as Lord James calls him, Arthur.

Today's proceedings seem to me remarkable in many ways, perhaps none more so than the fact that Parliament is capable of having debates on stages 1, 2 and 3 of a bill on the same day. That shows what can be done when the Parliament really applies itself with haste, a sense of necessity and across-the-board agreement.

Other members have declared a personal interest, so I confess that, having spent the past three weeks in the Court of Session, I almost felt like applying for the Lord President's job myself. Perhaps a workers' judge on a worker's wage is a slogan that has some attraction. Perhaps the court is a place in which working people actually get justice. However, I will move on to the substance of the bill.

On the incapacity of the Lord President, it is hard to believe that a situation such as this has never arisen since 1532. The need for a bill in Parliament when one person gets ill surely throws into sharp relief the need to modernise the system of judicial appointments and structures that we have. I am sure that the whole procedure looks archaic indeed to outsiders.

I am grateful for the papers that the Executive and the Scottish Parliament information centre have provided on the bill. On examination, it appears to be perfectly logical. I admit that that is not always a good guide when dealing with the law or the workings of the judiciary, but it seems to me that the plan for the Lord Justice Clerk to step up when the Lord President is incapacitated and for the other eight judges of the inner house to take on their responsibilities likewise has clear logic behind it.

Heaven forbid that all 10 judges of the inner house should be struck down. We must keep them out of the same building, off the same bus and away from the same function, to be on the safe side; otherwise, we will be looking at a root-and-branch, modernising overhaul of the system, which I suspect would take longer than a day in the Parliament.

I am assured and reassured that the procedure of informing Parliament through the five inner house judges and the Lord Justice Clerk making a declaration to the First Minister and the Presiding Officer is sufficient to ensure that there is close contact between the judiciary and the Parliament. There are clearly important issues around the judiciary's independence from the executive, but I believe that the bill continues to safeguard its position. In keeping with the atmosphere of unanimity, the minister will be glad to hear that the Scottish Socialist Party supports the bill.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I support the Senior Judiciary (Vacancies and Incapacity) (Scotland) Bill and I, too, extend my best wishes to Lord Hamilton. I thank Lord Gill for the work that he has done in carrying out Lord Hamilton's work in the meantime.

It is always welcome to have consensus break out in the chamber, particularly as consensus is important for a bill of this nature. I do not know whether many members can think back to the only other piece of emergency legislation with which the Parliament has dealt. I know that Hugh Henry knows the answer because I was at a quiz night with him when the question came up. I honestly struggled to remember the name of the bill. I will take an intervention from anyone who can remember it, but not from Hugh Henry.

I believe that we have had a healthy relationship with the judiciary over the years of the Parliament's existence. As Gordon Jackson said, this is a timely opportunity to set the record straight on how the Parliament views the independence of the judiciary. Cathy Jamieson was right to lay out clearly that we are committed to the independence of the judiciary and that we always have been. However, that is not to say that politicians do not have a view on the importance of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland. At some time, that subject must be brought to the chamber for parliamentary scrutiny because it is one of the few areas on which there has been no ministerial statement of any kind—I look forward to that.

The Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland is important to the work of the Parliament because it allows us to scrutinise what has been happening in the appointment of judges in the past few hundred years. Most of us want to see more women and more people from other types of background on the bench. The hope is that a procedure will bring that about, but that must be tested at some point in the future.

Margaret Mitchell ably set out the four main areas in the bill, but as this is stage 1, it is legitimate to ask particular questions. I want to be clear about the process for the five judges who will sign the declaration. Who will trigger the process? Will it matter which five judges of the inner house contingent sign the declaration? Are we expecting judges to set out their own procedure for determining what incapacity is? How long can incapacity go on for? Is there a trigger point? If the five judges are also to determine when a judge is no longer incapacitated, what processes do we expect them to undergo to make that determination? In other walks of life, we would expect there to be some medical or expert advice on that, and I cannot think why judges should be any different. I am not saying that that is for us to set out, but I want to be certain that, when we agree to the bill today, we have a clear understanding of what will happen next.

I welcome the debate and support the bill.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

The situation is unprecedented. I, too, pass on our best wishes to Lord Hamilton and hope for his speedy recovery. Kenny MacAskill and others mentioned the ancient post of Lord President. It is 474 years old and, like other members, I am somewhat surprised that we have not faced such a situation before. Perhaps that says something for the diet in our modern age, for which we all perhaps suffer more. Sadly, one of my bed-and-breakfast guests collapsed this morning, which is why I was late.

My colleague Jeremy Purvis referred to the consultation, "Strengthening Judicial Independence in a Modern Scotland". It seems somewhat surprising that the Executive has been considering the problem. Perhaps the point that Stewart Stevenson made about whether the Lord Justice Clerk should be the person who signs the Lord President off and on again can be taken up during the consultation.

Gordon Jackson—we can all see why he is a QC—said that the bill is not an attack on judicial independence, and I agree. It is vital that the judiciary be entirely independent from us.

Colin Fox started well by being called Colin Jackson. Perhaps he has been jumping hurdles in the Court of Session. He did not mention the New Club as one of the places we should prevent the inner house judges from all being in at once. Perhaps he could add that to the list.

Pauline McNeill is entirely right. She asked the questions that others might be thinking about, and it is important that we get the answers to them.

I support the bill entirely. This occasion must be almost unique in that everybody in the Parliament is united. Perhaps we will see more such unity in future.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

There is little to divide us on the issue, but it is perhaps worthwhile recording that, technically speaking, the difficulties did not start in the 16 th century. My understanding is that the positions of Lord President and Lord Justice General have been held by the one person only since 1830. However, the problem is unprecedented, although my historical research indicates that, in the 1950s, the then Lord President, Lord Cooper, suffered a stroke, which was obviously tragic for him but, as he had the capacity to resign, no difficulties occurred.

We can all have 20:20 vision in hindsight, but it is a pity that the drafters of the Court of Session Act 1988 did not simply add, after the words "Lord President", "whom failing, the Lord Justice Clerk", which would have left us without any problems. I am no longer required to be a student of actuarial science, but it seems to me that any circumstances in which the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk were simultaneously out of the frame would be unusual. To some extent, the bill seems to take a belt-and-braces approach. However, accidents happen, as we know.

Many of the Lord President's functions are non-urgent and the present situation has not caused any difficulties so far. However, it is worth recording that, in his capacity as Lord President, Lord Hamilton was responsible for the initiation and preparation of all subordinate legislation by the Court of Session in the form of acts of sederunt. It is not too far fetched to suggest that there might have been a difficulty sooner or later—knowing our luck, probably sooner—if we had not acted.

I flag up the fact that the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which is United Kingdom legislation, refers to consultations involving the Lord President and the Lord Chief Justice of England. The minister knows about that issue, as I have already mentioned it to her officials. She should ensure that her officials speak to somebody down south to obviate any problems that might arise in that respect.

There is not a lot to be said about the bill. We are greatly encouraged by the minister's commitment to judicial independence, which, as members have said, is one of the cornerstones of Scots law. The day when that is interfered with would be a sad one. The minister can rest assured that if there is any departure from that principle, we will not be slow in highlighting the difficulties that might arise. We will defend the principle robustly, but we will not delay the passage of the bill in any way.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The debate has been consensual, which shows that members realise the importance of having an independent judiciary. We may disagree on aspects of our society or on how we operate our economy, but we accept that the independence of the judiciary transcends party politics. Bill Aitken and Gordon Jackson made significant comments on that. The minister has clearly made certain that that independence will not be altered, as her speech, on which Gordon Jackson commented, and the bill show. We will have on-going debates in the Parliament about more specific matters, but the bill does not impinge on those issues.

I was struck by Gordon Jackson's comment about the requirement for the civil servants who deal with the judiciary to be independent. His comment about the Parliament's situation was apposite. We would be appalled if our parliamentary staff were simply an adjunct to the civil service in Victoria Quay. I recall meeting one of the founding fathers of the Republic of Estonia and asking what advice he could give Scotland. He said that we should get control of our civil service because, if the civil service in the former Soviet republic of Estonia had not been prepared to stand independently, Estonia would now be part of the Russian Federation. An independent civil service is important for any body or country. Gordon Jackson's comments about the civil service for the judiciary are important—it should be given the flexibility to look after what we all acknowledge is a body that must be separate from and above politics.

We commend the Executive for moving swiftly on the issue since the First Minister addressed the matter in a statement to the Parliament. The unforeseen circumstance that we are in is to be regretted, most of all by Lord Hamilton, who was promoted to an office to which he had doubtless aspired for some time but in which he has regrettably been unable to serve in recent times. I hope that he will be able to return to his office, but we must ensure that the administration of justice continues. The Executive is correct to use the opportunity that the bill provides to cover a few other circumstances that may occur. As I said earlier, we cannot legislate for all unforeseen circumstances, but when some arise, it is appropriate to take cognisance of other circumstances that may occur. We give our full support to the Executive on the bill.

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

I thank members for taking part in what has been a useful and consensual debate. I hope that the fact that we have tried to be open and transparent and have kept party leaders up to date with the process—as Colin Fox and others have mentioned—has helped. We have given members the information that has enabled them to support the general principles of the bill. It is heartening to hear so many good wishes from members—I am sure that they will be passed on to Lord Hamilton. I intend in no way to compromise the independence of Lord Gill and the senior judges who have acted in the meantime by saying that Parliament acknowledges the additional responsibilities that they have taken on.

I will pick up on a couple of points that have been made during the debate. Stewart Stevenson, Mike Pringle and others referred to the possibility of someone having a veto and asked whether it would be correct for the same person to be involved in declaring incapacity and signing things off at the end of the process.

Pauline McNeill mentioned processes and procedures, which we have considered. It would be wrong to set out a process or procedure in the bill. We have tried to ensure that we introduce legislation that, in essence, gives the senior judiciary the responsibility and power to take action. We have to trust that it will be able to do that in a common-sense way. I cannot imagine a set of circumstances in which senior judges would take decisions that were not evidence based or would not consider a range of options before coming to a conclusion.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I agree whole-heartedly that the bill should not determine the process. The minister is correct to say that we should trust the judiciary. I just want to clarify whether the judiciary will agree a process. It would concern me if there was no process at all. Will the minister confirm that the judiciary will determine its own process and we will know that it exists?

