Scottish Parliament, 22 February 2007

432 contributions from 80 members. The official report.

Official Report 22 February 2007

Road Tolling

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5598, in the name of David Davidson, on road tolling.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

This debate is about Tavish's toll tax. The Scottish Conservatives have secured the debate to provide an opportunity for all MSPs to respond to the well-publicised proposal by the Scottish Executive's Minister for Transport to introduce unique tolls on Scotland's roads at an early date—not that his Executive-approved amendment states that with the same urgency. The Scottish Conservatives have consistently been the only party in Scotland that is against tolls. The revenue-neutral Scottish road pricing scheme proposed by an Executive minister simply cannot happen. It is a fiction.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not at this time.

Tavish Scott's proposal that the United Kingdom Treasury should give up control of fuel duty taxation will not be given serious consideration. Will we really see empty, English-based lorries, buses and cars queuing up at Gretna to fill up on cheap Scottish fuel? The Gretna gas-guzzling congestion that that would cause would have more effect than Hadrian's wall had in the days of the Romans.

Tavish Scott wants Scotland to go it alone on this matter. He wants Scotland to be a guinea pig in an experiment. We Scots do not want that. The tax-raising Liberal Democrats will tax anything—moving or not—from land to carrier bags and from hotel bedrooms to caravans. On top of that, they would foist a 6.5 per cent increase in taxation on households.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention now?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No, thank you.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will he take an intervention at all?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

When the time comes for the minister.

Scotland will not tolerate that any more than it will tolerate the Labour road pricing scheme that is being promoted at Westminster.

This morning, the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland published a paper stating clearly that pay-as-you-go will price Scotland's small businesses off the road, because they do not make unnecessary road journeys—they make journeys only to service their clients and their businesses. The same holds true for other Scottish businesses.

The RAC Foundation for Motoring paper on road charging showed that more than 1.8 million motorists throughout the UK have petitioned the Prime Minister to register their anger about the introduction of road pricing. We Conservatives, too, have successfully launched our own anti-road tolls campaign, at www.scotlandsaysnototolls.com. Most important, though, when asked by the RAC whether the Government would limit its scheme to a handful of the most congested roads, 84 per cent of respondents would not trust the Government to stick to its promise. Motorists believe that road pricing would result in yet another new stealth tax. The Scottish Conservatives see road tolling as a direct hit on the least well-off motorists in Scotland. Those who would be hit are people who live in rural areas and need to get to work, and pensioner householders with limited income, whose only means of transport is the motor car. Let us be honest: Tavish's toll tax, as he has proposed it, would add enormous costs to Scottish business and people in work, as well as to those motorists who, as taxpayers, have already paid for Scotland's roads.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

rose—

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is hypocritical of the Lib-Lab pact and the Scottish National Party to say yes to tolling nationally then to become vehement opponents of the local proposals that they helped to vote for in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. I remind members of that act, and those parties in the chamber that supported it and who then, within weeks—

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

Since we are intent on historical accuracy, am I right in saying that the Tories voted for the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We voted against part 3. Mr Ewing's friend, Mr Crawford, was vehement in his support for part 3, but followed it up with an anti-tolls campaign—I believe that it was in Fife. As far as the Liberal Democrats are concerned, the words "Willie Rennie" and "Dunfermline by-election" should prove my point. Indeed, Alistair Carmichael MP, the Liberals' transport spokesman at Westminster, accused the Prime Minister of a lack of leadership on road tolls. Mr Carmichael stated:

"To convince the public of the case for road user pricing, he must give a guarantee that it will be a different tax, not an extra tax. Taxes need to be greener and fairer, but not higher."

The Tavish tax would be higher. The Liberal Democrats cannot have it both ways. The RAC report indicated clearly that the people do not trust the minister on the issue.

Bruce Crawford said:

"It should be for local authorities to decide, following appropriate consultation, whether schemes are viable and suitable to their circumstances."—[Official Report, 20 December 2000; Vol 9, c 1190.]

Today, however, the SNP amendment makes no mention of the SNP's support for councils setting their own toll charges, nor does it mention removing bridge tolls, which I thought was SNP policy. What are we to believe is the new SNP policy position? No doubt Mr Ewing will enlighten us in due course.

What I find amazing is the direct attack on civil liberties, which appears to be supported by the Scottish Green Party. The Green party clearly supports the principle of the spy in the sky. Where will it end?

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

I am most grateful to the member for finding the time to give way.

On 8 February this year—just a few days ago—Mr Murdo Fraser said:

"If the minister had listened ... he would have heard me saying that we support national road pricing in principle."—[Official Report, 8 February 2007; c 31913.]

Would it be fair for that quotation to appear on the Conservatives' website?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have little doubt that my colleague will respond to that.

As far as I am concerned, if there is a debate it should be a national debate. This morning, Mr Scott should say how he can defend a unique tax on Scotland—a tax that only Scottish motorists will pay, because only Scotland will be the guinea pig. I find it hard to believe that Mr Scott thinks that Scotland is a region of the United Kingdom that is amenable to being a guinea pig.

The Scottish people need to know members' position in the debate. Two parties—Labour and the Liberal Democrats—are in power, and the other—the SNP—has aspirations to be in power. Let us have some honesty. Is it tolls or not? Should motorists pay more? Should Scotland suffer this price of devolution? Will we see encouragement for enterprise and employment, and help for those who rely on the car, or is this simply yet more taxation? This is an opportunity for every member to decide where they stand. Do they want increased taxation on Scottish motorists? If so, they should support Tavish Scott. If they do not, they should join us in the lobby at 5 o'clock and vote against him.

I move,

That the Parliament opposes the introduction of any additional nationwide charges for using Scotland's existing roads and calls for the repeal of Part 3 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

This is a great opportunity to debate the issue. I particularly thank my good friend Fergus Ewing for inviting me so vigorously to join the debate; I did not know he cared. I am genuinely touched by that.

I welcome the opportunity to deal with the scaremongering and utter misinformation from the Tories. Mr Davidson accuses me of proposing a toll tax. Not only do the Tories have form when it comes to poll taxes, but Murdo Fraser's position, as Jeremy Purvis has just shown, is also for a toll tax. That would be Murdo's toll tax. If David Davidson wants to misrepresent my position, I will misrepresent Mr Fraser's position.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Conservative party has never said that it objects in principle to a national road pricing scheme. What differentiates us from the minister is that the minister wants a unique tax in Scotland alone. Is that not his position?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No. That is not my position, but I am very pleased that the Conservatives have put on the record in Parliament their support for road user pricing. We all heard that and it is on the record. The Scottish National Party heard it, the Liberal Democrats heard it, Labour colleagues heard it and even Conservative back benchers—who are a little bit quiet at the moment—heard it.

Let me be crystal clear. Must we tackle congestion on Scotland's roads? Yes. Will Scotland's economy grow if the country's roads are gridlocked? No. Does this Government want higher taxes on motorists? No. Did members hear me? I said no. Will there be a road pricing pilot if that means extra motoring costs with no alternatives? No. Do we need a proper, balanced discussion of the options that are open to the country to tackle those issues? I believe that we do, and I think that Murdo Fraser believes so, too; he admits, and has just confirmed, that his position and that of the Conservatives is to support road user pricing in principle.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No. Mr Davidson did not give way to Mr Rumbles, although he was asked four times to do so. Mr Davidson can hardly expect to jump to his feet now and intervene.

We want to tackle congestion, not to penalise motorists.

I am disappointed but hardly surprised by the Tories' failure to provide any real alternative in their motion. Mr Fraser has once again confirmed that they have such an alternative, which is the debate that the whole chamber wants to have on road user pricing.

We will take the climate change challenge seriously. We will consider using road pricing—with the UK Government and using our devolved powers—as a mechanism to address traffic congestion. The solution to congestion and climate change is not more motoring taxes. People will not accept that, but they will consider a balanced approach. They will consider road user pricing charges if they are balanced by cuts in motoring taxation.

A BBC poll on Tuesday asked what would make road user pricing acceptable. In response, 55 per cent said that it would be acceptable if the money raised was invested in public transport, while 53 per cent said yes to road user pricing if the money raised was used to cut other road taxes. When the Secretary of State for Transport was asked by the BBC on Tuesday whether, in the light of that poll, the UK Government would reduce other road taxes, he said:

"We've said this is obviously an issue we would have to look at in the years before making a decision about a national road-pricing scheme."

I welcome that statement.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

It is meaningless—like Tavish Scott's.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Mr McLetchie can barrack me as much as he likes. Road pricing as a replacement cost, not as an additional cost—as Mr McLetchie tried to say on Radio Scotland; I listened to him carefully this morning—could be a win-win for Scotland. For the avoidance of doubt, I re-emphasise the words "replacement cost", not "additional cost". There is congestion in our cities—I think that most rational people would accept that that is the case—so people need real alternatives to the car.

We are investing record amounts in public transport. We are building new rail lines and investing in the provision of bus and tram services—all of which will help to reduce congestion—and we will invest more. Under road pricing, we can tackle congestion by giving people better public transport choices.

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

The minister will recall the debate in the Parliament on 8 February, during which Murdo Fraser for the Conservatives said:

"indeed, the principle of a road pricing scheme is one that many people in our party find attractive".—[Official Report, 8 February 2007; c 31896.]

Will the minister name those in the Conservative party who are finding it attractive this morning?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

We know that Mr Fraser finds it attractive, but the rest of them are not looking too comfortable at the moment. However, it is not for me to speak for the Conservatives. I am sure that they will provide clarification in the fullness of time.

In rural Scotland, the car is still a necessity, not a luxury, and congestion is not the problem. Therefore, rural motoring should become cheaper under a road pricing scheme. That would recognise that public transport choices are not so readily available.

Mr Davidson raised one fair point, so let me deal with the serious concern that Big Brother would be watching us. Road pricing need not intrude on personal privacy—that would depend on the system that was chosen. There are options that respect personal freedom and which do not track a vehicle's every move. The concerns are legitimate, but those options would not infringe on privacy.

Congestion and the reliability of journey times are increasing problems. In 2005, almost a quarter of all peak-hour journeys in Scotland were reported as being delayed by congestion. Yesterday, we published a report on congestion data. It found that in the most congested parts of the trunk road network, traffic was increasing at one and half per cent per annum, while congestion was increasing at four and a half per cent per annum—that is three times the rate of increase for traffic.

We must look at the options for developing the economy. It is sensible that transport policy considers road user pricing, but above all that must mean that we tackle congestion while not penalising motorists.

I move amendment S2M-5598.2, to leave out from "opposes" to end and insert:

"welcomes the Scottish Executive's massive increase in funding for public transport since 1999; notes the growing problem of traffic congestion in Scotland and the impact this has on the economy and the impact of pollution on health and the environment; notes the lack of an alternative from the opposition parties to tackling congestion; notes that the Executive does not support penalising motorists, and believes that the potential benefits of all new measures to tackle congestion, such as road user charging, need to be fully assessed, tested and evaluated in order to keep Scotland moving."

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

The SNP is opposed to a system of road tolls. Over the past few weeks, a debate has been led by the Prime Minister and by Mr Scott, in which a total lack of any detailed policy has come from either source. The Prime Minister, in response to the 1.8 million people who have signed the online petition, stated that

"stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided."

The Prime Minister does not have a clue what the road pricing policy would mean in practice and the Liberal Democrats, who wish to pilot such a scheme in Scotland, have not begun to spell out what it would mean in practice. The technology and logistical problems cannot be addressed for 10 years, so the policy cannot be introduced for 10 years. I thought that Governments were supposed to govern for the period for which they were elected, not to concentrate on a time five years after that. They may as well pilot space travel for the general public.

The SNP would tackle congestion in practical and effective ways, two of which are spelled out in our amendment. First, we would build on the existing park-and-ride schemes and establish more of them, particularly around cities—around Edinburgh and, in particular, around the ring road. We would also establish park-and-ride schemes at stations. That is happening. Only in that way will we encourage motorists to leave their cars at home.

Secondly, we would encourage flexible working and home working. The total distance travelled on Scotland's roads for the past two years has been 43,000 million kilometres. Some commentators estimate that we could cut between 5 and 10 per cent of that figure if we were to establish effective flexible working and home working. That could lead to between 2,000 million and 4,000 million kilometres of journeys by car being taken off our road. That is a practical and effective measure that we can put in place. That is why the SNP, unlike the Prime Minister, the Executive and the Liberal Democrats, will establish that policy.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I thank Mr Ewing for giving way, unlike the Conservatives. Is he seriously suggesting that the SNP's solution to congestion and the ever-rising number of cars on our roads is more park-and-ride schemes and more flexible working? Is that it?

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

Absolutely not; we want to go further. This evening, I shall travel to Glasgow to speak at a posh dinner. [ Interruption. ] For some reason, minister, I was invited as the keynote speaker. I will be taking the train.

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

Thank you.

I will take the train precisely because, having driven that road many times this year, I know what a problem congestion can be. Part of the problem is the unpredictability—one does not know whether the journey to Glasgow will take about an hour and a half or two or three hours. Therefore, if one has to attend a function or go to a meeting, the train is more effective. That is why the SNP wants to establish the Waverley phase 2 programme, which the Executive has ditched. Experts have established that unless we go ahead with phase 2 of Waverley, our rail system, if all the plans were to go ahead, will be at gridlock very soon—early in the next decade. We want more people to follow my example and take the train. We also want to have more capacity on the train between Glasgow and Edinburgh. In contrast, the Scottish Executive's policy will effectively create gridlock on Scotland's rail system in the next decade at the very time when more drivers will wish to follow my example and take the train.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

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

Do I have time, Presiding Officer?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

If Mr Fraser is very brief.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The SNP's amendment does not delete the part of our motion that calls for the repeal of part 3 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. Do SNP members now accept that they were wrong to support part 3 of that act, and that they were wrong to attack us for opposing it?

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

The SNP is wholly opposed to additional taxation on the roads and to road tolls. When we are in government, we will scrap the Forth road bridge tolls. We are not prepared to allow a piece of legislation to remain on the statute book that could be used to put a charge of £4 or £10 on the Forth road bridge by the back door, as is reported in the Dunfermline papers today. We are not willing or prepared to see that happen, which is why we will support the deletion of that part of the 2001 act.

The Tories gave Scotland the poll tax, and the Liberal Democrats would give Scotland the poll tax on wheels, but the SNP is against Scotland being used as a testing and experimentation ground. I am therefore happy to move the amendment in my name.

I move amendment S2M-5598.1, to insert at end:

"believes further that full fiscal powers should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament in respect of taxation of motorists; notes that levels of taxation levied on motorists by successive Labour and Conservative governments have consistently been, or been among, the highest in Europe; considers that a variety of measures is needed to tackle levels of congestion, including more use of park and ride schemes as well as the use of flexible working and home working, and supports the further expansion of public transport in Scotland to provide people in Scotland with more alternatives to car use."

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As a responsible motorist, I resent the Tories' motion because it ducks the problem of congestion that I, as a motorist, and many others in this country face. In essence, the Tories want to run the economy from a traffic jam and keep Britain gridlocked. I am fed up of sitting in Mr Davidson's traffic jams; I want to get Britain moving again. Perhaps Mr Davidson's real fear is of a toll on bandwagons rather than on motorists.

Mr David Cameron said in 2005:

"Overall, the CBI estimates that the costs to employers of transport congestion are around £20bn a year."

In the same speech, he went on to say:

"Britain now needs ... the introduction of advanced traffic management methods including new solutions for road charging based on usage and the time of day."

That looks and smells like road user charging to me. So there we go—£20 billion a year is the cost to business in the United Kingdom. Every year in which we fail to act on congestion means more money wasted, fewer jobs and a less competitive Scotland.

Those are not the only costs. In 2000, air pollution caused more than 32,500 premature deaths in the UK. There is a public health crisis.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do not have time.

We are faced with two choices. First, there is the predict-and-provide model of trying to build our way out of the 21 per cent increase that was predicted by Audit Scotland. We know that that cannot be done. We cannot go on building bigger capacity, because more trunk roads generate more traffic. Therefore, we are left with the second option of providing alternatives to the car and a sensible system of demand management, investing in public transport, and tackling specific congestion problems with specific schemes.

Spending on the M74 and the Aberdeen western peripheral route will do nothing to get people out of their cars. Railway stations in Fife are abandoned when they could provide alternatives for people crossing the Tay and Forth bridges by car.

The Executive must lead on demand management.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way on the point about the M74?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do not have time.

I want the minister responsible for transport in the next parliamentary session to stand up for congestion charging proposals with a bit of Ken Livingstone's spirit. It does not matter whether that minister is Tavish Scott, Fergus Ewing, Mark Ballard or whoever, support and direction need to be given to the regional transport partnerships to consider what schemes could deliver demand management alongside ring-fenced investment in public transport. If congestion charging is successful in Scotland, as it has been in London, and if it delivers the benefits that people can experience every day on their way to work, it could pave the way towards the introduction of a broader national charging scheme.

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do not have time.

The minister has said that it will be a decade before any national scheme is available. The scheme will require internal tracking devices in vehicles that will be monitored by satellite, and there is no indication that such technology will be available or that it will work. Of course, there are also civil liberties concerns about tracking individual vehicles that need to be tackled.

Now is the time for us to act on tackling congestion, using the tools for congestion charging that are available to us under the transport legislation that is in place. This is not the time to defer action for another decade; it is time to take action.

I move amendment S2M-5598.3, to leave out from "opposes" to end and insert:

"notes that traffic congestion creates a huge burden for society in terms of delays, ill-health and social exclusion; notes that "the CBI estimates that the costs to employers of transport congestion are around £20 billion a year"; recognises that any long-term strategy to reduce congestion and climate changing pollution will require the provision of quality public transport alternatives to car use together with a sensible and appropriate system of demand management; notes the failure of the Scottish Executive to provide leadership over the City of Edinburgh Council's proposal for a congestion charging scheme and the Executive's plans for massive investment in new road capacity; notes that new road capacity has been shown to generate more traffic; notes that studies indicate that the introduction of nationwide road pricing is at least 10 years away; therefore calls on ministers to work with regional transport partnerships to consider the introduction of congestion charging and smart charge schemes at specific pinch points and congested areas of the road network, and believes that, in the immediate term, the Executive must reallocate funding for new road schemes to invest in public transport and cancel plans for new trunk roads that will generate increased traffic such as the M74 extension and the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route."

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Today's debate, initiated by the Tory group of MSPs, is surely one of the most blatantly opportunistic attempts at populism that we have seen in this Parliament—and that is saying something. However, the attempt is doomed to failure because, in their opportunistic rush, the Tories have failed to take into account the public statements made by their own national leadership.

The Scottish Tories ask the Parliament to oppose the introduction of any additional nationwide charges for using Scotland's existing roads. I have checked out the new petition on the Tories' website and, interestingly, it quotes several politicians, including the Prime Minister, the First Minister, and the Secretary of State for Transport. Strangely, it does not quote any of the senior Conservatives at Westminster who have spoken on the issue.

To be helpful to Conservative members, I found a few of those quotations. Mark Ruskell has just used one of them, but it is a good quote, so it is worth using it again. A certain David Cameron MP said:

"Britain now needs a concerted programme of road building"—

I do not think that Mark Ruskell would agree with that aspect of the quotation, which goes on —"accompanied by the introduction of advanced traffic management methods".

The Tories should listen carefully to the next part of the quotation, which makes reference to

"including new solutions for road charging based on usage and the time of day."

Beyond that, a certain George Osborne MP said in December:

"we are sympathetic to the concept of road pricing".

He was followed by Chris Grayling MP, who wrote in Local Transport Today:

"Demand management is an option and we will look very seriously at road pricing."

I do not think that the voting public will be fooled by the Tories' duplicity and the Tories will be rejected again in May.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

What does the Labour Party say?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

The Labour Party's position is to—

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I am setting out the position—I do not know why Tory members are surprised about that.

The Labour Party's position is to take congestion and its consequent impacts on the economy and the environment as serious issues that require serious consideration.

First, we seek to alleviate congestion, particularly in and around Scotland's major cities, through an ambitious expansion of public transport projects, and by giving the travelling public alternatives in going about their daily lives. Capacity has expanded on several main commuter lines including the Fife circle, Bathgate to Edinburgh, Dunblane to Edinburgh and the key Edinburgh to Glasgow service. As a result of that extra capacity and the recent economic growth, the number of rail passengers has grown by almost 50 per cent in the past 10 years.

There has been investment in a number of important bus projects including park-and-ride and concessionary fare schemes. Although the long-term decline in bus usage has been arrested and there have been increases in usage in some recent years, buses are still carrying 6 per cent fewer passengers than they were 10 years ago. However, buses can probably play a big role in the alleviation of congestion in the years ahead.

We are developing and implementing ambitious plans, including the Edinburgh and Glasgow airport rail links, the reopening of the Airdrie to Bathgate railway line, the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line and the Edinburgh trams. Of course, this is where SNP members' inconsistency lets them down. They talk about public transport being part of the solution to congestion, but they show lack of support and ambition by withdrawing their support for EARL and the Edinburgh trams. That shows that they are inconsistent and duplicitous on the issue of transport.

If we look to the future, the trend is still towards increased congestion, even with our investments in public transport. If we want to continue our economic growth as well as reduce our carbon emissions, we have to consider other issues. Part of that is the debate on the role of motoring taxation. If we are to debate the adoption of a charging system for road use in the future, we should consider that along with all the existing forms of motoring taxation and ensure that any new form of taxation is fair to motorists, contributes to tackling congestion and allows the UK and Scottish economies to grow.

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

Will the member give way?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I am sorry, but I was given only four minutes.

I believe that the Executive's amendment strikes the right balance between looking to the long term and making investment here and now to give people genuine opportunities. We should reject the Tory motion and the shallow and inconsistent opportunism that it represents.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I do not know what it is about boys and cars—there should be a testosterone tax. I may be wrong, but I think that I will be the only woman to speak in the debate.

I was one of the 1.8 million people who signed the e-petition to which Tony Blair responded. In his response, he says that road pricing is "a complex subject" and that we need

"a full and frank debate".

We have been here before. We have had full and frank debates about Trident and nuclear power when the Prime Minister had already made up his mind—their purpose was to soften up the electorate for decisions that had already been made. Even when Blair gets a response, as was the case with Iraq when it was discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction and we went to war anyway, we know what his position is. No one is fooled—a full and frank debate is being held just to soften up the electorate.

Douglas Alexander, who is a self-confessed disciple of Margaret Thatcher, has made clear his support for the proposed tax. Together with his unlikely lieutenant Mr Rumbles, the Government's Minister for Transport, Tavish Scott, wants to pilot the idea in Scotland. Good grief. What an image. Who would want to board a plane that had Tavish Scott at the controls with Mike Rumbles navigating?

I will be fair by contrasting what Tavish Scott says as a Liberal Democrat with what he is allowed to say as a Government minister—we all know that he is two-hats Tavish. As Liberal Democrat transport spokesperson, he said:

"we would replace Brown's blunt motoring taxes with a fairer UK-wide scheme"—

I did not know that he was standing for Westminster—

"which does what it is meant to—tackle congestion and meet ... climate change."

The Liberal Democrats cannot do that, of course. Their amendment says that such schemes

"need to be fully assessed, tested and evaluated in order to keep Scotland moving."

That is typical Lib-Dem speak. As a Government minister, Tavish Scott cannot advocate the measures that he proposes as Liberal Democrat transport spokesperson. The Lib Dems are in Government, but at the same time they are not really in Government. Why the Labour Party lets them get away with it after what happened in the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election is a mystery to me. I do not know what dark secrets they hold that allow them to keep Labour in its place.

I thought that I was already paying a road tax through my fuel duty and my car tax. When the fuel tax escalator was first introduced, it added 3p to the price of a litre of fuel and tax accounted for 72.8 per cent of the total cost. That figure has risen to 81.5 per cent. People who live in rural parts of the Borders pay far more than others pay for petrol. The minister said that the proposed new tax will not impact on rural areas because there is no congestion, but that is not true. People who live in rural areas have to use motorways to commute to hospitals in central locations, so they will have to pay the new tax. We are talking about a triple whammy.

It will be interesting to find out what happens when the real consultation takes place on 3 May, when voters in the Scottish Borders and other rural areas at last have the chance to get shot of the hypocrital Liberal Democrats who stand on one corner and say one thing then stand on another corner and say something else. I urge Labour members to come out of their shells and have a go at the Liberals; they know perfectly well that the Liberals are seeing them off day after day on television and in the newspapers. Tavish Scott has been found out—he cannot hide under his Viking hat any longer.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The Liberal Democrats are against further taxation—[ Interruption. ]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Order.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The Liberal Democrats are against further taxation. I could go on repeating that line for the next four minutes because some members refuse to listen. If they listen, they might learn something. We are against further taxation, we are in favour of fairer taxation and we are in favour of environmental taxation. Unlike the Tories—such as Murdo Fraser and David Davidson, who are sitting beside each other—who are all over the place on the issue, we believe that engagement in the debate offers a great opportunity to rebalance the way in which we tax our motor vehicles. We want to move away from vehicle excise duty and fuel duty and to reconfigure the money that the UK Government receives, so that more of it comes from a tax on congestion. The Liberal Democrats support that move on the condition that it must be made on a revenue-neutral basis.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Rumbles has been careful to stress that the Liberal Democrats' proposal should be adopted on a revenue-neutral basis. However, all the estimates suggest that the set-up costs of a national road pricing scheme would run into hundreds of millions of pounds. How can it be revenue neutral? Who will pay the cost? Is not it the case that there will have to be an additional tax to pay the running and set-up costs?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I can do no better than to quote a certain Murdo Fraser, who said:

"If the minister had listened to my speech, he would have heard me saying that we support national road pricing".—[Official Report, 8 February 2007; c 31913.]

Two weeks is a long time in politics, so Murdo Fraser might have changed his mind since then.