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

Yes. Pauline McNeill makes a valid point. Of course there needs to be a process. The point that I was making is that by not setting it out in the bill we are, in essence, asking the judiciary to take charge of the process and ensure that it is appropriate.

On the possibility of a veto, we considered what would happen if the judges took a decision that the Lord President did not agree with. If that situation arose, it would be open to the Lord President to seek a judicial review of the position.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I apologise for bringing this up, but I think that it is better to do so now than later. I want to raise a related point about the drafting of the bill. The bill provides for a situation in which both the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk are simultaneously incapacitated. Under section 1(3)(a), the Lord President is not considered to be incapacitated until the declaration of incapacity has been made by five judges, which has to include the Lord Justice Clerk, except when he is incapacitated. In the event of the Lord Justice Clerk being incapacitated, there is a matching requirement, in that his incapacitation can be determined only when the Lord President has signed the declaration. If both are incapacitated, it does not immediately seem possible to have either declaration signed, because each depends on the remaining capacity of the other. Is the minister entirely satisfied that in providing that apparently sensible interlock, she has not created a situation of recursion, the definition of which for us in computers was, "see recursion"?

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

We are attempting to take a belt-and-braces approach, as Bill Aitken described it. I hope that we will not find ourselves in a situation in which both the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk are incapacitated as Stewart Stevenson described, but I will reflect on that between the end of stage 1 and stage 2 to ensure that we have the drafting correct.

I am aware that there has perhaps been concern about whether we have the drafting right in relation to who the most senior judge to follow on from the Lord Justice Clerk would be. In the present circumstances, we do not have two senior judges who were appointed on the same day at the same time, so there would be logical succession. I offer Stewart Stevenson reassurance on that point, because I know that he is interested in it. I will certainly reflect on the drafting.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The minister and others have talked about taking a belt-and-braces approach. I perfectly understand why such an approach should be taken and endorse it. However, the bill is very specific—it says that "at least 5 judges" must reach an agreement. Given that one of the judges is incapacitated, five judges would clearly constitute a majority, but it is clear that the size of the inner house could be increased by order so that five judges might not be a majority. Can that matter be addressed when the wider legislation comes forward in due course?

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

Jim Wallace has raised a valid and important point. We picked the number five so that a majority would be required. The judiciary having to decide that the Lord President is not in a position to act is a serious matter and it is right and proper that a majority should be required to agree to a decision. However, we will reflect on the wider point about the number of judges in the inner house in any future legislation.

I trust that the Presiding Officer does not require me to speak until general question time. I am relieved to see her shaking her head. I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily.

Again, I thank all members for their contributions to the debate, in which all parties have had an opportunity to restate the importance of the independence of the judiciary. I do not want to dwell on the matter, but it is important to reflect that principle in the bill—it has certainly been reflected in what I and other members have said this morning. The independence of the judiciary is fundamental to the process. We want to ensure that we can take effective action to keep the show on the road—I think that that phrase has been used—without interfering with the correct separation of the judiciary's work from that of the Executive and the Parliament.

I expect that there will be amendments to consider later in the day but, in the meantime, I simply thank members for their support and co-operation and trust that we will be able to get through the business in good time this afternoon.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that motion S2M-4542, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on the general principles of the Senior Judiciary (Vacancies and Incapacity) (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Senior Judiciary (Vacancies and Incapacity) (Scotland) Bill.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to ensure that the prescription and dispensing of methadone take account of patients' social factors, such as employment, in accordance with existing guidelines. (S2O-10194)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Decisions on prescribing and dispensing methadone are taken by individual prescribers in the context of the current United Kingdom 1999 guidelines, "Drug Misuse and Dependence: Guidelines on Clinical Management" and of any local health board protocols and policies. There is no specific reference to social factors such as employment in the guidelines. The guidelines on supervised consumption may be relaxed if the patient is stable and the prescriber is satisfied that compliance will be maintained. That allows the prescriber to consider social factors when deciding on what basis methadone should be prescribed and dispensed. Scottish Executive officials will be participating in the forthcoming update of the UK guidelines, and that will provide an opportunity to consider their scope more widely.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

The guidelines to which the minister refers indicate the importance of methadone being made available at a time that allows the patient to work. I am sure that we are all aware of concerns around this issue, and that we recognise the legitimate issues regarding child safety in particular. Will the minister ensure that, in considering policy and practice in this regard, we recognise the vital role that methadone can play in enabling many individuals to enter and hold down employment? Does he recognise the importance of consistency with the Executive's employability framework, which was published this week? Will he ensure that each individual's needs are taken into account in deciding how, when and where methadone is prescribed and dispensed?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I absolutely agree with the member's view that methadone is a critical aspect of our approach. Like all health services, its prescription should be designed around the needs of the user. We should be more flexible in allowing people to go to work and fully participate in society. That underpins our methadone programme. If a user is stable and compliant and if methadone can be dispensed to them in a way that enhances their employment opportunities, I believe that that aids rehabilitation and results in what we all want, which is that person getting back into society and not being reliant on methadone. I will happily take up the matter and consult health board chairs and chief executives to ensure that, like all services in the health service, methadone services are designed around the needs of the user. If it is appropriate—if the patient is stable and compliant in relation to methadone use—we will seek to work with them to ensure that they gain full employment.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Can the minister outline what action the Executive is taking to establish exactly how many people in Scotland are prescribed methadone?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

We are working on the matter now. The current estimate is that about 19,200 people are on methadone programmes, but we want to investigate that figure further, in relation not only to the global number, but to the other factors concerning those who are currently receiving methadone. That research will contribute to our work in reviewing the UK policy, and it will allow us to pursue further a number of our agendas, including that around hidden harm, with the aim of ensuring that no one is at risk of methadone abuse—or indeed of finding themselves in situations similar to those that have applied in recent tragic cases.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

To ask the Scottish Executive what account it takes of the views of members of the public when designing the out-of-hours health care service. (S2O-10174)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The design of out-of-hours health care services is a responsibility that transferred to national health service boards on the introduction of the new general medical services contract. The National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Act 2004 places a duty on NHS boards to involve the public in service redesign. In addition, each community health partnership needs to maintain an effective and formal dialogue with its local communities through public partnership forums to ensure the systematic, continuous engagement of local users and carers in determining priorities and the quality of the services that are delivered to local people.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The minister will be aware that the first NHS appeals panel to decide that a general practitioner should be permitted to opt out of providing 24-hour medical cover—against the wishes of the health board—made that decision in the remote Rannoch and Tummel area in my constituency. Does the minister share my concern that, while the panel considered evidence from the health board and the GP practice involved, it undertook no meaningful consultation with the local community? Does the minister agree that that contravenes the standards of consultation that he has set for boards and which he enforces? As a result of that, will he order a re-examination of this flawed decision, which is putting at risk the safety of patients in my constituency?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The member has, quite correctly, raised this matter in a number of different ways on a number of occasions and I share some of his concerns.

Tayside NHS Board represented the community view as part of its evidence to the appeals panel. Therefore, I would not like to say that the views of the community were not heard. In my view, the board took those arguments to the appeals panel as part of its rationale for not wishing to allow the general practitioner to remove the service, which is what ended up happening. However, I am concerned about the principle that allows the appeals panel, in taking evidence, not to take it from the community. I am more than happy to consider that matter in relation to these cases in the future.

I am in constant contact with the chair of Tayside NHS Board, Mr Peter Bates. We continue to discuss this matter and if any learning can be applied across Scotland as a result of this matter, that will be done.

I am more than happy to take up the matter of communities being involved in the appeals process and to report back to the member.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In the 2005 social attitude survey of the health service, the public expressed a low level of satisfaction with NHS 24, which plays a crucial role in the out-of-hours arrangements. What is the minister doing to improve that perception? Will he go further in developing the localised system of mini-centres that, I believe, will help to improve response time and patient relations and satisfaction levels?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am not sure where the member has been for the past 12 months but I have to say that the revolution that has taken place in the service that is provided by NHS 24 is evident. It performed extremely well under great pressure at the Christmas and new year period. Similarly, over the easter weekend when NHS 24 was again the front line of our national health service, it provided a high quality service.

Part of the process has involved dealing with the out-of-hours co-location issue in relation to the small, satellite facilities. That has improved the service, as has the bringing together of professionals at a local level. However, I would also say that the fact that the NHS board chairs and chief executives are now more integrally involved in the planning of NHS 24 has increased its performance radically.

I know from looking at my mailbag—and I assume that the member will know from looking at hers—that the performance of NHS 24 in relation to first response to the call and proper completion of the call has improved radically. I am happy to give the member some reports on that matter.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it is making in promoting healthy eating in schools. (S2O-10200)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish Executive is making good progress in promoting healthy eating in schools, principally through its hungry for success programme.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I am sure that the minister is aware of examples of good practice in some schools. For example, pupils in Burgh primary school in my constituency have set up a scheme called groovy smoothies, which makes healthy, fresh-fruit smoothies twice a week to help pupils increase their fruit consumption. Can the minister assure me that the Executive will use such examples of good practice to ensure that other schools can benefit from healthy eating initiatives?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The primary school that Janis Hughes mentioned is doing exactly the kind of work that we want to happen in many primary schools. The intention of the hungry for success programme, with all the co-ordinators and other staff that are employed in relation to it, is that such best practice can be shared with other schools. I am glad to say that the kind of programme that Janis Hughes mentioned is becoming much more common across Scotland, because we are making a great deal of progress in our primary and secondary schools towards changing the eating habits of the nation. We have much further to go, however, and I am more than happy to mention any examples of good practice to any school that I visit.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Is the Executive content that the latest figures show that only 18 per cent of children are eligible for free school meals while, shockingly, the percentage of children in poverty is now 23 per cent? Will ministers use their powers under the Education (School Meals) (Scotland) Act 2003 to extend eligibility for free school meals to at least all those children who are living in poverty?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Robin Harper raises an important point. Notwithstanding his point that it might be possible to extend entitlement, one issue that confronts our school meals service is that those who are entitled to free school meals are not taking them up. That is related to poverty in our society.