Congestion charging must not be implemented as a money-making exercise for the Government. To put it simply, the great British public does not trust the Government in London to deliver such a revenue-neutral scheme. They do not trust Gordon Brown to alter our taxation system in a fair way. They view the whole debate as being a prelude to a money-making exercise by the Government. While we are on the subject, let us remember that it was the Conservative party that introduced the fuel tax escalator, so let us hear no more of its opposition to such proposals.

Reference has been made to the 1.8 million people who registered their protest about road pricing on number 10's website. I am not surprised by that. It is a manifestation of how unpopular our UK Government is—people do not trust it.

Few people, other than Conservatives such as David Davidson, dispute the need to slow the rate of increase of the number of cars on our roads and of car use in order to combat climate change and to end the worst congestion in urban areas. The Liberal Democrats suggest a system of fair road pricing which, if it were implemented properly, would provide a win-win situation for urban and rural motorists alike.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I know that Mike Rumbles is a stickler for Liberal Democrat policy. One of the sad aspects of my recent illness was that I spent time reading other parties' policy documents. I read the Liberal Democrats' policy document 75, which is about fairer, simpler and greener taxes. It provides a comprehensive explanation of the Lib Dems' tax position. Does it remain Lib Dem policy?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I listened carefully to what the member said, but I am afraid that he must contribute to the debate.

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

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I have given way several times already. [ Interruption. ]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Mr Ewing, please.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

We favour a system that makes road use more expensive where it needs to be more expensive—in our congested urban areas—and less expensive in our non-congested largely rural areas. That would represent a win for our rural motorists who need to drive, because the cost of driving would be reduced, and a win for our urban motorists, who could drive on less congested roads.

There are concerns about the attachment of satellite navigation tracking devices to our cars, which could allow Big Brother to watch our every move. The Liberal Democrats support the development and trialling of a far less intrusive passive technology system for road pricing.

The solution to ever-increasing congestion on our roads is a fair system of road pricing. The problem is that people do not trust the present UK Labour Government to proceed with road pricing on that basis. We have to take people with us on this. [Interruption.]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Order.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

We must persuade people that we can have a system of road pricing that is fair to all. That is why I am heartened by the BBC poll that shows that 53 per cent of people would back the Liberal Democrats' proposal if it resulted in other taxes being cut. Most people support what we advocate. We want to tackle congestion, but we do not want increased taxation; we want fair taxation.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Two years ago this month, the citizens of Edinburgh voted in a referendum on a proposal from the Labour-led City of Edinburgh Council to introduce a congestion charging scheme. The statutory powers to introduce such schemes were, of course, conferred on Scottish councils by part 3 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001—a measure that was supported in Parliament by Labour, Liberal Democrat and Scottish National Party members; that part of the bill was opposed only by the Scottish Conservatives. With that backing, the City of Edinburgh Council pressed ahead with its scheme and £9 million was spent on propaganda to persuade people in Edinburgh that congestion charging would be good for them. Tens of thousands of people were denied the right to vote in the ballot because they were not on the register that was used for that purpose, and the question that was asked conspicuously failed to meet the tests that have been laid down by the Electoral Commission for framing referenda questions. Despite all the efforts to bully, cajole and con people in the city into supporting the congestion charging proposal, the people of Edinburgh said no by a margin of nearly three to one.

One would expect that, in the face of such overwhelming evidence of the unpopularity of the proposition, the Government would listen to the voice of the people and direct its energies at other ways of managing traffic on our roads. Not a bit of it. Let us fast-forward a year and consider the proposition that a variable tolling regime should be introduced on the Forth road bridge. In April 2005, through his officials, the then Minister for Transport, Liberal Democrat Nicol Stephen, instructed the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, or FETA—it sounds like a cheese but it is a transport authority—to replace the current flat-rate toll with a road user charging scheme. Being the good little quango that it is, always obedient to ministerial commands, FETA duly produced a very sophisticated road pricing scheme for the bridge.

By that time, Mr Tavish Scott was in post as Minister for Transport and Telecommunications and Nicol Stephen had moved on to higher obscurity. More significantly, and sadly, the untimely death of Rachel Squire MP led to the Dunfermline by-election. Surprise, surprise—the Liberal Democrats suddenly flip-flopped, just as they had in the Edinburgh congestion charging referendum. Notwithstanding the fact that it was their minister who had ordered FETA to produce a road pricing scheme, opposition to that scheme became the centrepiece of the Liberal Democrats' campaign in the by-election. The rest is history. Mr Scott went into hiding for four weeks and the Liberal Democrats made fools of the Labour party.

After those two results on either side of the Forth estuary, one would have thought that would have been that. Not a bit of it. Having come out of hiding—albeit now disguised with a beard—Mr Scott decided that it was time for the smack of firm Government. Emboldened by support for road pricing being voiced by the Labour Government at Westminster, Mr Scott finally swallowed the brave pill and said that we needed to make road charging happen more quickly in Scotland. Apoplexy reigned.

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

Will David McLetchie give way?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I am sorry, but I am enjoying this.

The First Minister went spare. In a response to Annabel Goldie last week, he said that the Scottish Executive would not support any pilot scheme in Scotland. However, if we examine the text of the Executive's amendment we see that, instead of ruling out in straightforward terms any suggestion that Scotland should trial such a scheme, the amendment says simply that new measures such as road-user charging

"need to be fully tested ... and evaluated in order to keep Scotland moving."

That contrasts with the straightforward assertion in our motion that there should be no additional charge on Scotland's motorists for using our roads. What could be simpler than that, and why cannot the Executive say it? The problem with any scheme of assessment, testing or evaluation is simple: Where will such testing and evaluation take place and who will be the guinea pigs? Perhaps we will be told that in the course of the debate—Mr Rumbles might care to volunteer his constituents in West Aberdeenshire.

As roads are clearly a devolved responsibility, we assert the right of the Scottish Parliament to say no to tolls in Scotland and to make an unambiguous statement to that effect to any United Kingdom Government, by virtue of the Sewel convention. We, in Scotland, can and should say no to road tolls. They are a regressive tax that would place further burdens on our motorists, who already pay the highest fuel tax in Europe—which, in itself, is a form of road pricing. The Scottish Conservatives have said no, no and no again in Parliament for the past eight years. None of our opponents can claim the same consistency. On 3 May, voters in Scotland will have an opportunity to stop the tolls at the polls—it is an opportunity that they should seize with alacrity.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

When I have foreign guests to stay with me in Edinburgh, they often ask two questions. First, why is congestion on the roads in the UK so bad? Secondly, why is our public transport system so poor? I reply that they have, in fact, answered the questions. We need to deal with congestion because of the impact that it has on our economy, on health, on social exclusion and on the climate.

As Mark Ruskell laid out clearly, we cannot build our way out of congestion. The only way to tackle congestion is investment in public transport together with demand management. I thought that the message was getting through to the Conservative party that we need a system of demand management. I had thought that was why, on 8 February, we heard about Murdo Fraser's support for it. We have heard the quote from David Cameron, giving his support for it, and Chris Grayling MP, the Westminster Conservative transport spokesperson, has said that

"the Conservatives are looking at road pricing options to come up with something more sensible than anything the Government is currently putting forward."

That is the challenge for the Conservatives, and that is what I hoped that the debate would be about—the Conservatives' more sensible approach to demand management.

What is the Conservatives' more sensible approach? It is to say that we are never going to have demand management in Scotland. What absolute nonsense. If the Conservatives say that they want a more sensible scheme of demand management, they should come forward with it instead of giving us this nonsense about being able to tackle congestion without demand management. As has been said, it is nothing more than an attempt at a pre-election bribe. The Conservatives are telling people what they would like to hear, not the truth about how we must tackle congestion.

I welcome Tavish Scott's support for demand management, I welcome Bristow Muldoon's genuine commitment to the expansion of public transport and I welcome Fergus Ewing's support for park-and-ride schemes, home working schemes and the upgrading of Waverley station. However, I would say to Fergus Ewing that, without demand management, although investments can be made and there can be park-and-ride schemes, we will not do anything to bring down the huge increase in traffic and congestion.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Is Mark Ballard saying that, as far as the Greens are concerned, access to the roads should be rationed according to people's ability to pay?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

We will have to ration access to roads, and that will be done either through queuing and congestion—which is what the SNP's proposals would lead to—or through a sensible system that deals with congestion where it occurs. More queues is not a solution to congestion.

Although I welcome Tavish Scott's commitment to demand management, I point out that the Government cannot do that at the same time as it is pouring billions of pounds into new road schemes. There is a massive contradiction in that. We know that more roads like the M74 and the Aberdeen western peripheral route will generate more traffic, so that cannot be a solution.

On local congestion charging schemes, Mark Ruskell was right to say that a decade will pass before there is a national system. That is why we must support brave councillors such as those in Edinburgh who promote congestion charging schemes. It is why we must support FETA when it proposes a system of smart tolls to end the ridiculous situation whereby a heavy goods vehicle is charged less than a bus is charged to cross the Forth bridge.

Ultimately, it comes down to what is stated in the Eddington report. Rod Eddington is no great friend of the environment movement, but he has stated:

"Climate change demands a different policy context for transport decisions: prices must reflect the true costs to the environment"

and to society. That is what it comes down to. We need a sensible system of demand management and we must build better public transport. We must end the idea that we can build our way out of congestion and we must reject the Tory nonsense about being able to tackle congestion without demand management. I urge members to support the amendment in my name.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

When the great Mahatma Gandhi visited Britain in the 1930s, a journalist asked him what he thought of western civilization. He replied that he thought that it would be a very good idea. I feel the same about an integrated transport system. It would be a very good idea.

Honestly, no party can yet claim to have developed a mix or balance of transport policies that includes, crucially, a role for the private car. The public will never accept any national transport strategy that does not include a role for the private car.

The Greens and their pressure group friends are anti-car, although certain rural-based Green MSPs—realistically, but perhaps hypocritically—sometimes use cars. In fact, the Greens are against all roads. That is bad news for buses and for the vans and lorries that service most of our economy.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I have just made a speech in favour of a sensible system of road pricing, so how can Charlie Gordon say that I am against roads?

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Listen and you will learn.

It is true that, unlike railway passengers, motorists in the UK do not pay the full economic costs of their road use if we factor in the costs of congestion, pollution and accidents. Technical innovation could mitigate traffic emissions, but traffic congestion is a different challenge. That is the main focus of today's debate.

However, we need to keep congestion in perspective. Apart from known pinch points such as the Forth road bridge, congestion in Scotland is mainly an urban problem. Even then, 60 per cent of commuter journeys every morning into central Glasgow are by public transport. That is what happens even under the unregulated system that the Tories left us with.

Untrammelled car commuting into city centres is unsustainable, so the urban dimension of tackling traffic congestion requires a range of responses. We need to encourage people to work from home, to walk, cycle or take public transport to work or to park and ride to work. We can also regulate the price of city-centre parking, which is the main demand management tool that is used by Glasgow City Council. Of course, local authorities also have the power, which Parliament granted under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, to introduce congestion charges. That approach was tried by the City of Edinburgh Council.

In my view, Glasgow City Council is right to set its face against congestion charging. The city is served by the UK's second-largest public transport system. The price of parking in the city centre allows servicing of offices and shops while the all-day parker—that is, the car commuter—is priced out. Glasgow has a motorway through its centre, so a purely local scheme of congestion charging is pointless. In addition, a Glasgow congestion charge would give a competitive advantage to out-of-town shopping malls, which offer free car parks.

Most of the components of an integrated transport system are actually to hand in Scotland. Most important, there is an on-going commitment to investment in public transport by the Labour-led Executive. Spending on transport has increased to £1.6 billion from its very low base of £300 million, although I accept that we need more investment.

We can get there if we benchmark ourselves against best practice elsewhere. Since 1990, I have looked at traffic and transport systems in some 40 cities in Europe and North America. None of them had a congestion charge, but they all had world-class public transport systems. The best of them had ring roads to keep through-traffic out of the city centre. That is what the completion of the M74 will do for Glasgow and it will also fulfil national objectives. That is why we will not negotiate its cancellation under any circumstances.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

We have had a very enjoyable debate this morning. It is clear that members have engaged with the subject not merely in a light-hearted way but with some seriousness.

It is a great pity that Mr Gordon's very sensible speech is unlikely to be appreciated by the current leadership in his party. He gave a sensible analysis of the situation as we find it today and of what realistically we need to do if we are to solve some of the problems. On ring roads, I agree with him that the Greens do a great disservice to themselves and to the electorate by their absolute opposition to any kind of new road building.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

They propose a horse-and-cart economy.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Indeed. We cannot ignore the fact that the internal combustion engine exists and that people have the right to choose to use it.

Where we have difficulties is with managing demand. Demand management is a nicer way of referring to road user pricing, road user charging and road tolls, levies or taxes. Currently, motoring is probably more heavily taxed in the UK than it is anywhere else in Europe. That is perhaps why, as Mr Rumbles so eloquently put it, there is no trust in the Labour Government. The Government has used a series of such indirect taxes—stealth taxes—to finance its plans.