We are considering a range of options as part of our consultation on a bill that we propose to introduce. We do not need new powers in that bill to extend entitlement, for the reasons that Robin Harper set out, but we are considering a range of options for how we might—I stress "might"—be able to increase entitlement for particular groups at particular times. However, the important thing in the short term is that we ensure that those who are currently entitled to free school meals take up their entitlement. That is why, in the bill, we will place on local authorities a duty to promote the uptake of free school meals.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

To ask the Scottish Executive what percentage of young people leaving care are not in employment, education or training, broken down according to whether the last care placement was in (a) foster care, (b) residential care or (c) a children's home. (S2O-10208)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

At 31 March 2005, 59 per cent of care leavers who were receiving aftercare support and whose economic status was known were not in employment, education or training. That is unacceptable. That is why, earlier this week, we announced a full strategy to tackle the issues around those who are not in employment, education or training, including looked-after children.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am alarmed that almost two thirds of young people leaving care are not in education, employment or training. Does the minister share my view that young people in care are our most vulnerable young people in Scotland and that anything that can be done to reduce the figure of 59 per cent would be welcome? Does he agree that it is appropriate to focus resources for NEETs—that is the acronym for those who are not in education, employment or training—on individuals who are in care?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Frank McAveety is right to suggest that the figure is unacceptable. I said that it is unacceptable in my answer. This is one of the biggest challenges that we have in our education system. We know that, historically, educational outcomes for young people who are looked after by the state in one way or another—whether they are in foster care, in residential care, living with their own family while under a supervision order or in another setting—are significantly poorer than the outcomes for the remainder of the population. That is why we are trying to focus more action on looked-after children through our NEET strategy.

I am chairing a group that brings together Executive officials, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, the voluntary sector and local authorities to examine how we can turn around our performance in relation to that group of young people. We are investing some £6 million in pilots to work with them in different ways and to try to unlock the solutions to the problems. We are investing in young people who are leaving care by giving them experiences at the Columba 1400 centre in Skye and we are working with Lord Laidlaw through the Laidlaw Youth Project to try to give young people who leave care the skills and attributes that they need to get employment.

I understand that Duncan McNeil is commissioning an all-party group of members to consider the NEET strategy and to support the Executive's work on that. I hope that that will include a focus on looked-after children.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

In spite of the best efforts of those who are involved in the care and education systems, outcomes for those who are in public care stubbornly remain poor. Does the minister agree that some vulnerable young people are inappropriately left at home rather than becoming looked after? If we are to improve the life chances of those youngsters, it is vital that we have a properly joined-up care and education system so that outcomes are dramatically improved and we make a real difference, rather than the situation being equally bleak whether the child is left at home or placed in public care.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Scott Barrie raises an important point. He has a depth of understanding of the issues because of his background. The group that I am chairing, which brings together interests from the care sector, the education sector and the voluntary sector, is specifically considering how we can remove the impediments to improving performance in the area; how we can change procedures; and how we can raise our expectations—and those of the agencies and people who work with them—for that group of young people. We want to ensure that nobody in our society is left behind. That is a major challenge and victory will not be won overnight, but we are determined, in time, to turn things around and the matter will get more and more attention.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it ensures that local authorities implement plans to provide affordable housing. (S2O-10190)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 places on local authorities a statutory requirement to assess housing needs in their areas and to produce local housing strategies to address those needs. Those strategies inform the allocation of funding through Communities Scotland for the development of new affordable housing. If a housing needs assessment says that affordable housing is needed, the local authority should translate that need into planning policy, to gain affordable housing contributions from private housing developments.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the minister share my concern that, in Aberdeen, developers are being allowed to buy themselves out of their commitment to provide affordable housing on new developments through commuted payments that might never be used to provide affordable homes? Does he agree that there are no barriers to ensuring that such developments include affordable housing now? Does he share my concern that Aberdeen City Council's administration should put into action its stated intention to provide more affordable homes?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Affordable housing is needed in Aberdeen, so I am concerned that the council there has not translated that into planning policy to gain affordable housing contributions, as described in my previous answer. That is a very important tool that councils have; we introduced planning advice note 74 last year to facilitate its use. The council should take action on those lines.

As the question was about Aberdeen, I point out that an announcement will be made next week of record investment in the Grampian area for new affordable housing. I remind members that I made an important announcement a few weeks ago about Communities Scotland helping the acquisition of the site of a disused paper-mill in Aberdeen, which will provide 360 affordable homes.

As John Swinney is in his place, I take the opportunity to correct something that he wrote this week. Communities Scotland is part of my department and I am directly responsible for its policy and strategic actions.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Does the minister consider that it would be useful for councils to include housing association developments for rent in their biennial housing land supply audits? Will he consider issuing guidance to councils to require them to do that?

Will the minister consider requiring those audits to be submitted to the Executive, so that he can monitor the emergence and maintenance of an adequate land supply for housing association developments for rent?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am extremely concerned about land supply for affordable housing, which is why I will chair an affordable housing group, which will meet in the near future. We shall certainly consider the issues to which Murray Tosh referred, as well as all the other issues that are relevant to the acquisition of land for affordable housing.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Given that the ability to connect to mains sewerage is one of the main obstacles to the development of affordable housing and other housing in rural areas, is the minister happy with the progress that Scottish Water is making on developing its plans for quality and standards III?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Scottish Water has just produced its delivery plan, which is an important step forward. I have expressed several times my dissatisfaction hitherto, but we know of the new significant investment that the Executive will make from this year for the next eight years. I am sure that that will address substantially the issues about which Alasdair Morgan is understandably concerned.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many pages of guidance on education have been issued to schools and local authorities since 1999 and how many pages have been withdrawn. (S2O-10188)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The requested information is not held by the Scottish Executive.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That is disappointing, because the Government in England and Wales holds such information. How on earth can the minister manage the paperwork and bureaucracy that are passed on to schools and local authorities if he cannot even tell us how many pages of guidance are in force?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Education is not about producing and counting pages of guidance. I can imagine few less productive tasks for Government officials than that, and I seem to recall that, under the Conservatives, counting lamp posts under their job creation schemes was an issue.

More seriously, the central point is that the Executive is concerned to reduce unnecessary bureaucratic pressures on teachers. The McCrone settlement laid the basis for that and the curriculum review is aimed partly at freeing space for teachers to teach. We are promoting the better use of technology and the number of support staff in our schools has also increased substantially—for example, the number of classroom assistants has increased by 4,000 since 1999. That goes a long way towards giving the proper support effectively and dynamically, rather than the sort of academic exercise that Derek Brownlee proposes.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Before First Minister's question time, I welcome a delegation in the gallery from the National People's Congress of China. [ Applause. ]

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2357)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I was not going to make any introductory comment, but on the way into the chamber I met Matthew Rowe and Laura Gorman, who are at the Parliament today with Kate Maclean. They are the members of the Scottish Youth Parliament for Dundee West. I welcome them to the Parliament.

I met the Prime Minister recently and I plan to meet him again soon.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am happy to echo that welcome.

Is it not the case that today's proposal by the Labour-Liberal Executive to introduce variable top-up tuition fees in Scotland is a clear breach of its commitment not to do so?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It is interesting that the First Minister should answer in that way. I am not surprised that he does not want to expand on his answer. I remind the First Minister of precisely what the Labour-Liberal coalition agreement says:

"We will not support the introduction of top-up tuition fees."

The statement could not be clearer, but today that promise is being broken by the introduction of variable top-up fees for certain students here in Scotland.

However, it is not the first Labour promise on tuition fees that has been broken, is it? In 1997, Labour said that it would not introduce tuition fees at all, but it did. In 2001, Labour said that there would be no top-up fees in England, but there are. Today, despite saying in the coalition agreement that he would not do so, the First Minister is imposing variable top-up fees here in Scotland. Is it any wonder that those who recognise that this is the thin end of the wedge will not believe the First Minister when he says that it is not?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

First, we are not introducing variable top-up tuition fees, we have no intention of doing so and it will not happen as long as I am First Minister. Students in Scotland, the families of potential students in Scotland and people who need to see more medical staff in our health service in Scotland will be interested to know that members of the Scottish National Party—of all people—think that it would be acceptable to have a system that would disadvantage Scottish students in the years to come. A clear recommendation has come from the Calman report and from other places that we need to take action to secure the places of Scottish students, who are more likely than students from south of the border to stay in Scotland and work in our health service. Today's measures are practical, down-to-earth measures that will achieve that. For the SNP to oppose them is probably the most anti-Scottish thing that it has ever done.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The First Minister initially said that he is not doing it, then he got up and justified why he is doing it. I remind the First Minister of what his higher education minister, Allan Wilson, said two weeks ago:

"We have no evidence that suitably qualified Scottish students are being denied access to or are unable to obtain places in Scottish higher education institutions".—[Official Report, Enterprise and Culture Committee, 30 May 2006; c 3121.]

Applications from English students for medical places are down this year. The First Minister's argument is spurious. Is it not the case that if young folk in Scotland are finding it harder to get to university, the reason for that is mounting student debt? Is the First Minister aware that the average debt of a graduate who leaves university this year is £11,000 and that £2,000 of that is down to the graduate endowment, or back-door tuition fee, that he and his colleagues introduced? Instead of increasing front-door tuition fees for English students, should not the First Minister get rid of the back-door tuition fees with which—thanks to his Labour-Liberal Government—Scottish students are still burdened?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

First, I make it clear that I am proud that this Administration and this Parliament not only abolished tuition fees but at the same time reintroduced proper bursaries for Scottish students who need them. We will build on that in the years to come.

Secondly, I make it clear that we are not introducing top-up tuition fees in Scotland. That will not happen. However, we will protect the interests of the Scottish health service and the interests of Scottish students who want to study in our medical schools. We want to preserve the number of Scottish students who study in our medical schools. It is because of the announcement of that last year that, as Ms Sturgeon suggests, applications from English students are down.