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

Does the member agree that the debate on congestion pricing was perhaps started about 10 years ago when Alex Salmond criticised the Government by saying:

"If they had any imagination, the Government would think carefully about congestion pricing."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 23 January 1995; Vol 253, c 101.]?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

We all need to think about how we deal with congestion. If the only solution to congestion is to regulate demand through pricing, we are in considerable difficulty. We will never persuade the public that we are serious about tackling congestion and that we are not just adding more taxes. The problem with the way in which the debate has been conducted at national level is that people no longer trust the Government because there has been a heavy shift towards indirect taxes, especially motoring taxes. That has happened especially during the time since Mr Salmond made that point. As my colleague Christine Grahame rightly said, in recent times fuel duty has risen, as a percentage of the overall cost, from the low 70s to the low 80s.

The SNP has suggested a number of measures that can be taken now that involve greater commitment to public transport. We have taken the hard decisions on the capital investments that need to be made to encourage improvements in our public transport system. In particular, we believe that we need significant investment in Waverley station. Phase 2 at Waverley is absolutely crucial for ensuring that we can provide the trains to which our Green friends referred. If more people are to be able to get access to Edinburgh and Dundee from Fife, we can provide that only by increasing the number of paths that are available so that we have a genuine increase in the provision of public transport.

The amendment in the name of Fergus Ewing offers a sensible approach, which I will support at 5 o'clock.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The executive director of the RAC Foundation for Motoring wrote the other day:

"Parliament is right to debate road pricing. Our research shows that motorists accept the principle that it could be fairer to pay for the roads according to the amount of time spent driving in congestion rather than the current system of taxing fuel and vehicle ownership. But the government needs to change the way the debate is presented."

In fairness, the reference is to the United Kingdom Parliament, but we should have no less a debate here in the Scottish Parliament.

I thank those members—notably Charlie Gordon and, in fairness, Brian Adam—who have entered today's debate with a positive spirit. The only party that has not been up for the debate is the Conservative party, because, as Mark Ruskell rightly said, it simply wants to jump on an anti-toll bandwagon. However, I will point out its hypocrisy in a moment, when I quote what all its spokesmen have said on the subject.

Mr Ewing pointed out a number of alternatives to our scheme, which I thought were rather modest. However, I thank him for his praise of First ScotRail, which I will be sure to pass on. Mr Ewing makes the right decision about transport choices in taking the train to Glasgow. Of course, under the Liberal Democrat-Labour Government, the number of rail passengers has risen by 28 per cent, and investment in rail has been and will continue to be considerable.

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

Does the minister agree that the problem is that unless we go ahead with phase 2 of the Waverley improvements, which the Executive used to support, we will not see the increase in the hourly paths maximum from 28 to 32 that is essential if we are to have expansion, more rail routes and more frequent routes in the next decade?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I strongly believe in expansion, as Mr Ewing knows. The strategic projects review gives us the opportunity to consider those issues carefully—Mr Ewing shakes his head, but it does—and it will happen, because of the timing issues. We have been over those issues in recent times and I am sure that we will go over them again.

Jeremy Purvis quoted Alex Salmond from 1995. The point is that, since 1995, congestion has got worse, our climate change challenges have increased and petrol prices have risen, mostly because of the Tory fuel tax escalator—that is why Alex Salmond was right in 1995.

I want to ensure that I quote Mr Ewing accurately, when he said in The Herald on 20 February that road pricing was "plainly a possible system". I agree with Mr Ewing, so I hope that we can have a reasoned cross-party debate.

Christine Grahame made a good knockabout speech that was great fun, but I will make two points about it. First, the SNP and Christine Grahame in particular are against the Edinburgh airport rail link, so she would deny the people whom she represents in Edinburgh and the Borders the opportunity to get to Edinburgh airport by train.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No. Those of us who have argued strongly for EARL believe that it will be a great improvement for Scotland. Although the SNP used to support the proposal, it is now against it. We will take no lectures from Christine Grahame about that.

My other point—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We support a rail link to the airport, but not the Executive scheme.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Stewart Stevenson has not been here for the debate, so why does he not be quiet?

Rightly and fairly, the First Minister is asked every week about matters that are the responsibility of his Government, but the SNP also asks about matters that are not his responsibility. The suggestion that I cannot have a view about powers for this Parliament is absolutely ridiculous.

I say to the Tories that they should be careful what they say about e-mails and petitions. I am grateful to The Sun newspaper for the following quotes. Quite fairly, that paper has been keen to ensure that my e-mail address is in the public domain rather more than it might have been otherwise. I received two messages from a gentleman called Frank—it would not be fair to give his e-mail address, although I have it here. In his first message, on 20 February, he said:

"Hopefully the whole country will see that it's another tax-raising idea—as if we haven't been taxed enough."

He e-mailed me back the very next day to say:

"Apologies for my email yesterday, I take back everything I've said. I based my opinion on a biased media article."

Come on, the Tories, we need to get some real analysis into the debate.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I will come to Murdo Fraser in a minute. Many members, including Charlie Gordon and Mark Ruskell, referred to some real analysis, but let me deal with the Tories. I thought that there was a bit of back-bench Tory rebellion on the matter—Annabel Goldie kept her head down, but David McLetchie ripped up Murdo Fraser's policy.

It is important to examine the views of David Cameron, to whom Bristow Muldoon rightly referred, Chris Grayling, George Osborne and, of course, the deputy leader of the Scottish Tories. I will put their words firmly on the record. Let me start with the former Prime Minister John Major, who I note represented his party last night as Margaret Thatcher's bronze plaque was unveiled in the members lobby in the House of Commons.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It was a statue.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I do apologise—it was a statue. How could I have made that mistake?

John Major said in 1994:

"I do not expect to have people dancing in the streets in delight at the concept of road pricing but if you look at the environmental problems, you can see the impetus behind the policy and the necessity."

Chris Grayling said just a couple of months ago:

"I do think that an element of road pricing and the increased use of road charges will be a part of the strategy of any future Government".—[Official Report, House of Commons, 5 December 2006; Vol 454, c 223.]

I liked the other Chris Grayling quote from 6 April last year:

"I've said very clearly I regard Conservative transport strategy for the next three years as being pretty much a blank sheet of paper."

Murdo Fraser has rewritten that strategy.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Can we just get some clarity here—is it or is it not the policy of the Scottish Executive that we need to make road pricing happen more quickly in Scotland than in the rest of the UK? Yes or no?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No, it is not. As I said at the outset of the debate, and as I repeat now, road pricing can work only if there are alternatives and not just increasing motoring taxation. I thought that I made that position absolutely clear at the start of the debate. I have made it clear again now.

Murdo Fraser had a good try at deflecting me from Tory quotes, which is fair enough. I have a quote from David Cameron, who Bristow Muldoon mentioned, but I will finish with Murdo Fraser. I apologised for my intervention on his speech a couple of weeks ago—[Interruption.] We will be interested to listen to his speech in a moment. He said:

"If the minister had listened to my speech, he would have heard me saying that we support national road pricing in principle."—[Official Report, 8 February 2007; c 31913.]

Let us have clarity now about the Tories' and Murdo Fraser's toll tax.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The background to this debate, as we know, is the 1.8 million objections on the Downing Street website to the road pricing scheme proposed by number 10 and Douglas Alexander.

We lodged the motion for this morning's debate in the hope that we would get some detail from the Minister for Transport, Tavish Scott, and the Liberal Democrats, in the form of Mr Rumbles, on exactly what they propose, but not a word of detail did we hear. Even when I challenged Mike Rumbles with a simple question about the cost of the proposed scheme and how it would be implemented, he could not answer. Mr Rumbles said that people were queueing up behind the Liberal Democrat scheme. If he had only looked over his shoulder at the Labour benches, he would not have seen a single person nodding in support of what he had to say.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Is the member aware that, according to a BBC poll, 53 per cent of the British public support the Liberal Democrat position? We have to address the issue, which has to be revenue neutral. The proposed scheme is well supported.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As the RAC Foundation for Motoring poll found, nobody believes the Government when it says that the scheme will be revenue neutral, and I do not think that we can trust what the Liberal Democrats say on the matter.

As Christine Grahame said in an eloquent contribution, like the rest of the country, Labour members are fed up with the duplicity of the Liberal Democrats. They are pro bridge tolls in Edinburgh and anti bridge tolls in Dunfermline. Despite this debate, we are none the wiser about whether we are talking about a Liberal Democrat or a Scottish Executive proposal.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Will Mr Fraser give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will make some progress and then give way. Tavish Scott said about road charging in an interview published on 7 February:

"We need to make it happen more quickly in Scotland".

On 13 February, a Scottish Executive spokesman told that fine organ, the Daily Mail:

"The Transport Minister is in favour of the introduction of road user charging as a way of combating congestion. This should be done as part of a UK approach."

Then, on 15 February, Annabel Goldie challenged Jack McConnell at First Minister's question time about whether it was the official policy of the Lib-Lab pact to make road charging happen more quickly in Scotland. The First Minister said no.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will give way in a second. Now, we see the minister's amendment, on behalf of the Executive, the end of which states that the Executive

"believes that the potential benefits of all new measures to tackle congestion, such as road user charging, need to be fully assessed, tested and evaluated in order to keep Scotland moving."

What is the policy?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

When looking at the timing of such issues, it is important that Mr Fraser reads out the full quotes, which, as usual, he did not. If he believes what he reads in the Daily Mail , he is a better man than I am.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I do not read the Daily Mail , so if that is what it said, that is what it said.

I set out our position at the beginning of the debate and in response to an intervention from Mr Fraser. However, we now need some clarity from the Tories. Does Murdo Fraser support David McLetchie's position or not?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Scott cannot get away with denigrating a fine publication such as the Daily Mail . I was simply quoting what an Executive spokesman told the newspaper, not the spin that it might have put on such a statement.

We know that the amendment is simply a fudge to protect the Executive, as does everyone else. Indeed, it is perfectly clear from the demeanour of the Labour members sitting behind the minister that they know it too.

Despite the denials, we have learned this morning that Tavish Scott wants Scotland to go it alone. Such a proposal is ludicrous, because it would require the devolution of fuel duty and road tax to Scotland and the implementation of border controls to prevent people from down south from driving to Scotland to fill up on duty-free petrol. It would turn Gretna into the biggest petrol station in Europe.

I want to deal with the issue that has been exercising the Liberal Democrat members all morning: my own party's position on the matter. We have never said that, in principle, we would oppose an affordable and workable national road pricing scheme. However, as David Cameron, Chris Grayling and I have said all along, none of the current road pricing proposals is acceptable or workable. We simply cannot go down that road at this stage—unlike the Liberal Democrats, who, despite the fact that Tavish Scott's proposals do not meet any of the criteria, are determined to push ahead with the policy.

We do not support tolls, because they are a regressive tax and, despite what Mike Rumbles says, they are not revenue neutral. They would involve huge set-up costs that would have to be paid for. If there was a resulting fall in the tax take and therefore in income to the Exchequer, the motorist would have to pay higher costs.

In fact, no one believes the Government's claim that such tolls are revenue neutral. For example, in its poll, the RAC Foundation for Motoring asked the simple question:

"Research has found that the majority of motorists would support tolls on 10% of the most congested roads provided that there was a reduction in fuel duty. How confident are you that the Government would stick to this promise?"

Zero per cent of respondents said that they were "Very confident", 16 per cent were "Fairly confident", 49 per cent were "Not very confident" and 35 per cent were "Not at all confident". That means that 84 per cent of respondents did not believe that tolls would be revenue neutral, because they cannot trust Governments north or south of the border.

As for the SNP, it has made a massive U-turn this morning. After all, it supported part 3 of the Transport (Scotland) Bill in 2000. Mr Ewing might well smile at that—he knows that I am right to highlight this issue, because Bruce Crawford attacked us for opposing part 3. However, there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over all the other righteous persons, and I am delighted that Mr Ewing, who is blushing manfully on the SNP front bench, now accepts that we were right. I welcome the SNP's conversion to the stance that we have always taken against local congestion charges.

Tavish Scott's proposal is unworkable in practice and undesirable in principle. No one believes that it would be anything other than an additional tax on motorists. The public can show its support for our stance on this issue by visiting our website www.scotlandsaysnototolls.com and joining the thousands of others who have already signed up. Tonight, the Parliament can vote to kick out Mr Scott's ludicrous proposal and consign Tavish's tolls to history.

Criminal Law (Double Jeopardy)

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5613, in the name of Annabel Goldie, on double jeopardy.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Usually, in chamber debates on the Scottish criminal justice system, more seems to divide the parties than to unite them. However, in speaking to the motion in my name, I hope that we might all find some common ground.

Over the decades, other jurisdictions have tended to borrow from and copy many of our distinctive Scottish legal system's excellent attributes. This morning, I suggest that we look to borrow from our neighbours south of the border a change to the criminal law of England and Wales that was effected by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. That legislation abolished double jeopardy, which is the rule that a person who has been acquitted or convicted of an offence cannot be charged with the same offence again.

After the tragic murder of 18-year-old Stephen Lawrence in 1993, Sir William Macpherson was commissioned to conduct an inquiry into the Metropolitan police's investigation of the murder. His report not only delivered a damning assessment of the institutional racism in policing, but made numerous recommendations aimed at improving attitudes to racism. For example, recommendation 38 stated:

"consideration should be given to the Court of Appeal being given power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented."

In 2001, the Law Commission in England recommended that it should be possible for the Court of Appeal to have the power, in murder cases only, to quash an acquittal if reliable and compelling new evidence of guilt emerged and if a retrial would be in the interests of justice.

Because I want to focus this morning on the general principle—we can leave the detail for another day—I have phrased my motion in broad terms. Indeed, it virtually restates what was in the Labour Party manifesto for the 2005 general election, which is why I am somewhat disappointed by Johann Lamont's amendment. Labour support for what was an electoral commitment two years ago appears to be wavering.

That said, I understand that, in principle, the Scottish National Party supports the abolition of double jeopardy.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member represents our position correctly. However, will she lighten my darkness as to whether in Scotland, as has always been the case in England, someone can be retried if the jury is corrupted?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Stevenson raises an interesting and important point that is worthy of consideration in the broader debate. However, it is not really part of the case that I am presenting to the chamber this morning.

Double jeopardy was an historical safeguard for the acquitted accused, as it ensured that a fresh prosecution could not be raised. Of course, such an approach derived from the days when evidence was either of an oral or tangible character, in which case it existed and was produced for the trial, or it did not exist. In the days before advanced technology, all available evidence was obtained after a crime was committed, and that complete body of evidence constituted the prosecution case. We now live in an age in which forensic science has become much more sophisticated and, even after many years have elapsed, it might be possible to find new evidence that is robust and might be probative of an individual's involvement with or connection to a crime.

Given Sir William Macpherson's recommendation and the subsequent change to the law of England and Wales, there is an imperative to consider such a change to the law in Scotland. The public will find it unacceptable that, faced with the possibility of a new prosecution, victims and their families are given an entitlement to justice in England and Wales that they are denied here. It is our duty in this Parliament to ensure that victims and their families in Scotland receive the same entitlement.

I fully accept that a rigorous assessment process would have to be gone through before any new prosecution could be raised, which is why I suggest that evidence would have to be not only new but compelling. Interestingly, I have tried to help the minister in the way that I have phrased my motion, because I felt that the wording in the 2005 Labour Party general election manifesto was too broad to be safe. We must be clear that there are two significant criteria in the proposal, and that they would need to be satisfied. In Scotland, the appropriate mechanism would be that the Lord Advocate would require to seek the consent of the Scottish court of criminal appeal to bring a new prosecution.

We would also need to consider what crimes should be competent for fresh prosecution. In England and Wales, schedule 5 to the 2003 act contains a lengthy list of qualifying offences. The matter should be the subject of thorough debate and it should, perhaps, encompass the issue that Mr Stevenson raised. I accept that, at Westminster, my party thought that the offences should be restricted to murder and rape, but in Scotland culpable homicide is a serious criminal charge, as are arson and certain offences that are prosecuted under statute. The offences that would be included would require careful consideration, but that is a matter of detail. Today's debate is about the principle.

I submit that, under the criminal law of England and Wales, victims and their families enjoy an entitlement to see justice done. I want victims and their families in Scotland to have a similar entitlement.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the criminal law of Scotland be changed so that persons acquitted of serious criminal charges can be tried again if new and compelling evidence comes to light.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Many of us in the Parliament have come to criminal justice issues through direct experience of the justice system or because our constituents have come to us with their concerns. Our experience of the system and our reactions to it are shaped by people's—often bad—experiences of it. In the short time for which I have been in my job, I have been on a steep learning curve. I now know what tholed assize means. That, in itself, makes it worth while for the Conservatives to bring the matter to the chamber.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

No. [ Laughter. ] I will not let the member push my level of understanding of the phrase "tholed assize".

The tholed assize or double jeopardy rule is long established in Scots criminal law. Annabel Goldie is right to say that, as with other areas of the legal system, some people find it difficult to understand why the system developed in the way that it did. If they have direct experience of it, they perhaps feel that it is unfair. The rule is simply that, when somebody has been prosecuted and acquitted, they cannot be retried for the same crime. The principle is based on the view that the state cannot persistently prosecute someone for the same crime. We can understand the logic of that.

The Conservatives' motion seeks to allow retrial in Scotland for certain serious offences if compelling new evidence comes to light. It does not seek to abandon the rule entirely, but proposes that it should be changed in certain circumstances. As has been said, the view has been shaped by the development of forensic science and the fact that the law has been changed in England and Wales.

As Annabel Goldie suggested, we should not create the impression that getting rid of double jeopardy would involve only a simple decision. A lot of work would need to be done to investigate the matter first. Furthermore, making that change is not the only way in which we can show our commitment to victims in the justice system.

The change to the law in England and Wales was not introduced as a result of a whim by the Home Office; it arose from the Macpherson inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence. In that case, a private prosecution was brought, but it failed. The double jeopardy rule meant that it was not possible to bring a fresh prosecution. The Macpherson report recommended that consideration be given to reforming the law of double jeopardy. In turn, a consultation paper was issued.

In my research for this debate, I was interested to find that only one question about the double jeopardy rule has been asked in the Scottish Parliament. In 2002, my colleague Brian Fitzpatrick asked the Scottish Executive for its response to the white paper "Justice for All". At that time, the Executive made a commitment to keep a close eye on developments. There has been no further parliamentary pressure on the matter since then.

Following the white paper, the UK Government developed the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allows retrial for various serious offences including murder, rape, drug offences and terrorism, and not just for murder, as the Law Commission recommended. The provisions came into force in April 2005. Since then, only one case has been retried and it resulted in a conviction for murder.

The changes to the double jeopardy rule in England and Wales were subject to extensive research, deliberation and consultation. If we were to consider making changes in Scotland, we would need to do the same. We would have to recognise—others in the chamber know a great deal more about this than I do—the significant differences between the criminal justice systems north and south of the border. Private prosecutions are far less likely in Scotland. Indeed, I can recall only one case—X v Sweeney in 1982—of a private prosecution. Our evidential base is a lot tougher and our majority system in the jury is different. Those are important aspects of the Scottish legal system and we would need to reflect on them.

Annabel Goldie and others know that the Administration is not averse to reforming the criminal justice system when there is a proven need to do so. Our record over the past four years speaks for itself. We have implemented a coherent and unprecedented reform programme and put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system. We might want to discuss double jeopardy and pursue the matter, but the Executive has pursued practical change, including victim support via witness services, the protection of vulnerable witnesses and changes to protection for the victims of sexual offences. Only recently, under my watch, we dealt with trials in absence in the sheriff court. Sadly, the Conservatives were found wanting. They could have done a little to protect victims and witnesses, but they chose not to support the radical steps that we took.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am trying to establish whether the Executive is still sympathetic to the proposal in my motion or whether it has departed from the position that the Labour Party held two years ago. It made a clear commitment in its 2005 manifesto. Is it now retreating from that?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Not at all. There is clearly an issue. Annabel Goldie identified it and members throughout the Parliament understand it. However, if we are to act on that and make changes, we have to consider the matter in the context of Scots law rather than saying, "It happened in England and Wales, so it should happen here." The member knows that the Executive has been radical in challenging some matters that previously were regarded as fundamental. People said that they could never be changed. They said, "It's not possible to move on that," or, "This is the way things have always been." If we consider the matter in a future Administration, we will need to do so in the context of Scots law and a rigorous review of the implications, given the way in which the legal system in Scotland works.

The critical point is that we cannot consider the matter in isolation. We should be judged on our actions on the range of issues that we have examined to support victims in the justice system. Rather than taking the matter in isolation, we should consider the approach that the Executive has taken over time. That is reflected in our amendment.

I move amendment S2M-5613.1, to leave out from "agrees" to end and insert:

"recognises the issue of the double jeopardy rule in the operation of the criminal justice system; recognises that this issue must not be seen in isolation, but instead should be considered within the wider context of the Scottish Executive's ongoing reform and modernisation programme; commends the Executive's commitment to placing the needs of victims at the heart of the criminal justice system and its achievements over the last four years in fundamentally modernising and reforming that system, including the introduction of the Victim Information and Advice Service across Scotland and the Victim Notification Scheme, and further recognises that any decision on the future of double jeopardy should be taken within the context of Scots law."

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We have some time in hand for the debate, so if members want to make six-minute speeches, that is fine.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I listened with interest to Miss Goldie's well-balanced speech. We are happy to support her motion. She correctly pointed out that what we are discussing today is the principle of the matter. We considered lodging an amendment that would add the caveats that Miss Goldie and the minister mentioned, but they relate to the generalities rather than the specifics.

Today, we are debating whether there is a manifest injustice in our legal system and whether—to use another legal phrase that Ms Lamont might well know—a lacuna or a clear gap exists. The matter has been remedied south of the border. Like Miss Goldie, I think that, in many instances, our jurisdiction serves us much better than the jurisdiction south of the border would, but it is clear that progress has been made in England and Wales that has not been replicated here. On that basis, we support the general principle that there is a manifest injustice and a gap in our law. That is why we are happy to support the motion.

I agreed with a great deal of what the minister said. The tone and tenor of her position are acceptable. The matter cannot be seen in isolation. It is but one aspect to be considered if we are to deal with changes in the law, but it is an important aspect and a clear point of principle is involved.

The minister is correct to say that great progress has been made in dealing with witnesses and the victims of crime. The Lord Advocate is not here to take the plaudits, but a great deal of credit should go to her, because the work involved not just changing legislation but changing attitudes and the culture that existed in a system where victims and witnesses were simply part of the machine. They were to do as they were told. What mattered was the aura or mystique of the police procedure, the fiscal's procedure or the courts' procedure. Thankfully, that has begun to change. There is still a further distance to be travelled, but we have to accept that.

Although I accept a great deal of what the minister said, I am disappointed that the Executive is not prepared to adopt the principle. The questions about how we should address the issue, such as whether the Scottish Law Commission should consider it and whether we should have a single act of Parliament or include the measure in a broad all-encompassing act that deals with a variety of matters, are for the Administration that is in place after 3 May. However, we accept that the matter must be addressed and we will do so.

The minister was correct to say that certain details must be addressed. We cannot simply allow a procedure in which the Crown, after incompetence or negligence, is given as many chances as it likes to get prosecutions right. That is not what we suggest. We cannot allow prejudice or minor matters to clutter up our courts. The suggestion that such cases should proceed after a request by the Lord Advocate to the court of criminal appeal has a great deal of sense. I agree with Miss Goldie that that is where we should head.

Two types of circumstance arise that lead to a significant problem of manifest injustice. The public cannot understand the law or why legislators do not change it. The first is when a person is acquitted but it then becomes clear that they committed the crime, because they say they did it and they are dining out on the fact that they did it. They can be prosecuted for perjury and perverting the course of justice, but there is a cathartic element to the court procedure for victims and for those who have suffered an injustice—they want a conviction. If it is clear that somebody committed a crime but was acquitted because they lied blatantly, we should not simply be able to punish them for lying; we should be able to return to the case, put the clear facts before a new jury and allow it to decide, so that there can be justice. If somebody commits a murder and persuades a jury, through whatever means, that they did not do it, but it later becomes clear that they did commit the murder, we should be able to prosecute them again. A failure to do so is a manifest injustice.

The second type of circumstance arises because we live in the 21st century and have made great strides in technology, particularly with DNA. There have been debates, discussions and disagreements in the Parliament about when and how we should use new scientific technology, but technology has changed the parameters of crime enforcement. We can now prosecute crimes that we could not prosecute before and we now have information that was not available before. In some instances, that information shows that somebody committed an offence but denied it, and was acquitted because there was insufficient evidence before the jury to obtain a conviction. We will fail as a legislature if we do not say that the benefits of modern technology should apply to the judicial system and the system of justice in our country. That is why we should allow retrials.

We will have to debate and decide on the specifics, but the incoming Administration can deal with that. The matter could be considered by the Scottish Law Commission, a committee or some other body. However, today, we should address the general principle that Miss Goldie has rightly raised. Something is manifestly wrong when somebody who commits an offence and is acquitted, either as a result of lying or because information is not available at the time, cannot be prosecuted again if further information becomes available. The proposal is not about pursuing a witch hunt or vendetta against individuals; it is about allowing justice to be served and to be done.

The issue is not simply a matter for lawyers, because the current situation brings the whole system into disrepute. The public cannot understand why somebody who says clearly that they committed a crime should not be prosecuted again or why, if new information becomes available in a case, a person cannot be tried again. The proposal is about justice and giving the public faith in our judicial system. The Parliament will fail if we do not take on board the principle that Miss Goldie has correctly brought to our attention.

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

The minister's point that there has been only one parliamentary question on the issue since the Parliament was established highlights the fact that there has not been a clamour for a review, in the Parliament or in society at large. Nevertheless, the issue requires proper and full consideration. In England and Wales, the double jeopardy provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 came into force in April 2005.

On 11 September 2006, William Dunlop became the first person to be convicted of murder after previously being acquitted. He had twice been tried for the murder of Julie Hogg in 1989, but two juries failed to reach a verdict and he was acquitted formally in 1991. Some years later, he confessed to the crime and was convicted of perjury. His case was reinvestigated in early 2005 when the new law came into effect and was referred to the court of appeal in November 2005 for permission for a new trial.