If we had not made that announcement, the financial incentive of a £9,000 saving for students from England who come to Scotland to study at our medical schools would have remained as an incentive and many more of them would have come forward. For the SNP to oppose this measure, and therefore to demand a disadvantage for Scottish students and a disadvantage for the Scottish health service, is shameful. The SNP is wrong; it is anti-Scottish in its approach and its members should withdraw their objection this afternoon.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Yet again, the First Minister says in one breath, "I'm not introducing top-up fees," and in the next breath says, "Here's why I'm introducing top-up fees." [ Interruption. ]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Order.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Who said, "Education is a right, not a privilege to be paid for"? That was the First Minister, back in the days when he had principles. Who said, "It's time to get rid of the graduate endowment"? That was the Liberal Democrat Deputy First Minister just last year—the same person who is responsible for introducing top-up fees in Scotland in the Parliament today. Is it not a real shame that the rhetoric of the First Minister and his deputy—both of whom, let us not forget, benefited from free education—is simply not matched by their actions? In anybody's language, is that not sheer and utter hypocrisy?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Apart from my commitment to social justice and fairness, my one abiding principle, as the First Minister of Scotland, is to stand up for Scotland. Clearly, Ms Sturgeon does not share that principle. I will do the right thing for Scottish students and the Scottish health service.

There is absolutely no doubt that our medical schools are among the very best in the world. People travel to them from North America, Europe, Asia and further afield—and, of course, from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Those medical schools will be under pressure if this one, single measure is not introduced today. That is why, this afternoon, we will put first the interests of Scottish students and the Scottish health service, which is where the vast majority of Scottish medical students will work. That the SNP has been so anti-Scottish in its opposition to the measure is something that will stay with it for a very long time.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2358)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Among other issues, at next week's meeting of the Cabinet we will finalise the statement on the legislative programme for the remainder of the Parliament that we intend to make to Parliament in advance of the summer recess. As promised, the programme will include a sentencing bill to abolish automatic early release.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

A triumph for the Tories. [ Laughter. ]

I am sure that the First Minister was as shocked as I was to hear about the sad case of the seven-year-old boy who collapsed at his school in Inverness after taking methadone. In March, following the tragic death of Derek Doran from methadone, I asked the First Minister whether he could tell me how many people are currently prescribed methadone, how long they have been on it and how many of them look after children. Is the First Minister any further forward in answering those questions?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have three things to say to Miss Goldie. First, if there had been devolution back in 1993, we might not have allowed the Tories to introduce automatic early release. Let us celebrate the fact that we are finally correcting the error.

Secondly, I share Annabel Goldie's dismay at the news of the illness of the seven-year-old boy. The reasons for his illness are not yet absolutely clear. I caution against commenting on the news until all the reports have been duly considered. However, the possibility that the boy was affected by methadone identifies the fact that that remains a serious problem in Scotland. We are addressing the problem in partial measure by the report that we published last month. We will take the actions that are required to protect children where drug-abusing parents—either their own or others'—are likely to impact on their opportunities in life.

Thirdly, I turn to the questions that Annabel Goldie posed back in March and that she poses again today. As she now knows, the number of people in Scotland who are on methadone is about 20,000; the figures are becoming clearer all the time. We do not hold figures centrally on the individual care plan programmes of each of those individuals. I suspect that it would not be right for us to hold such information, as it should be managed locally and will always be confidential between patients and medical staff. However, as I have said before, I agree with Miss Goldie that every individual who is on such a programme should be taking a planned approach with a view to becoming drug free. As far as I am aware, that is not the case with every such programme in Scotland, but it should be the case and we are working towards ensuring that it is the case. I intend, if at all possible, to do that on a cross-party basis.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

In the recent case in Inverness, the authorities seem to be at a loss to explain how the child got hold of the methadone—if such it is— but we know that such risks can exist in the school environment.

I made my previous request for information because it is important that we establish whether the licensed distribution of methadone presents difficulties through accident, negligence or whatever. We need more information so that we can pinpoint where methadone has come from and also identify any children who might be at risk.

Does the First Minister agree that methadone is a highly addictive and potentially dangerous drug? Does he agree that, if the essential information that I have requested becomes available, it should be given in confidence to schools so that they are aware of any children who are potentially at risk?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We have said very clearly—this is increasingly the case in Scotland as a result of the actions that we have taken—that vulnerable youngsters who are in that position or similar situations should be clearly identified within the schools system and senior staff should be identified as responsible for their care and attention. That new measure has been introduced within the past five years and it is important for the relationship between schools and other authorities in managing youngsters who are either formally looked after or vulnerable in other ways.

I caution again that I received this information only five minutes before coming into the chamber, so I did not have a chance to find out whether anyone intended to ask a question on the issue and to alert them in advance, but I am told that the reports on the boy in Inverness are inconclusive at this stage. Therefore, we cannot assume that the illness that has affected him is a direct result, or even any result, of methadone.

I agree with Annabel Goldie that we need to be clearer about those who are on methadone care plans and that they must form part of the system, but we must also be clearer that there are other routes to becoming drug free. Methadone should be a route to become drug free, not a permanent state, but other routes must also be pursued. That is precisely why we have increased, in quite dramatic fashion, the number of rehabilitation places that are available in Scotland to secure the drug-free lifestyles that people want. That is also why we need to persist with our efforts to reduce the number of people who take drugs in Scotland and, in particular, the number who inject drugs. The numbers are coming down, but it is important that we continue to work on that.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am partially encouraged by the First Minister's response.

In the wider environment in which it is given, methadone is often referred to as part of a harm-reduction strategy. I accept that there may be legitimate doubt about the circumstances of the young boy in Inverness, but the incident reminds us of the dangers that this drug presents to wider society if it is inadvertently, negligently or improperly distributed beyond prescribed users. Establishing the facts is surely a first step, but we must also move Scotland away from an overreliance on methadone. Therefore, I repeat the call that I have made many times before and ask the First Minister whether, as has happened in England and Wales, he will establish a central directory containing details of every available treatment and rehabilitation facility in Scotland—whether state funded or in the voluntary sector—so that we can at least offer drug addicts the maximum opportunity to end their addiction.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

When I watched Annabel Goldie's speech at her party's Scottish winter conference, I did not do so in anticipation of comments that she or Murdo Fraser might make later. At that time, I did not pay particular attention to what the future might hold, but I was interested in her proposal. We offered discussions with the Minister for Justice to take forward some of Annabel Goldie's suggestions, including the idea of a directory. I understand that that proposal was discussed in the meeting that Annabel Goldie had with the Minister for Justice and that Cathy Jamieson has given an undertaking to consider the proposal as a matter of urgency.

The idea is sensible. If it can be done practically, we will do it. I hope that it and other measures, taken on a cross-party basis, can help us not only to reduce the number of people in Scotland who rely on drugs and to continue to increase the number of people who are caught for trading in drugs, but to ensure that those who are already addicts are more successfully taken away from their addiction to achieve a drug-free lifestyle.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call Euan Robson on a constituency matter.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

In the light of yesterday's announcement of the closure of two small community hospitals in Coldstream and Jedburgh in my constituency, will the First Minister reflect on whether the Health Department's decision was in line with the Kerr report? Further, will he impress on NHS Borders the need to develop national health service provision in both towns and to engage constructively with nursing home providers to establish respite and palliative care and slow-stream rehabilitation services locally?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

First, the decisions that the Minister for Health and Community Care confirmed yesterday were in line with the Kerr report. That was not the minister's report, of course, but the report by Professor David Kerr, which has been welcome and supported, as I understand it, by most, if not all, parties in the chamber.

Secondly, there are clearly difficult issues, particularly in relation to the perception of the services that are available, when these difficult decisions are made. However, we need to move from a situation in which services are so dispersed that we lose medical staff because they cannot develop their specialism to the right extent, and in which people do not get the care that they require in or as near to their local community as possible. More and more forms of emergency care in particular are available and appropriate to be delivered more locally—that is precisely what will happen in this case. At the same time, we are ensuring that the more difficult specialist work that is required is able to be handled by specialist staff in the proper locations.

On the others issues that Euan Robson raised, the Minister for Health and Community Care will be happy to look into them and discuss them further with him.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-2372)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I meet the secretary of state regularly to discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Will the First Minister join me in congratulating the renewables industry, which is set to produce 18 per cent of Scotland's electricity by the end of next year, meeting the Executive's target three years early?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Yes. When I first started to push up our targets on renewables—which subsequently were pushed up even further, I think, by my colleague Mr Finnie—there were those in Scotland who said that it was impossible to meet them and that we were being over-optimistic. There are those, of course, who opposed many of the measures that we introduced or supported to help us meet that target. They will be remembered for that and for their inconsistencies. I hope that the Greens remember them, too, in any discussions that they might be having. [ Laughter. ] The success with which we have moved in this direction, with the right energy policy for Scotland, should spur us on even further.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

I thank the First Minister, but I had hoped that he would give a little bit more praise to the industry. It is a question of giving praise where it is due. I am sure that the First Minister will share my delight at the industry's projection that the majority of Scotland's electricity can be generated from renewables by 2020. Does he agree that, regardless of waste issues and energy reviews, that projection demonstrates that renewable electricity can more than replace the electricity that currently is generated by Scotland's nuclear power stations?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I think that we have to make these decisions in a very measured way. We have to ensure first that we continue to maximise the energy that is produced in Scotland from renewable sources, but we also need to ensure that we have a secure energy supply in Scotland for both families—[ Interruption. ] Scottish National Party members can shout and not care about families if they like, but the energy supply to the homes of Scots is an important subject, as is the energy supply to Scottish business. The energy review needs to take account of all those factors.

That said, I believe that we can go further. I congratulate the industry on its efforts. The efforts of the industry in Scotland have been outstanding. The efforts of, and the enterprise that is shown by, those who are still emerging in the industry are equally outstanding. In fact, only last week, Shell's national livewire awards recognised a company from Lanarkshire that is involved, I think, in marine energy technology and recognised that that company is ahead of its competition throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.