William Dunlop was retried for the murder and lodged a guilty plea. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation that he serve no less than 17 years. That has not been the only case, but it highlights the complexity of whether we should decide to make it possible for someone to be prosecuted for the same offence more than once. We could consider the work of the Law Commission in England, which members have mentioned.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does the member agree that the fact that Dunlop's sentence for perjury was a mere six years illustrates the difference that exists between the available remedies when somebody gets away with a crime and the remedies that would be available through retrial?

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

That is a fair point but, if the member will forgive me, I will address it later if I have time.

As we have heard, the Macpherson inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence proposed that, when fresh and viable evidence is presented, it should be possible to prosecute someone again after an acquittal. In a consultation paper in October 1999, the Law Commission made several provisional proposals, including that it should in certain circumstances be possible to reopen a case when new evidence emerges. The Home Affairs Select Committee in the House of Commons decided to investigate the issue. In June 2000, it published its report, which recommended, as the Law Commission had proposed, that there should be an exception to the double jeopardy rule in cases in which fresh evidence arises.

It is interesting to quote from the select committee's conclusions on the relevance of new technologies and the types of evidence that are available today:

"blood samples taken at a murder scene in the early 1980s might not have produced sufficient identification evidence at that time. The prime suspect may have been prosecuted on the basis of other evidence. If the prosecution failed to satisfy the jury that the defendant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the defendant would have been acquitted and left the court a free man. A decade later, advances in DNA testing could enable the original blood samples to be analysed and show with near certainty that the acquitted person had been at the crime scene."

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Will the member give way?

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

Forgive me, but I am anxious about the time.

Although it is relevant to talk about the new technology that is available today and which was not available 25 years ago, in the case of William Dunlop the new and compelling evidence was the confession, not anything that arose from technology. In some cases, new witnesses might be presented that did not come forward originally. The danger of accepting the Home Affairs Select Committee's rationale relates to the fact that the variations in the types of new evidence that might come to light subsequently to a trial, and the times at which that might happen, are almost limitless.

Prosecutors in Scotland have a responsibility and duty to prosecute in the public interest and to present what they consider to be the facts that are relevant to the prosecution at the time. The select committee's rationale introduces the danger that prosecutors will feel that they are not compelled to bring all the evidence to a trial as, in years to come, technology will move on and there may be another opportunity to prosecute. Of course, that is the underlying reason why Scots law has for 300 years had the concept that people cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence. In 2003, when the Criminal Justice Bill was being considered, it was ensured that Scots law was protected, so that somebody who is tried and acquitted in Scotland cannot subsequently be tried again for the same offence in England.

One problem with the way in which the United Kingdom Government changed the law in England is that it went beyond the Law Commission's proposals on extending the crimes for which somebody can be prosecuted more than once if new and compelling evidence arises. Annabel Goldie asked the valid question whether a change in Scotland would mean that victims in Scotland had the same rights as victims in England and Wales. I am glad that the Executive's amendment points out the changes that have been made on victims' rights. Victims want the Crown to provide the strongest case at the time of the trial. Not doing so would be the biggest way of letting them down. If, when a victim can see an offender being prosecuted at a trial, the Crown does not carry out its most serious duty at that time, the victim will have been let down.

Let us not forget that the UK Government went further than the Law Commission's recommendation.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I want to establish whether Mr Purvis is sympathetic to the principle of what we propose in our motion. I understand his natural concern with detail. I was at pains to say that I am not convinced that the qualifying list of offences in schedule 5 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is necessarily the list that we want to emulate here, but that is just detail. I am anxious to establish whether Mr Purvis supports the principle that victims in Scotland in this particular context—I agree that it is a very specific context—should be offered the same protection as victims in England, to ensure that justice is done.

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

I do not think that we can separate the principle from the practicalities. I do not support a change in Scots law.

If we are considering victims' rights, we have to do so in the context of the state's duty to present the strongest possible case when someone is being prosecuted. Victims would be let down, and one of the basic principles of Scots law would be put at risk, if the state considered that it had a right to prosecute in perpetuity.

It is the state's burden to prove a case against a defendant. Indeed, the existence of the not proven verdict in Scotland—an acquittal—indicates the Crown's clear duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Although what is being proposed is possibly an attractive change to the law, we have to tread very carefully indeed. It is not possible to separate principle from the practicalities in this case, and that is why I cannot support a change in Scots law.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

As everyone who has spoken so far has acknowledged, advances in forensic science and technology in recent years have been significant. Those advances mean that crucial evidence that was not available during the original trial of an accused person who was subsequently acquitted of a serious offence could now prove compelling. In such circumstances, Scottish Conservatives believe that the original verdict should be revisited.

I do not share Mr Purvis's concerns. Our position regarding new evidence is justified if the necessary safeguards are in place. I will discuss the detail of that later. The existence of new and compelling evidence should be allowed to form the basis of a retrial.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

The member mentions new and compelling evidence. Do the Conservatives agree that now would be an appropriate time to reconsider the various verdicts that are open to juries? Do they agree that the not guilty verdict should be seriously considered for the bin? If we are to be allowed to revisit a trial, we cannot say with absolute certainty that someone is not guilty. The traditional verdicts of proven or not proven are exactly right.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

That is a separate issue, but certainly any acquittal could be considered for a retrial.

Having a retrial on the basis of new and compelling evidence would represent a fundamental change to the law of Scotland, in which double jeopardy—the rule under which a person acquitted of an offence cannot be charged with the same offence again—is a long-established principle. Such a change is not to be embarked on lightly. It would happen only in the interests of justice and would be at the discretion of both the Lord Advocate and the Scottish court of criminal appeal. It is clearly in the public interest to ensure that people who have committed serious crimes are convicted.

Today we are debating a general principle, but it will be helpful to look into some of the details. For example, the definition of "serious" could come into line with the definition used in England and Wales, where legislation has been introduced to allow retrials. The new definition could cover some offences for which a maximum sentence of life imprisonment can be imposed. However, it would not cover all offences for which life imprisonment is the maximum sentence, because such offences include a number of common law offences that are not sufficiently serious to satisfy the "interests of justice" test.

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

As the member said, this is a point of principle. If someone has been the victim of a very serious assault—but an assault not defined as a serious crime under schedule 5 to the 2003 act in England—and if new and compelling evidence comes to light after an acquittal, why can the person acquitted not be prosecuted again for serious assault, if we are talking about a point of principle?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The member cannot have it both ways. He said that this is a debate about principle, but he then criticised us for not considering the practicalities. I am giving him the practicalities now.

Offences that would qualify include murder, culpable homicide and rape. However—and this is a crucial point—to avoid miscarriages of justice with a second trial commencing without the presumption of innocence, it will be essential that robust safeguards are in place. We must ensure that retrials are fair. Therefore, prosecution after acquittal would be allowed only when there was new and compelling evidence, where "new evidence" is defined as evidence that could not have been adduced at the original trial, and where "compelling evidence" is defined as evidence that is reliable, substantial and appears to be highly probative.

The decision on whether evidence is new and compelling could be taken by the Scottish court of criminal appeal, on an application from the Lord Advocate. If the court was satisfied that such evidence was now available, the acquittal would be quashed and a new indictment for the same offence would be issued to allow a retrial to take place—if the interests of justice test was satisfied.

Although retrials would be rare, the ability to invoke a retrial would provide additional protection for the public: it would help to ensure that killers and other serious offenders were brought to justice and it would help to provide comfort and—we hope—closure for victims and their families. In such circumstances, this is a provision that should surely be supported.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I welcome the approach the Conservatives have taken this morning in their debate on double jeopardy—the principle that a person who has tholed their assize is no longer eligible for a retrial. It is right that we should not play politics with this legal principle, this ancient Scottish law, but I sense that the issue could become a political football. I ask the Conservatives to continue to be consistent in their approach and not to make the issue a political football, so that we can have a genuine debate. It is on that basis that I will make my speech.

We must always review the law—old law, ancient principles and even laws that we have passed recently. We must continue to modernise our criminal justice system when there is a demand for change. It is interesting that some of the most significant changes made by this Parliament have addressed issues relating to victims, but we have also addressed the needs of those who are accused and convicted under our system. The creation of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has given added resources to those who have already been convicted of their crimes. The commission could be said to have given an added layer of appeal.

The motion calls for the criminal law to be changed. I have listened carefully to the debate and I am not going to jump to conclusions, but it is not enough to say that, just because England has changed its law, Scotland must follow suit. I would never take that approach and I will not do so now. Just because England has changed its law, we cannot assume that it has got it right. If there is a case for change, we must make it in a Scottish context and in the context of the Scottish legal system.

As with all law, the devil is in the detail. Those of us who have looked into justice legislation over the past few years know that that is true. Let us be clear: the principle that we should all support and adopt is that the prosecution should assemble its best case against the accused. We should ensure that the Crown has the proper resources to ensure that it has the best-trained lawyers and the best legal framework for a fair and transparent system.

I have no doubt that the Labour Administration would take bold steps if they were justified, but any change has to be cautious. If we allow a second trial when there is a compelling case, we will have to consider issues such as what offences would be open to a second trial. Margaret Mitchell has spoken about her view about that but, if we specify certain crimes, we must also be clear about why we want to specify those crimes. Should an acquitted person, who may be innocent, live in distress at the prospect that a further trial may always be in the offing? It could be hard for an accused person to get a second fair trial, particularly if the first was high profile. We would have to consider all those matters.

We might also have to consider cases in which the Crown has taken no proceedings and not gone to court. I know of a recent case in which the accused was not fit for trial and the Crown took no proceedings. Even if it was found that the person was fit for trial, there would be no prospect of a future trial. If the Conservatives want to consider allowing second trials, they might have to consider what to do with cases in which there have been no trials.

It has been suggested that it is not only new technology that may bring about a debate on double jeopardy but the fact that, if somebody confesses a crime after acquittal, the law can do nothing about it. That is probably the situation with which the general public would say it has most difficulty.

The Parliament would have to consider whether any change to the law should be applied retrospectively—that is, whether it should apply to all cases from before it was agreed to—or only to cases that arose after the change was made. I imagine that the general public, particularly those who have been victims of crime, would support such an amendment to the law, although I have not examined any research into that.

It is important that we, in considering any change, should try to be objective and balance the interests of victims and the accused. I would expect us to do that in any case, but I can think of other situations in which that equation comes into play. I do not know much about the appeal courts system, but I notice that appeal court judgments in which someone is acquitted rarely result in retrial although, having read some of the cases, I have formed the impression that they would warrant it. Perhaps there are other ways of ensuring balance in the system.

What principles should guide any change or the decision to make no change? There must be reasonable certainty on any law or change to the law. There must be clarity about any change, the range of offences to which it would apply and why it was justified. Any change should also be extremely narrow and it should be for the Parliament to set out the justification for it, having tested as always its fairness to the accused and the victim.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call Patrick Harvie, to be followed by Colin—I mean Gordon—Jackson.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The subject is clearly worthy of debate, but I find it a little strange that the proposal comes from the Conservatives: proposing to throw out a fundamental principle of the legal system that has been in place for hundreds of years and is accepted around the world does not seem a very Conservative position.

However, a strong emotive case can be made for change. Annabel Goldie mentioned the murder of Stephen Lawrence and Jeremy Purvis mentioned Julie Hogg. None of us can fully appreciate or overstate the impact that undergoing years without justice had on the families of those victims. Annabel Goldie stated that the public would find it unacceptable that the families of victims in similar circumstances in Scotland would be denied justice.

In the face of that strong emotive case, what is the case for retaining the principle that an accused person should not face double jeopardy? It is partly about the need for finality, which is important not only to the victims and their families but to the innocent acquitted. There are one or two lawyers in the chamber; any defence lawyer will know the emotional impact on an accused who is told after an acquittal that it is all over and they can start to rebuild their life. If we were to allow the possibility of double jeopardy, we would make such reassurance impossible. All that could ever be said is, "It might be over now. You never know." As other members have argued, that would turn any acquittal into a provisional acquittal.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does Patrick Harvie accept that, in any case, an acquittal is provisional in the sense that the person acquitted could be prosecuted for perjury and face severe penalties? In a sense, a case can always be revisited, albeit not in the way that we are discussing.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I do not accept that argument. The current situation gives a sense of finality that would be lost if we abandoned the rule on double jeopardy.

I will talk about the right to a fair trail. We accept that one aspect of fairness is the right to be tried within a reasonable time. What time limit would we place on the possibility of a retrial after acquittal: a year, two years, five years or 10 years? But any time limit would place us in exactly the same situation as we have at present if new evidence were found after that limit had passed. Under the Conservatives' proposal, the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time would, in effect, be abolished.