I believe that we can go even further in marine energy, in which we have a massive natural resource, and in micro-renewables, in which we have significantly more potential than is currently recognised. I hope that the Parliament and this devolved Government will continue to lead the way in partnership with the industry.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

On a completely different subject, will the First Minister join me in welcoming the members of Lanarkshire health united? Does he agree with them and Tom Clarke, his colleague, that it would be folly to close any accident and emergency unit in Lanarkshire? Does he, like me, deplore the letter from Dr John Reid to Lanarkshire NHS Board calling for the closure of the accident and emergency unit at Hairmyres hospital? Does the First Minister not agree that Lanarkshire needs three accident and emergency units and that the health board should act accordingly?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am always happy to welcome people from Lanarkshire to the Parliament. I think that they would welcome Alex Neil's comments a bit more if he had submitted his own response to the consultation in Lanarkshire when it was taking place.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

To ask the First Minister what discussions have taken place on the future of water provision in Scotland. (S2F-2360)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There are continuing discussions between the Executive and industry stakeholders about providing customers with high-quality water services at the lowest reasonable cost. Our plans will increase the standards for customers, reduce leakage and ensure that Scottish Water provides strategic capacity where it is required to support new housing and economic developments throughout Scotland. All of that will be achieved with average charges falling in real terms when they are rising by an average of 18 per cent elsewhere.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

I remind the Parliament that I am a Scottish Labour Party and Co-operative Party MSP.

Does the First Minister agree that it is imperative that Scottish Water remains in public ownership, and that there are many forms of public ownership, including co-operative and mutual models, that enshrine democratic ownership and control? Does he also agree that if, in future, there is any requirement to change the way in which Scottish Water operates, it will be important to maintain a level playing field? Will he guarantee that resources will be made available to ensure that the feasibility of a range of common-ownership models, including the mutual option, is fully explored and understood?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The current significant improvements in Scottish Water's work—the improvements that have been made over recent years and those that are clearly in the plans for its next programme—show its success under its current form of ownership and management. At the same time, it is important that we continue to press ahead with changes to ensure greater efficiencies, speedier delivery and better customer relationships than there are even now.

There are no current plans to change Scottish Water's status and no current plans for a review. I certainly hope that, should anybody undertake a review, they would consider the mutual option as well as all the others.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The First Minister will be aware of the House of Lords report that draws attention to the lack of planning for the adequate provision of potable water in England and Wales. Does he agree that we also need to address that matter, as Scotland might be able to help provide water for the rest of the United Kingdom and, indeed, the rest of the world if we plan for it now?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The significant change to Scottish Water's programme will ensure that the ambitions of this devolved Government, local authorities and private companies in Scotland to expand housing provision can be fulfilled by expanding the water and sewerage network appropriately. That is an important change. It has been welcomed and we intend to deliver it. It is also important that Scotland continues to set very high standards in the co-operative relationships that must exist between housing development and water services development.

I will leave the subjects of our relationship with the English water companies, the supply of water in England and the potential for the sale of water from north to south for debate another day.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister is happy with the structure of Scottish Water at present, but is he happy that customers pay 86p of every £1 that Scottish Water spends on capital developments? Is he prepared to enable Scottish Water to have far greater borrowing powers in the market within the public sector?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The figures that the Scottish National Party uses on this matter have not been proven by anybody, apart from those who are close to the party, so they must be taken with a serious pinch of salt. The reality is that Scottish Water has introduced greater efficiencies. Its price increases are significantly less in real terms than they were previously and in relation to price rises elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The current arrangements for Scottish Water have improved efficiency and delivery, but the body needs to go further, which is the point that I made earlier. However, the arrangements will not be improved by the regular calls from the SNP for less money to be available to Scottish Water. We have had various calls over the years from Mr Mather and others to freeze water charges and therefore to make less money available for the sort of important developments that SNP members, particularly Mr Swinney, call for regularly.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Executive has had in respect of tuition fees for part-time students. (S2F-2364)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The levels of tuition fees for part-time students in Scotland are not regulated by ministers and are therefore a matter for individual institutions. However, ministers have frequent formal and informal discussions with principals and directors of Scotland's higher education institutions and colleges covering a wide range of issues. As part of our funding-of-learners review we are examining existing support for part-time students.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does the First Minister agree that having fees for part-time students but not for full-time students is a form of discrimination against part-time students, who often have no other option in pursuing their education? Earlier this week, an Executive spokesman said that consultation on the issue will continue during 2006. Is the First Minister prepared to go a step further and commit to making a decision on the matter this year?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We will make a decision when the review is complete and when we have had a chance to analyse all the evidence. That is the right way in which to make policy. We do not have a system in Scotland in which everybody who is a part-time student pays fees, because people can apply for fee waivers, depending on their income. Of course, many part-time students fall into the appropriate category. It would be wrong to suggest that all part-time students in Scotland pay fees, because the fee-waiver system works to the advantage of those who need it most. However, it is important to remember that everything costs money. If we abolished the system entirely, that would have a cost. If that is what the Scottish National Party proposes, it must be honest about that during next year's elections. It should say which budget the money would come from in the education system, which college courses would have to go to pay for the measure and which other matters might be affected.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive will improve support for children in their early years. (S2F-2368)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We are taking forward a range of policies to improve services for children in their early years. In particular, we are increasing support for sure start Scotland, further increasing funding of the child care strategy and working on improvements in the quality of services through the review of the early years and child care workforce. The Education Committee's report on early years has made an important contribution to the debate on future policy development. Ministers are considering its recommendations.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am glad that the First Minister acknowledges the importance of the Education Committee's report. I recognise the work that the Executive is doing to improve early-years facilities in Scotland. The committee's report highlights particular concerns. Does the First Minister agree that Scotland must have an early-years sector that provides the highest-quality pre-school education and care; that sound services can enhance children's development and later educational attainment and identify and support vulnerable children and families; and that the sector can help to combat poverty, promote social inclusion and support the continuing growth of the economy? Does the First Minister agree that the single most important factor in improving quality in the early-years sector is raising skill levels in the workforce? In that light, when is the Executive likely to publish the results of the review of the early-years workforce?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Minister for Education and Young People tells me that the results will be published soon. I hope that his definition of soon and Mr Smith's definition of soon are similar. I am sure that the minister will be prepared to discuss the matter with Mr Smith following questions today.

It is important that we strive to improve the skills and career opportunities of those who work in the sector. Many committed people work in the sector, particularly younger and older women, who perhaps did not have full access to the educational opportunities at school that many of us enjoyed. With further qualifications and career development, those individuals could play a more significant role in the sector.

I am keen that we not only consider the overall range of services in the sector and continue to maintain our massive expansion of nursery education in these years of devolution, but ensure that those who work in the sector have fulfilling careers, that they are able to give all their potential to the young people whom they look after every day and that those young people—particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds—have the best possible start in life.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

On the theme of investment in education, does the First Minister agree that the recent Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education report for St Andrew's secondary in the east end of Glasgow demonstrates that good leadership, partnership with parents and pupils and a commitment to excellence in achievement can, even in one of the most disadvantaged parts of Scotland, provide a quality of education that enables pupils to maximise their opportunities? Margaret Curran and I, and the staff at St Andrew's, extend a warm invitation to the First Minister to see at first hand the quality of work at that remarkable school.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Minister for Parliamentary Business is shouting from the sidelines how proud she is of the school, because it is in her constituency, rather than Mr McAveety's.

I share Mr McAveety's sense of pride in the school and its achievements. It is a school that, according to many of the indicators, people might expect to be performing below the average. That is not an acceptable expectation for schools in Scotland, no matter which communities they are located in. St Andrew's secondary shows exactly what can be achieved through strong leadership, great teachers and support staff, the active engagement of parents and, of course, the hard work, dedication and ambition of the pupils themselves. I am sure that we all want to congratulate them and any other schools in similar circumstances that are striving to realise the ambitions of the parents and pupils and to ensure that those schools have just as good a chance to succeed as any other in Scotland.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sure that the First Minister will want to correct a factual inaccuracy. He said that I did not submit evidence on the accident and emergency review in Lanarkshire. If he checks the record, he will see that I was a signatory to the written evidence presented by Lanarkshire health united—[ Interruption. ]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Order.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We will need to excuse the ignoramuses.

I have also submitted oral evidence directly to Lanarkshire NHS Board. I will accept the First Minister's apology.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I am not responsible for the answers of the First Minister. However, Mr Neil, you have had the opportunity to put the matter on the record.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry, but that was a direct challenge and it deserves a response. With tens of thousands of pounds of parliamentary expenses, an office support staff and all his experience, if Alex Neil could not write his own letter to Lanarkshire NHS Board he should be ashamed of himself.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Justice and Law Officers

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will supply all the information requested by the Justice 1 Committee in furtherance of its inquiry into the Scottish Criminal Record Office. (S2O-10228)

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

We have made it clear that we wish to be as helpful as possible to the committee and have already supplied a substantial amount of information. I am in discussions with the convener of the committee to see what further information we can provide that will satisfy the committee, while preserving the important legal principles that I have previously set out.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I hope that the minister agrees that the objective of the inquiry must be to get at the truth. Surely the committee must see all the information that it needs to see. Could the minister consider asking the committee to take the information that is requested from her in private session, so that only committee members are aware of all of that information? We must get to the truth in the inquiry.

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

As I am sure members are aware, and as I set out in my statement some time ago and in the subsequent debate, there are a range of opinions on the issue. The committee's remit is to scrutinise the action plan that SCRO has provided to ensure that we have a fingerprint service that is fit for the 21 st century. As I said, I am in discussions with the committee convener. I do not want to say anything further until those discussions have been concluded, but I will be in further contact with the convener in order that we may come to a satisfactory arrangement that allows the committee to have access to the information that it requires.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how successful the knife amnesty has been across Scotland. (S2O-10197)

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

The current knife amnesty in Scotland has raised public awareness and has provided a valuable opportunity for those who carry a knife to change their ways. Formal figures on the number of blades handed in will be available in the coming weeks. I again remind the chamber that even one less knife on the street potentially means one more life saved.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

I look forward to the release of the formal figures to which the minister refers.

Given that self-defence is often the reason that young people give for carrying knives, does the minister believe that the safer cities initiative can play a substantial part in reducing the number of knives on the streets? Can she outline any plans to back up the present campaign with further educational programmes and/or publicity?

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

Marlyn Glen makes a valid point. We know that legislation and the amnesty are not the only solutions to the problem. We must get at the reasons why people feel that they must carry knives. We have consistently made it clear that the notion that someone should carry a knife for protection is at best misguided, and at worst dangerous. A number of initiatives are in place. We hope that the violence reduction unit will take further work into various communities across Scotland. The educational opportunity that Strathclyde police, Glasgow City Council and the East End Community Arts Project in Glasgow offer is a positive example of how the medium of drama can be used to involve young people actively in considering the issues around knife carrying for protection and, I hope, to help them to change their ways.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Like other members in the chamber, I am pleased to hear about all the work that is being done to tackle the problem. Does the minister agree that prevention is always better than cure and that, alongside the efforts to get knives off the streets, we need to stop them getting there in the first place? Will she put pressure on online auction sites such as eBay to ban users from trading in the terrifying array of weaponry that budding psychopaths can buy with a few clicks of their mouse?

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

I am very aware of the interest that Duncan McNeil has taken in this subject and understand that he has written to eBay. After learning of his interest in the matter, I followed it up, and my understanding is that although eBay does not allow the sale of numerous items, a number of questionable items, including some knives, are still sold. Of course, eBay should behave responsibly. I understand that it has information on its website that makes it clear that it is an offence to sell knives to people under 16 and lists a number of items that are not permitted for sale. I wish Duncan McNeil well in his efforts and I will continue to work with him in that regard.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it accepts the independence of the judiciary. (S2O-10220)

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

Yes. We believe that judicial independence is of fundamental importance to the protection of individual rights in this country and we try to practise what we preach in that regard. The High Court reforms introduced from April 2005 had the effect of giving judges a greater role in the management of cases. Proposals in the consultation paper "Strengthening Judicial Independence in a Modern Scotland" are also aimed at giving the senior judiciary more responsibility for the disposal of business generally and for the training, welfare, deployment and conduct of the judiciary.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I did not expect the minister to say anything else. Does she agree that the independence of the judiciary is a fundamental principle of our judicial system; that Parliament has responsibility for setting the framework within which judges make decisions about sentencing; and that the public need to believe that the sentence is consistent and commensurate with the crime that has been committed?

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

Karen Whitefield makes a number of valuable points. As Gordon Jackson suggested during this morning's emergency legislation debate, we have to guard against confusing the independence of the judiciary with the responsibilities of the Parliament. It is, of course, Parliament's responsibility to set the framework, but at the end of the day, judges must make up their minds on individual cases based on all the facts that are placed before them. It would be wrong of politicians to interfere in a way that undermines that principle.

Having said that, it is important to recognise that the public want to understand the sentencing framework. They also want to understand why judges have made particular decisions, which is why we have taken steps to ensure that judges are able to explain their decisions.

It is absolutely the case that we agree with the principle of consistency in sentencing, which is why we have asked the Sentencing Commission for Scotland to produce a report on that.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I recognise that the matter of judicial appointments needs to be considered carefully and ultimately legislated on.

However, I draw the minister's attention to the urgency of tackling the problem of mesothelioma sufferers and sorting out their damages claims. Hundreds of people are affected by the condition, but with every week that passes, people are losing their entitlement to receive compensation before they die. When looking at the scheduling of legislation over the coming year, I ask the minister to reconsider the pattern of judicial legislation to see whether we can find a slot for a bill to sort out that problem before next May.

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

As Mr McNulty will understand, I am not in a position today to outline a legislative programme for the coming year. However, he will be aware that mesothelioma sufferers who suffer as a result of the current system, which is not awarding them damages, are of particular concern to me. I give him an assurance that I will look very closely at what it might be possible to do and that I will continue to work with him closely on the matter.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it is making in improving the conviction rates for rape and other sexual offences. (S2O-10240)

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I thank the Solicitor General for her reply to my question. Obviously, it had been lodged before she made her statement yesterday, which I think was welcomed by the whole chamber.

As far as conviction rates are concerned, the Solicitor General acknowledged in her statement that the proposed measures were not a panacea and that rates were affected by many complex factors. Given that acknowledgement, how does the Executive intend to assess the effectiveness of its new proposals with regard not only to individual cases but to the bigger picture over the course of years?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that non-conviction information held by the police should be supplied as part of an enhanced disclosure. (S2O-10169)

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

We must remember that the fundamental principle behind the disclosure process is the protection of children and vulnerable adults. Enhanced disclosures are available only in limited circumstances, including applications for posts that involve working with such groups. As part of the enhanced disclosure process, chief constables have the discretion to provide Disclosure Scotland with relevant non-conviction information for inclusion on a certificate, which allows employers to base employment decisions on conviction and any relevant non-conviction information held by the police.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Does the minister share my concern that non-conviction information—which is quite often referred to as intelligence—has not been assessed by anyone other than chief constables? Does she agree that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, such information should be disclosed to applicants for jobs that involve working with children and vulnerable adults? Will she consider whether disclosing such information to applicants might increase any risks to children and vulnerable adults? Finally, will she think about introducing an appeals mechanism to ensure that this matter is assessed not only by the police?

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

I am glad that Brian Adam recognises that we must do our best to protect children and vulnerable adults. Of course, in the past, there was much criticism that information had not been passed on and therefore did not show up when the relevant disclosure checks were made. If an individual wishes to challenge information on a disclosure certificate, he or she can write to the chief constable, and there are further controls under the Data Protection Act 1998. I know that Mr Adam has written to me on this matter, and I am happy to provide him with full details, which he can pass on to anyone who has a particular concern.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what overarching measures it is using to monitor the effectiveness of its justice policy. (S2O-10175)

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

We are taking forward a programme of widespread reform to our criminal justice system that is aimed at targeting the causes of crime; reducing reoffending; modernising the courts and the legal system; and, ultimately, improving the quality of life of communities across Scotland. The Scottish Executive Justice Department undertakes a full programme of analytical work to evaluate the effectiveness of its policies.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

What other departments and agencies are working with the Scottish Executive to reduce the overall reoffending rate? How are their contributions measured and evaluated, and which of them is making the most significant contribution?

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

Mr Mather has asked a number of questions, and I will do my best to provide a clear response.

We set up the national advisory board on offender management partly to bring together a range of experts with experience of working with offenders. I met the board earlier this week. One of the issues on the agenda was the question of performance management and how we can ensure that not only in Executive departments but in local authorities, health boards and everywhere else, we set targets that are not simply numerical targets for the sake of it but which have some meaning in terms of improving performance.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what security equipment is available to those who have experienced domestic abuse to allow them to remain in their homes. (S2O-10216)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

There is no specific requirement made by the Scottish Executive for the provision of security equipment to those who have experienced domestic abuse. However, significant funding is made available through the community safety award programme and the violence against women fund for use by local partnerships and individual projects, a number of which will make use of personal security equipment such as personal alarms. In addition, there are specific projects that aim to make people's homes more secure.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I am aware of the work by the minister's colleagues to support the establishment of refuges, but on a recent visit to a women and children's unit at West Lothian Council, I was told that if the family home could be made safe, most women would find it easier if they and their children could remain there. Will the minister therefore ensure that local authorities and other agencies are aware of the availability of funds and equipment and, more importantly, that women are aware that that is an option that could be made available to them?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Local authorities have a responsibility to make people aware of what support is available. Presumably, the women that Mary Mulligan identifies have the support of social workers, and it is incumbent on social workers to ensure that the proper information is made available. There should also be close liaison with the police because it is not simply a question of ensuring that appropriate equipment is installed—where a woman is vulnerable and where there is a potential danger, the police should also be notified. There should be close liaison between social work departments and the police, but the women concerned also need to be given advice and information, and the local police should be made aware that there is a potential risk so that they can respond appropriately.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what influence it can have in establishing consistency of sentencing within the judicial process. (S2O-10168)

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

The independence of the judiciary is a fundamental principle of the Scottish legal system and one to which ministers attach great importance. The role of the Executive and Parliament is to establish an appropriate sentencing framework within which the judiciary operates. The Sentencing Commission for Scotland is reviewing the scope to improve consistency of sentencing and expects to report with recommendations by August. I look forward to receiving its report.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I thank the minister for that response and for the response that she gave Karen Whitefield on a similar question. However, the public perception is that there is not consistency in sentencing and in the way in which the judicial process is being advanced. In accepting the independence of the judiciary, I point to the situation within the Scottish Parliament, where we establish rules and regulations with which the judiciary must comply.

What can we do to ensure the justice system has free rein to dispense justice in a way that will receive approval from the public?

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

That was another interesting question from Mr Gallie. I am glad to hear that he supports and upholds the principle of the independence of the judiciary, but as was outlined in this morning's debate, we have to be really careful here. We cannot have independence of the judiciary when we feel like it, but not at other times. We have to be consistent, which is why it is important that Parliament and the Executive work to set the right framework to reassure the public. It is not just about the sentence that is passed in the court; it is also about managing offenders and ensuring that they are less likely to reoffend. That is why we have introduced such a comprehensive package of measures. I look forward to Mr Gallie's support for the measures that we will shortly introduce to deal with a subject that I know is dear to his heart: the ending of unconditional automatic early release.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to change the threshold for access to small claims courts in connection with proposals for the establishment of a European small claims procedure. (S2O-10199)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The European Union's proposals are not yet finalised but, irrespective of those proposals, there is a strong case for increasing the threshold for small claims.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

You're telling me.

Does the minister recall giving me a reply on 11 November 2004 that the Executive intended to raise the threshold above the existing level of £750 "sooner rather than later"? That was 18 months ago. I realise that the Executive is up against the vested interests of the likes of Thomson, but is it not ridiculous that Scottish consumers are still subject to such a restriction? Is it not time that we brought the threshold in Scotland up to what it is in other parts of the European Union, and certainly to what it is in other parts of the United Kingdom?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I cannot disagree with John Home Robertson's view that an inordinate length of time is being taken to resolve the situation. As he knows, it is not simply a question of small claims. Other complicated matters need to be addressed. We have been trying to find a resolution to the matter, and negotiations with a range of organisations have been taking place in order to seek a potential solution. He also knows that the matter has been raised in the Parliament on a number of occasions—indeed, it was raised before I became a minister—but it has foundered on a lack of parliamentary support. However, I cannot disagree with him about the case for change. It should happen, and I will do what I can to move the issue forward.