There is also a risk of an increase in the number of wrongful convictions. It has been well argued that double jeopardy would give an unreasonable advantage to the prosecution, which undermines the fairness of the trial. In any retrial after acquittal, the prosecution would already be highly familiar with the basis of the case for the defence, which is a significant tactical advantage.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have noted two points in Mr Harvie's line of argument so far: finality and the recently stated point about time limits. Will he confirm whether he believes that justice for a victim and their family in the event that new and compelling evidence emerges that is probative of the acquitted accused's implication in the crime should be time barred or cut off by the word finality? I am unclear about that.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

It is important for us to take seriously the need for justice for families such as those of the two victims who have been mentioned—and their sense of injustice—but I cannot give Annabel Goldie a list of the names of people whose lives may be destroyed in future by wrongful conviction; all I can do is ask us not to take the risk.

The proviso that double jeopardy should be possible only in the most serious cases is no reassurance. Let us remember that the victims of crime are not the only people who suffer real anguish throughout the process. For an innocent person, being put on trial for a serious crime is a traumatic experience. It can destroy a career, a family and a life, but risking for a second time the conviction of an innocent person for a serious crime such as murder would not only destroy that person's life and rob them of many years of their liberty but rob their family of a loved one and create a sense of finality while the real perpetrator remained at large. Therefore, anyone who wants to make the case for allowing suspects to face the possibility of double jeopardy must explain how the prosecution will not gain the tactical advantage and ensure that there is not an increased risk of wrongful conviction.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

rose—

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but I have to move on.

We also need to avoid the risk of having a media-driven criminal justice system. We can all remember intense media pressure being brought to bear on high-profile cases. We can imagine circumstances in which one or two newspapers set themselves up as the public advocates of a bereaved family, press the police for quick results, demand that justice be immediate and unequivocal and respond with outrage when the evidence is insufficient to convict the accused, who walks free.

Any of us would sympathise with the victim's family in that situation, but the pressure for a retrial would be so intense that any retrial could be made fair only if significant restrictions were also placed on the freedom of the press. Therefore, the argument for double jeopardy leads us to consider its effect on other basic civil liberties, which I ask the Conservatives to re-evaluate.

The final reason why we should reject the Conservative motion is that it is the wrong response to the problem. If cases are being tried on insufficient evidence to convict, we should attend to the investigation of cases and ensure that the most thorough and robust processes are in place. Abandoning the rule on double jeopardy would allow the possibility of slipshod work being done or, at least, tolerated. I hope that the Parliament will reject the idea of abandoning this important rule.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

I almost turned from a lawyer into a hurdler, which was not bad.

I am afraid that I am not keen on the motion, either. I am instinctively against abandoning this so-called rule. I understand the argument for abandoning it. I also understand what has been called "manifest injustice": situations in which someone has been prosecuted, got off with it—as people say—but in which it later becomes apparent that they were guilty and justice and the victims demand that they be reprosecuted. I understand that public sensibility is offended by someone dining out on their acquittal and saying that they got off with it.

However, the problem is that, inevitably, apparent injustices in individual cases are caused by any justice system and any rules. That is the nature of a fixed legal system. Some might say, "That's lawyer talk. What about the victims and the people who suffer injustice?" My point is that everyone concedes that there is always the potential for apparent injustices. Kenny MacAskill conceded that. He said that he was in favour of the motion, but that reprosecution would not apply to a case in which the acquittal had arisen from a cock-up or mistakes made by the prosecution. Why not? There would still be injustice for the victim, who would be entitled to go to Kenny MacAskill and say, "Okay. The prosecution made a mistake. They got it wrong, but the man did it. There is compelling evidence. I am the victim—I have still suffered. Why don't you just prosecute him again?" Kenny MacAskill conceded that he does not think that there should be a reprosecution in such a situation. Although there had been an injustice, he would have to say to that person, "Ah, but there are rules in our courts and, for the greater good of keeping a system of justice, we will not reprosecute." We all concede that, in any legal system, there will be situations in which applying the rules for the general good produces injustice in individual cases.

The question that we need to ask is not whether the rule occasionally results in individual injustice—all rules do that—but whether it is worth keeping for the general good. My strong instinct—I will use the word "instinct" for the moment—is that we should keep the rule, but not because it has always been this way. I am one of the few lawyers who would get rid of the two acquittal verdicts—I am with Brian Adam on that. I do not know whether the acquittal verdict should be not guilty or not proven—there are arguments both ways. However, the fact that we have always had two acquittal verdicts is no reason to keep both. I think that having two verdicts is a bad thing. I accept fully that we should not consider the double jeopardy principle in isolation; we should consider it in the round, alongside such things as the not proven and not guilty verdicts. I notice Kenny MacAskill nodding. We all tend to agree with that. [Interruption.]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I am sorry, Mr Jackson, but mobile phones and Blackberrys must be off.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

Is mine still on? I am very sorry. It is off now. My mistake.

Why do I think that the rule, despite the injustice that it might cause, is a good thing? By and large, Patrick Harvie has dealt with that. He said the sort of things that I would have said. He is absolutely right that there would be a problem with getting a fair trial, given the publicity that the press would generate. It is all right for Annabel Goldie to say that there would be very strict criteria. I suspect that there would be very strict criteria—until the tabloid press really started to agitate; the criteria would start to be watered down under that sort of quasi-political pressure. I know that Lord Advocates and courts are independent, but I agree with Patrick Harvie that such pressure is something to worry about.

The main point on which I agree with Patrick Harvie is the subject of closure. I was fascinated to hear Margaret Mitchell say that having a retrial produces closure. Oddly enough, I think the opposite. The suggestion from the Tories would mean that there would never be closure in any case.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

I do not have time.

I am not sure why we would limit retrials to certain types of case. The ability to have a retrial would certainly not produce closure—not even for victims. If, in the minds of a victim or their family, someone had got off wrongly, they would spend the rest of their days agitating for a reprosecution, trying to find further evidence and trying to give the police further information. That would not help them to get closure.

I have a lot of sympathy for Patrick Harvie's point about what a lawyer says to an accused person. We always assume guilt in these arguments. What about someone who should not have been convicted and is acquitted? They will come out of court and say to their lawyer, "Is that it over?" Now we can say to them, perhaps after a year or two years, "That's it finished." If we were to do what is suggested we would have to say to that person, who had a serious charge hanging over them, "Ah well, it's finished for now. It will probably be finished for good, but you never know." People who have been traumatised will live the rest of their lives with the possibility of the case coming back. That is not overall justice; overall justice means that we have closure. Occasionally that will be hard in individual cases, but, to use the old legal cliché, hard cases make bad law. What the motion proposes would be bad law.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We move to the winding-up speeches. I will have to keep speeches tight on time. I call Mike Pringle, who has four minutes.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

The concept of double jeopardy is essential in many western legal systems. It is a maxim that has precedent in British, Scots, Australian, Canadian, Indian, European and American law, but which has come under scrutiny of late. The principle dates from English common law in the 12th century. In essence, double jeopardy denies the state the right to prosecute an individual and have them stand trial more than once for the same offence. Although new evidence and new technology might shine fresh light on a case, the implication of removing the principle could be that we have a Kafkaesque trial situation in which the defendant is lost inside a machine with no control over their fate. Without the protection of the double jeopardy rule, power rests heavily in the hands of the law and the prosecution; removing the rule supports the notion of guilt before innocence.

I agree with Kenny MacAskill that the prosecution has to prove its case; if it does not do so the first time, it has failed to produce the evidence that it needed to convict in the first instance.

In America the principle is enshrined in the fifth amendment of the constitution—somebody cannot be charged with the same offence a second time.

The principle is an essential aspect of a legal system that stresses the rights of the individual within the system. Putting the onus on a legal system to prove guilt in one trial enforces an innocent-before-proven-guilty ideology. The removal of the double jeopardy rule would imply that the defendant had in fact done something wrong and would give the prosecution as much opportunity to prove that point as it desires.

In American law, if a mistrial occurs, the double jeopardy rule often does not apply. In Australia, the double jeopardy rule is a long-established principle. In Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits a second trial under double jeopardy. In India the principle is the fundamental right under the Indian constitution.

However, there has been a recent change in England and Wales. As of April 2005,

"the Court of Appeal can ... quash an acquittal and order the retrial when new and compelling evidence is produced."

That procedure would apply if new evidence, witnesses and so on came to light, which could spur a new trial. People can be retried only once, but in order for there to be a retrial the prosecution must go through a serious application and determination process at the Court of Appeal.

Pauline McNeill made a good point that just because the principle has been removed in England does not mean that we have to do likewise in Scotland.

Annabel Goldie recently announced the proposal that, in cases in which new or compelling evidence became available, a retrial should be allowed at the discretion of the Lord Advocate and the Scottish court of criminal appeal. However, it is interesting that she went on to say that she and the Scottish Conservatives are fiercely proud of Scotland's unique legal system. Why, therefore, does she want to change our doctrine to that of England?

Why do I argue against the removal of the principle? Well, would defendants receive a fair second trial? Many members have said that the prosecution gets the opportunity but once. Given the publicity that a second trial could create, would defendants get an unbiased jury and judge? I argue that having only one trial forces the prosecutor and investigators to perform. It forces efficiency and readiness before the trial even begins. What about the rights of the defendant? How would they ever be able to clear their name?

Although the arguments for a decrease in the power of double jeopardy laws have definite rationality behind them, that does not negate the fact that the principle remains a fundamental part of not just the western but the international concept of justice as demonstrated by Roman law.

The individual who receives a verdict of not guilty or not proven should have the right to live the rest of their lives. Many members made that point—Gordon Jackson pointed out that the same point applies to the victim, who would continue to pursue the case for ever, were it not for the double jeopardy rule.

Does the defendant deserve some recourse? If a retrial is built on a subjective application and determination process that can be influenced by publicity and media attention, can it be deemed to be fair? Will the system become clogged with the rush of new DNA and forensic evidence?

If I am not proven guilty, I cannot be tried again. Changing the legislation on double jeopardy would upset the balance of power. By changing it, we would alter the very nature of the legal system that has successfully protected all the citizens of Scotland, not just the victims, for hundred of years.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The internationally recognised legal principle to which Mike Pringle referred is ne bis in idem, which, in England, of course, is now ne ter in idem, although it is known by the French phrase autrefois convict—I do not know what the French equivalent for ne ter in idem would be.

The debate has been interesting because there is a consensus that this is a subject that is worth debating. We should all welcome that. A variety of views has been expressed and I will digest them at leisure rather than addressing them in the four minutes that are available to me.

What England has done is certainly interesting. It has restricted to a narrow range of offences the ability to bring someone back for a new trial. Were changes to be made in Scotland, I think that there would be broad agreement that it would be necessary to restrict the offences for which a retrial might be sought.

It is interesting to hear a debate about the three Scots verdicts. I wonder, in a ruminative way, whether juries might be allowed to say, "Not proven, because we think that you should be capable of being retried." However, I suspect that, unfortunately, juries would probably say that all the time.

To Brian Adam, I say that we must not confuse someone being found not guilty with their being found innocent. If someone is found not guilty, it simply means that the required standard of proof has not been achieved. Further, in Scotland, it might simply be the case that eight jurors have decided in favour of one side of the argument and seven have decided in favour of the other side. Sometimes, verdicts can be quite finely balanced.

We could tackle the problem in other ways. For example—and I give this only as an example, not as a proposal—we could change sentencing law so that, if there were to be a prosecution on another matter arising from a trial, which could be shown to have affected the verdict of that trial, the sentence for the second offence could be equivalent to that which might have been passed for the first offence.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

Will the member give way?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I do not have time—in any case, in giving the example I am just flying a kite.

In civil law, of course, in many instances people can come back for a second bite of the cherry.

I suspect that things are not quite as clear cut as we might imagine if we were to go by some of the speeches that we have heard.

As a result of its consultation exercise, on which many Scottish lawyers and legal bodies commented, the Law Commission in England made a number of important recommendations. For example, evidence that was inadmissible in the original trial should continue to be inadmissible. If we were to make any changes to the system, we would want to consider that point. The Law Commission also pointed out that, in England, it is possible to retry when there is a tainted prosecution and recommended that that provision should be slightly extended to cover cases in which not only the jury but the prosecutor or the judge has been subject to external pressure.

In Scots law, what is proposed by the Tories can already happen: under a treaty between the United States of America and the UK, someone who is acquitted here can be extradited to the USA and tried for the same offence because there is no requirement to show cause. That is just a bit worrying.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call Johann Lamont. Minister, I would be pleased if you could take only four minutes.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I will do my best to last that long.

I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this interesting debate. The position of the Executive on the matter is that we recognise that this is an issue that, for the reasons that have been highlighted, must be considered seriously in the context of Scots law. The approach must be neither, "Because England is doing it, we should do it," nor, "Because England is doing it, we should not do it." It has been said that the fundamental principle of double jeopardy has been around for centuries. For some people, that is sufficient reason for it to be held on to. However, the record of the Executive shows that we are happy to challenge the comfortable view that things should remain a certain way because they have been that way for ever. Clearly, good arguments have been made today, both for retaining double jeopardy and for reconsidering it.

There has been an attempt to suggest that the Tories' motion represents a matter of principle and that members must vote either for it or against it on principle. However, as Stewart Stevenson said, there are lots of other ways in which the same ends could be achieved, and there are many opportunities for addressing people's reservations about double jeopardy. To me, the motion is not a matter of principle; rather, it merely highlights an issue. As the Executive's amendment says, once we recognise that there is an issue, we must recognise that certain things will flow from addressing it. Our amendment also puts the issue into the broader context of supporting victims, which is a legitimate position to take.