Enterprise, Lifelong Learning and Transport

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to support the development of marine energy. (S2O-10233)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Executive is currently consulting on changes that might be made to the renewables obligation in Scotland to provide a source of long-term increased funding for wave and tidal schemes. Changes to the renewables obligation will send a strong signal to developers and suppliers that Scotland is the best location for their wave and tidal projects.

We have recently announced £8 million for marine energy developments over the next two years. The money will be used to secure more wave and tidal developments right around Scotland.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I welcome those two practical and sensible ways forward. I invite the minister to join me in welcoming the Scottish Renewables Forum report, which was published this week. It demonstrates that the Executive's target for the percentage of electricity generated from renewable energy will be met three years early and demonstrates the realistic potential for that percentage to rise to more than 50 per cent, with generation coming from a variety of sources, including marine energy.

We have the coastline, the weather conditions and the developed and developing technology. Will the minister assure the Parliament that he is doing all that he can to ensure that the necessary preliminary work is in hand to enable the rapid and continuing expansion of marine energy installations?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I am determined to do everything that I can to make Scotland the renewables powerhouse of Europe. We have incredible renewable resources in Scotland and we have a huge opportunity to become the centre of clean energy in the future. We also have some tremendous companies, which are doing great work on renewables projects.

As the First Minister said earlier, when we originally produced our targets of 18 per cent of Scotland's electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2010 and 40 per cent by 2020, we were criticised and mocked on the basis that that was simply not achievable. Now we are starting to be criticised because that was not ambitious enough. We have made it clear that the target of 40 per cent for 2020, which we introduced only a couple of years ago, should not be seen as a cap. If it is possible to go further, as the forum for renewable energy development in Scotland and the Scottish Renewables Forum are suggesting, we want to help that to be achieved.

We are very determined to do all that we can to support all forms of renewables in Scotland, including solar power, biomass, onshore and offshore wind energy and marine projects. We believe that Scotland can lead the world, particularly with wave and tidal projects, and that our technology can be exported not just to other parts of Europe but around the globe.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister said that we are already ahead of the Executive targets for renewables. As people in too many rural communities know, however, that has been because of the rush to develop onshore wind farms. There are still a huge number of planning applications and public inquiries in the pipeline that remain to be determined. Does the minister agree that it is long past the time for us to start diverting resources and incentives away from onshore wind technology and into marine technology?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

It has always been our intention to ensure that a balance of renewables is promoted. We must see greater momentum in the marine projects that we know about. We want the Pelamis project and other projects around the shores of Scotland as soon as possible. I am confident that, with the incentives that we are currently consulting on, we will have a new renewables obligation in Scotland by April 2007 and we will have the first projects in the water around the shores of Scotland, providing electricity to the grid, by the summer of 2007. That is good news for Scotland and for clean energy, and it is great news for the companies involved and for the economy of Scotland. The jobs that could be created through renewables and clean energy are significant.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

As the minister is keen to do anything to support the development of marine renewables, will he seek full powers over energy development for the Scottish Government? Specifically, will he tell Parliament how soon he expects to see the current Highlands and Islands Enterprise study into the provision of undersea interconnectors to enable energy from marine and land-based renewables from the northern and western isles to reach the urban markets?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Executive has significant powers in relation to renewable energy and it is the Executive that granted the consents for the renewables projects that have taken us so far towards our targets—certainly, for the bigger projects. We want to do more, and the Executive has helped Highlands and Islands Enterprise to fund and promote the study that is now being done. That has been broadly welcomed. I want the whole issue of an offshore grid to be considered carefully, as we will hit grid infrastructure constraints. I would like to see that report in relation to the northern isles as soon as possible.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is satisfied with the effect that the rural public passenger transport grant scheme of the rural transport fund is having on the provision of rural bus services. (S2O-10239)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Yes. More than 400 new and improved rural public transport services have been introduced under the scheme. Those are mainly bus services, although some ferry services have also been supported. Related facilities such as bus shelters have also been provided in a number of areas.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

Does the minister recognise that, although some 30 per cent of households in rural areas have no access to a car, only £6 million—0.6 per cent of the transport budget—goes to the rural transport fund? I welcome the increases that there have been in the budget over recent years. Does the minister agree that lack of access to transport leads to social exclusion and that rural Scotland deserves better bus services, which requires a greater share of Scotland's transport budget?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

As someone who lives in a part of rural and island Scotland, I know that it is not just about bus services. I always work hard with local authorities and other organisations that have a role to play in the provision of bus services, which we ensure through several funding formulas. Mr Ballance will appreciate that the funds to which he refers are not the only investment that we make in rural transport in peripheral areas and across local authority boundaries. Particular forms of finance are provided in those ways. He will know that, in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders, there are 27 community transport projects that are assisted by such schemes. We would be happy to consider, through the national transport strategy, other aspects of the development of the policy. However, at this time, I am focused on ensuring that we achieve the most useful forms of transport investment to make transport provision as accessible as it can be.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Is the minister aware that there is a particular problem in relation to early-morning bus services? I have come across quite a few cases of young people being unable to commute to the nearest town either to partake in further education or to take up a job that has been offered to them. What emphasis, if any, is the minister's department placing on that kind of service, which is vital for the economy and especially for young people who want to get education or jobs?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I agree that the provision of such services is important. The bus route development grant has a mechanism to allow local authorities to access additional funding to provide services that the commercial sector does not currently provide. I would be happy to consider any examples that Mr Morgan has of areas of Scotland where there are gaps in provision. I take his point that, for young people and an active workforce, we need the best possible range of public transport services. Indeed, that is why we have the bus route development grant.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what review its Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department has undertaken of the impact on employment of Scottish planning policy 16 on opencast coal, in light of the comments by the Deputy Minister for Communities at the meeting of the Communities Committee on 9 March 2005. (S2O-10185)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

My colleague the Deputy Minister for Communities has given a commitment to monitor the impacts of Scottish planning policy 16. Impacts are being assessed through the scrutiny of planning applications that are notified to the Executive. I have met industry representatives to discuss those preliminary assessments and other matters, and I am scheduled to meet the Deputy Minister for Communities later this month to consider these issues further.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Since the Deputy Minister for Communities made comments on 9 March 2005 to the effect that if SPP 16 resulted in job losses and a decline in the opencast mining industry, the whole matter would be "put under review", there have been 223 job losses. Between 1 April 2005 and 16 June 2006, 18 miners lost their jobs in New Cumnock, 21 did so in Muirkirk and 23 did so in Cumnock. Across Scotland, 223 miners have been dumped on the dole. Will the minister give a guarantee that the review of SPP 16 that was promised will now be urgently brought forward within a tight timescale? In addition, will he comment on the need to introduce an SPP 16 presumption against consent for any new nuclear power developments?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Minister, I think that we will stick to the opencast coal.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I welcome Mr Sheridan to the debate on opencast coal. It must be a relief from the open warfare that he is considering in the Scottish Socialist Party.

I have been in contact with a number of colleagues in Ayrshire, Fife and Lanarkshire about this matter. I stress that we place great importance on opencast in relation to the creation of local jobs. That is recognised by the explicit confirmation that local jobs should be taken into account by planners when considering whether a proposal offers local or community benefits. There is no equivalent policy in the English guidance.

I am aware of three proposals that have been approved following the publication of SPP 16. That suggests that there is nothing to prevent proposals from going forward if they meet the right local and environmental criteria. However, as I said, I am prepared to keep this commitment under review to ensure that the local jobs that we want delivered are delivered in the opencast mining industry.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

As members will know, I chair the informal all-party coalfields group in the Parliament. I look forward to welcoming Mr Sheridan and his party to their first meeting with that group. Does the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning accept that coal will be vital as part of our energy mix for the foreseeable future, not least for its potential for clean coal technology? Does he further accept that we must do all possible to ensure that indigenous coal is used and produced, while recognising community sensitivities? Will he accept from me an invitation to a future meeting of our coalfields group so that we can discuss this issue in some detail?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Yes, yes and yes. I cannot emphasise enough our commitment to having a diverse range of energy sources to provide for our future electricity-generating needs. I believe that coal will continue to play an important part in the diverse range of supply. I would refer the member to the Executive's response to the United Kingdom energy review, in which we placed great emphasis on the future role of clean coal and, in particular, on our desire to see a clean coal demonstrator here in Scotland. I would certainly be pleased to take up Christine May's invitation to attend the next meeting of the coalfields group.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I, too, welcome Tommy Sheridan's interest in events in my constituency, although I wonder why Rosemary Byrne is not asking the question. Redundancies are happening at sites that have operated for some time in my constituency and they are not related to SPP 16. What steps will the minister take to support the affected workers to secure alternative employment and ensure that, within the coal industry, training is given to allow people to get into other jobs? Furthermore, will he ensure that people do not advance false arguments about serious issues such as redundancy when SPP 16 did not even affect the opencast sites concerned?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The latter point is a very good one and I re-emphasise it. Planning policy is but one matter that companies consider when they decide whether to invest in future employment. There are many more important areas that require their attention, not least contracts for supply to the major electricity generators, which are the primary driver of employment in the industry.

That said, we are not complacent about the impact that planning may have on investment decisions, particularly those that are taken in London on future investment in Scotland. We are raising that matter with our United Kingdom counterparts and we are determined to ensure that coal plays an important part in a diverse range of energy supplies for future electricity generation. I give a commitment that the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department and the enterprise network will engage heavily in helping miners who have been made redundant to find alternative employment if there is no related employment in the coal industry in their areas.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the powers established under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 have been used effectively to improve bus services for passengers across Scotland. (S2O-10209)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 gave transport authorities additional powers to improve bus services in Scotland. After a prolonged period of decline, bus passenger numbers have increased in each of the past six years. The total increase is in the order of 10 per cent. However, more needs to be done and, as part of the consultation on the development of the national transport strategy, I have asked my officials to carry out an overview of bus policy.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

The minister's reply is encouraging. Is he aware of the anxiety that exists across the south of greater Glasgow about access to acute hospital care? Is he also aware of communities such as Uplawmoor in my constituency that have no rail stop and no regular bus service after 6 pm? Does he agree that if we are genuinely to get people out of their cars and allow young and old alike to access the concessionary or free travel that is now available to them, now is the time—with the establishment of the new regional transport partnerships—to push for greater use of the existing regulatory powers or consider further regulation of bus services?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Kenneth Macintosh makes a number of important points. Discussions on the provision of primary care services and their accessibility for local people are taking place with my colleague the Minister for Health and Community Care.

Kenneth Macintosh also made a point about particular services, which was rather like the point that Alasdair Morgan made earlier. We are using and encouraging the use of the bus route development grant scheme, which brings some £22 million into bus services. Local authorities are eligible to make applications to that scheme for particular areas that lack the kinds of service that Kenneth Macintosh described. His point about the importance of regional transport partnerships is good. We hope that, in the local and regional strategies that they will produce later this year, they will emphasise the importance of building bus services that meet local need.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had on whether an institute of life sciences should be established in Scotland. (S2O-10195)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Ministers and officials have had some correspondence and preliminary discussions since 2004 on the concept. The Scottish Science Advisory Committee is currently arranging a further meeting on the matter, which I hope to attend.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

None of the three medical research institutes, in which much of the leading scientific research takes place, is based in Scotland. If established, a Scottish life sciences institute could play a key role in attracting and retaining the best scientists and act as a magnet for scientific excellence. Scotland has extraordinary scientists and clinicians. The institute could help them to achieve the full potential of their talents. Will the minister give a commitment that either he or the First Minister, or preferably both, will meet the Scottish Science Advisory Committee, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and me to discuss the proposal to establish the institute?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am pleased to give the member that assurance. I agree that Scotland has an excellent and internationally renowned life sciences sector. As Mrs Eadie said, we need to do all that we can to build on that. The concept of the life sciences institute is a bit undefined at present and we do not have a clear case for its establishment. However, I would be pleased to meet the member and the advisory committee in due course to discuss the proposals.

Public Service Reform

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a statement by Tom McCabe on public service reform.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Before the minister starts his important statement, I understand that a document was supposed to be available for parliamentarians to view today. I have checked at the back of the chamber, but the document is not there. The statement is about to begin, but we have not seen that document. That does not augur well for a minister who says that he is trying to run the public services.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The minister may be able to roll up that issue in his statement and cast some light on it. The matter is not for me, but for him.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I will deal with Bruce Crawford's point straight away before I come to the body of the statement. I was in a parliamentary lift at about 12.45, accompanied by a gentleman with a trolley that was loaded with copies of that document. The covering pieces of paper said that the document was for the Scottish Parliament information centre, that it related to a ministerial statement and was embargoed until the minister stood up. I assure Bruce Crawford that every arrangement was made to ensure that the documents were transported properly and on time.

The purpose of today's statement is to explain how we will take the next steps towards world-class public services. Public services are central to the well-being of the people of Scotland; they are a lifeline in times of need and a platform on which we can build better lives for ourselves—at some time or another, we all depend on them. Effective public services drive our economy and bind our communities. They should be a statement about the kind of society that we want to be. Our ambition is to create public services in Scotland that are exemplars and that can sustain and inspire our citizens. We do not apologise for seeking the continuous improvement that is necessary to achieve that, because we know that the cost of failing to act now will be met by future generations.

I also know that such ambitions are shared in the Parliament and throughout the public services in Scotland. Reform is required to remove barriers that hinder our ability to deliver effective and efficient public services, but it is also essential to encourage the innovation and excellence that will enable our public services to respond to the changing world in which we live. Just a few weeks ago, the First Minister outlined our Government's futures project and gave us a clear reminder of the pace at which the world is changing through technological, environmental, demographic and social changes. We are in a world of new challenges, but also of new opportunities and a world in which, rightly, the needs and expectations of service users are changing.

If we are to meet rising expectations and cope with the substantial changes that our society will face—whether they are economic or demographic—we must sweep away the obstacles to more cohesive service delivery, no matter what form they take. Many of those challenges and opportunities are faced by other countries throughout the world. I want us to be at the forefront of rising to the challenge, to place Scotland and its citizens in the strongest possible position for the future.

That is why, today, I am publishing a discussion document, "Transforming Public Services: the next phase of reform", which will be followed by a series of dialogue events throughout Scotland. The document sets out what we have achieved so far and raises questions about how we might build on those reforms and drive forward transformational change. I hope that it will provide a helpful basis for discussion among those who use and deliver public services in Scotland. I see this as nothing less than an historic opportunity for communities and those with a stake in their success to help shape the delivery of services that best suit their circumstances. The discussions will focus on generating radical and practical innovations and will further develop, move on and widen the scope of public services. We will take a bottom-up approach to transforming our public services for future generations.

The document covers all public services—local government, health, justice, emergency services, further education, enterprise and more. However, it is not just about the public sector. Reform will include the private and voluntary sectors where they are involved with the delivery of public services.

I make it clear in the document that our approach to the dialogue will be guided by the five principles that the First Minister set out earlier this year. The first is user focus and personalisation, which means putting people at the centre of the design and delivery of public services, enabling them easily to access efficient and effective services, whether attending a doctor's appointment, paying their council tax, meeting the social worker or getting access to the police. We also want to ensure that service users have a real influence over how and where services are designed and delivered.

The second principle is quality and innovation. We want Scotland to be a hothouse of innovation, providing quality and effective services that maximise 21st century opportunities.

The third principle is efficiency and productivity. We will seek new ways to continue to maximise every pound of public money.

The fourth principle is joining up. If we are to organise services around the user, we need to work more closely together. We need to tackle demarcation at every level and remove statutory and cultural obstacles to joint working.

The final principle is accountability. The money that we spend and the services that we provide belong to the people of Scotland. There must be clear and transparent lines of accountability from service delivery to service user.

We will move forward on the basis of those five principles. We will do so in a way that enhances and builds on the progress made in the delivering for health programme; the efficient government initiative; the teachers agreement for the 21st century; the wide-ranging justice reforms; the integration of our tourism networks; the major review of cultural provision; the 21st century social work review and much more.

All that will continue. We want the discussion and dialogue to provide further support and enable the sharing of good practice. From the dialogue, I am confident that we will see substantial changes in how local government organises itself.

Our agenda is much more ambitious than a crude reorganisation. The mistakes of the past were predicated on a vendetta against local government. The successes of the future will be predicated on a comprehensive and objective examination of how all those who serve the public can work smarter together.

It is important to stress that we have engaged in this process not to address a failure in Scottish public services—far from it—but to ensure that their undoubted successes are built on for future generations. We will not drive forward this dialogue with the people of Scotland by prescribing the solutions in advance. Sadly, some have already done so and it will be for them to try to justify their pursuit of a cheap headline.

We will harness the enthusiasm, energy and commitment of thousands of public servants who have been held back for too long. The dialogue that follows the publication of the document will be open and wide-ranging and will enable voices throughout the Scottish public services to be heard. Many thousands of committed public servants strive daily to show initiative and strong leadership. We will create the conditions that will make it easier for them to do so.

Many thousands of service users are frustrated by their inability to further influence the shape of Scottish public services. We intend to provide that opportunity. We have no doubt that the document will tap into the enthusiasm for change that already exists. Just a year ago, many said that innovative projects such as the Glasgow pathfinder project could never come to pass. Many would have said that the type of exciting work in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, or the developments in Stirling and Clackmannanshire on integrated services would never happen. Today, the dynamism of committed public servants and politicians has proved them wrong. Where innovation and lateral thinking raise their head, we are determined to help.

Last week, I announced a review of regulation and scrutiny arrangements to reduce unnecessary burdens and remove barriers to improvement and change. Tomorrow, I will publish the results of our lean project research, which will enable the Scottish public sector to improve performance by taking what is best and relevant from the private sector. As a result of the document and the dialogue process, we will provide further momentum to those and other changes.

That is exactly what devolution should be about. It should enable us to do what is best for Scotland and not to be afraid to think radically. Banning smoking in public places is a good example of Scotland thinking big and of devolution delivering a life-changing policy. Let us embrace the chance to build on the reforms to our health service, courts and education system and reforms elsewhere and truly drive a public services reform agenda that is right for the people and right for the future of Scotland.

I commend the document to members.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The minister will now take questions on issues that have been raised in his statement. I will allow around 20 minutes for questions.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I thank the minister for his statement and for the advance copy of it that he made available to me. I have repeatedly called for the simplification and democratisation of the government of Scotland and for radical change to the quango state, and I welcome the statement as far as it goes. However, having listened to the minister and skimmed through the document, I am left with questions. Why could not the document have been published 12 months ago? Why has the process been dragged out as long as it has?

At a time when Scotland has 32 local authorities, 15 health boards, six police boards, six fire boards, 23 other local authority bodies, 23 national health service bodies, 20 local enterprise bodies, 17 executive agencies and 26 non-departmental public bodies, does the minister not accept that to simplify the government of Scotland and make it easier and more efficient to deliver public services, swifter action and more decisive leadership are required, rather than the more-talk approach that he proposes? Does he accept that the Government that he has supported since 1999 has created seven more non-departmental public bodies, seven more executive agencies, seven regional transport partnerships and eight community justice authorities and that it has expanded the quango state so that it now controls more than 20 per cent of Scottish public spending? Does he accept that employment in that quango state has increased by 40 per cent since the Government came to power? Does he accept that the growing size of the quango state is the responsibility of the Administration? I also ask Mr Kerr that question. Does the minister accept that today's announcement is an admission that Labour and the Liberal Democrats have made government in Scotland more complex and have wasted taxpayers' money that could have been invested in our public services and that the Government, far from delivering the promised bonfire of the quangos, has delivered a bonanza for the quango state?