Should there be a review, of course it should take into account the differences in procedure between Scotland and England and whether there could be some way of preventing people from being unfairly pursued again and again other than by holding on to double jeopardy. I know that some people ask hard questions about moving forward because they want to stop change, but I think that the way in which change can be delivered is by being prepared to take on those hard questions—and, in this case, by being open to considering whether getting rid of double jeopardy would solve the problem or whether it might be better to use other measures. My position is that a review would expose the hard questions for which solutions are required.

It is entirely legitimate to recognise the issue in the context of our approach to the way in which the court system serves the needs of those who are victims of crimes and defends the rights of those who are accused of crimes. Kenny MacAskill talked about cultural change and recognised the role of the Lord Advocate in that regard. However, we should not forget that none of that change happened by accident; it happened because people were willing to take hard political decisions and argue the hard case against the professionals who spoke with authority from within the legal service. The professionals said that those changes could never happen and that they should not happen because the new way was not the way in which things happened in the past. This Executive understands that although we must have full regard to the principles involved, we must also push the professionals in relation to the practicalities of people's experience of the court system. Our record shows that we are willing to listen to those who tell us about the problems in the system and take the argument to those who are satisfied with the system.

Instinctively, a move against double jeopardy is in line with the Executive's approach. However, the Executive prioritises the issues that are of most importance—I have mentioned already the priority that this issue has been given in Parliament—and does the hard work of grinding out the practical ways in which we can protect individuals through legislation and delivery of culture change.

Members can support the Executive's amendment, recognising the challenge that double jeopardy represents and seeing the issue in the context of our broader commitment to being tough and rigorous in our approach to the justice system and to making changes where they must be made.

I trust that members will support the Executive's position at decision time.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Frankly, I am disappointed by the Executive's attitude to what has been a very good debate with a number of cerebral contributions.

The Executive claims, correctly, that there has been no great amount of parliamentary activity on the issue in the past. However, the same Executive has not been slow to take action on other issues on which there has been a similar lack of activity. In its amendment, the Executive highlights the fact that the victim should be at the centre of the criminal justice system. Surely what we are suggesting today is consistent with that approach and should be worthy of support.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

My point was that the test is what the parties actually do when they have the opportunity to protect victims. We considered that recently, and the Tories have been found wanting. They committed themselves to protecting a principle on trial in absence in the face of evidence that large numbers of cases in sheriff courts were being recalled again and again. Vulnerable witnesses were being forced through an unnecessary process when, in the interests of justice, they could have been protected. The Conservatives have been found wanting in relation to the practicalities.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

That is a separate argument and, with regard to the practicalities, I can well imagine a situation in which thousands of warrants have to be issued by courts for people who have been convicted in their absence and do not turn up for sentencing.

Let me return to the principal point of the debate. A number of members have put forward logical and reasoned arguments as to why they cannot support the motion. I will take Mr Purvis's concerns first. He is of the view that sometimes the prosecution might keep something up its sleeve in case something went wrong with a trial. However, the prosecution could not do that because the rule of best evidence says that the Crown must produce its strongest possible case.

Therefore, that simply would not happen. We are proposing that only the Scottish court of criminal appeal, on an application from the Lord Advocate, could order a retrial. If the Crown had not presented the strongest possible case, I would expect the High Court to give such an application short shrift and reject it immediately. That might ease Mr Purvis's concerns.

Pauline McNeill rightly asked why we should make the change just because the English have done so, but that is not why we want to do it. She also said that any change would raise a debate about the offences that would be covered. Exactly—why are we not having that debate? To my mind, the offences that would likely be covered by the procedure are those of serious violence, including sexual violence, but others might have a different viewpoint. Let us have that argument.

Of course, the procedure would have to be retrospective. Patrick Harvie said that that would be unjust in itself, but we did not hesitate in prosecuting Nazi war criminals 30 or 40 years after the event—and rightly so. However, if it could be demonstrated that the delay in an application to the Scottish court of criminal appeal was prejudicial, I would expect the court to kick the application out. That would cover Patrick Harvie's fears.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

That was the first time that the backers of the motion have used the example of Nazi war crimes. For the most part, they have been talking about situations in which new technology or methods of gaining forensic evidence bring evidence that could not have been obtained at the time. Given that the European convention on human rights allows exceptions to be made to the rule of double jeopardy, but not its abolition, are the Conservatives saying that the exception should specify only cases in which there was evidence that could not have been available at the time of the original trial because the technology was not available?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Clearly, most such cases would arise from the fact that technology can do things now that it could not do 10 or 20 years ago. However, we are saying that there should be retrials when there is new and compelling evidence—for example, a witness turns up who was not available at the original trial. We have drawn the proposal tightly. It refers to new and compelling evidence that could not readily have been available at the time of the original trial. That is the appropriate way to proceed.

Gordon Jackson was right to say that, to some extent, injustice is inevitable. We know that. There are perverse jury verdicts, and witnesses forget things. On many occasions, people who should be convicted leave court having been acquitted. There is nothing that we can do about that—there must always be a presumption of innocence. Surely allowing retrials would give justice to the victims of crime. We would not envisage more than two or three retrials in any one year—if, indeed, there were any at all. However, people are being denied justice; if we implemented the change, they would no longer be denied justice. I support the motion in Annabel Goldie's name.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

To ask the Scottish Executive how the recently introduced child protection information line will help vulnerable children. (S2O-12135)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

It is everyone's responsibility to protect children. That is why it is vital that anyone who has a concern about a child's well-being reports that concern. The national 24-hour child protection freephone information line is a gateway service to give the general public easy access to child protection services in local agencies.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

The minister will know that I represent a largely rural constituency, in which such a service is very welcome. How will the service be reviewed and analysed and how will the information that is gathered from it be used to help and develop social services across constituencies such as mine so that we can respond effectively to the needs of vulnerable children?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

It is important first that we get the line up and running. A budget of £94,000 has been allocated for promotional activities for this financial year. I take Karen Gillon's central point about the particular importance of rural areas, where it can be more difficult to provide services than it is in more built-up or central areas. The effect of the line will be reviewed. It is part of a panoply of measures in connection with child protection services generally, and we will learn lessons from it as it is rolled out. I assure the member that we will keep a close eye on how it works in practice, whether it is successful and adding value and what lessons we can learn from the information that comes in on it.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question 2 is from Helen Eadie, but the member is not present.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has, in addition to building two new prisons, to assess and address any increase in the prison population over the next four years resulting from factors such as the provisions of the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill. (S2O-12096)

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

The Scottish Prison Service is spending in the region of £1.5 million per week on modernising the prison estate. That investment has created 2,000 new fit-for-purpose places in four prisons across Scotland.

With regard to the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill, ministers put on the record the impact of the policy and the resources needed to deliver it when they published their financial memorandum to the bill. The final allocation of resources will depend on the spending review later this year.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Given the announcement that Low Moss prison is to close on 28 May, can the minister confirm that the Scottish Prison Service will be able to cope with the resultant loss of prison spaces until the new capacity is built and available? Has she considered extending other prisons in Scotland, in particular Kilmarnock prison, where the SPS has confirmed that expansion would be possible?

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

As the member will know and as the SPS confirmed this morning, the decision to phase out the places at Low Moss was taken in principle some five years ago. It is right and proper that we look to have a fit-for-purpose prison estate. Some 200 prisoners are at Low Moss at the moment and, as the places there are phased out, they will be moved to additional places and absorbed within the available capacity in the Prison Service.

We will of course examine what other opportunities there may be in the future. I will not commit to any particular location—the member would not expect me to do that. However, I am aware of the situation at Kilmarnock prison. As the local MSP, Margaret Jamieson has been active in supporting the work of Kilmarnock prison and has indeed raised the matter that Margaret Mitchell mentioned with the SPS.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment it has made of the findings of the UNICEF report on child poverty in perspective. (S2O-12112)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

We have read the United Nations Children's Fund report with interest and noted that some of the underpinning data are more than seven years old and that none of the data is disaggregated to individual United Kingdom jurisdictions. Therefore, direct comparisons in respect of Scotland's position are not possible.

The Executive has made significant progress in reducing child poverty and improving the education and health of children in Scotland. Our record stands up well to scrutiny, but we are far from being complacent. We are determined to continue our efforts to improve outcomes for all Scotland's children.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am sure that the minister is aware that the report states that the UK has more children in families with no employed adult, more teenage pregnancies and more young people with drug or alcohol problems than other countries have. Those are among the more alarming statistics. I am sure that he is also aware of a recent report by the Work Foundation that highlights the strong link between the development of very young children and the likelihood that they will have teenage pregnancies, that they will have behavioural problems, that they will be abusive or violent, that they will have low achievement levels and that they will be unemployed in later life. Does he agree that if we want to break the cycle of deprivation that too many young children still face, we must invest in our youngest children to ensure that they receive the support and services that they need to develop fully as individuals physically, mentally and socially?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I entirely agree. In that context, I pay tribute to the work that the Education Committee, of which Iain Smith is convener, has done in its early years inquiry to bring out such issues publicly.

It is fair to say that members' understanding of what creates barriers and difficulties for children as they take their march through life is improving. An increasing amount of money has been made available for early years provision, which has been increasingly targeted—I refer to the child care strategy, surestart Scotland and the many other initiatives that have been taken. I think that there will be an increasing focus on such provision in the next session.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Is it not a reflection of the failure of the Executive's policy that the level of child poverty in Scotland is nearly two and a half times the level in 1968 and ten times the level in Denmark? Why is the level of child poverty in Scotland ten times the level in Denmark?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am not sure whether Mr Neil is basing his figures on the UNICEF report or on other documentation, but we must specifically consider the position in Scotland. Scotland has exceeded the target that the UK Government set in 1999 to reduce by a quarter between 1998-99 and 2004-05 the proportion of children who live in low-income households. I ask Mr Neil why the Scottish National Party has no policies to deal with the under-threes if it thinks that it is so important to take action in such fields. We discovered that it has no such policies in a debate the other day.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the estimated cost is of outstanding maintenance and repairs of roads under the control of local authorities. (S2O-12074)

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Executive does not require councils to provide that information and therefore there is no centrally held estimate. However, Audit Scotland's 2006 report entitled "Scottish Executive: an overview of the performance of transport in Scotland" gave an estimate of the overall cost that may be needed to bring local roads up to standard.

I understand that the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland is undertaking a rolling survey of the condition of all local roads on behalf of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities and that the second-year results are now available. Full results will be available for a four-year period in two years' time.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the minister admit that many of our local roads are in a deplorable state and that their condition has worsened rather than improved since the Executive came to power? Does the Executive carry any responsibility for that?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Roads and transport grant-aided expenditure allocations have increased by £60 million per annum for 2006-07 and 2007-08. Total GAE for roads maintenance will amount to £320 million by 2007-08, which represents an increase of 23 per cent on the 2004-05 allocation. It would be interesting to find out how Mr Morgan's proposal to freeze council tax levels would impact on the state of our roads.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Does the minister realise that there are more road works per kilometre in Edinburgh than there are in any other local authority area in Scotland and that 85 per cent of those road works are undertaken by utility companies? Given that the utility companies' inadequate reinstatement of roads, which results in outstanding maintenance and repairs, is an increasing problem in Edinburgh that is causing great public concern, will he increase from £120 to at least £5,000 the proposed fixed-penalty charge to be levied by local authorities against offenders under the regulations to be made under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005? Will he also consider amending the existing legislation to ensure that any road works that utility companies want to carry out do not commence until the local authority's approval has been granted, except in emergencies?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am grateful to the member for raising his concerns about the impact of utility companies on Edinburgh's roads, and am sure that the Minister for Transport would be willing to listen and respond to any suggestions that Mr Chisholm wishes to take up with him.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

In my constituency, the local authority has invested far more than its GAE on roads, but the roads are still in a bad state of repair. The minister will be aware that there was a commitment in the partnership document to increase spending on rural roads. How is spending being increased? How much extra investment will be available in the coming four years?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

As I said in responding to Mr Morgan's question, an extra £60 million has been made available for 2006-07 and a further £60 million will be made available for 2007-08. A total of £320 million for road maintenance will be made available in 2007-08, which represents a 23 per cent increase on the 2004-05 allocation. It is, of course, up to local authorities to decide how to spend that money and whether roads should be prioritised.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive when it intends to phase out trains not fitted with controlled-emission toilets. (S2O-12107)

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

We have no current plans to phase out trains that are not fitted with controlled-emission toilets in advance of rail industry requirements. However, we will consider the use of controlled-emission toilets when new rolling stock is being procured.

Transport Scotland has spoken to Network Rail's station and track cleaning services, particularly at Inverness station, and has agreed an action plan, given the recent concerns that Mr Stone and other members have expressed.

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

It is unacceptable that raw sewage should be discharged directly on to rail tracks in Scotland. Will the minister give an undertaking that he will meet the rail companies to discuss what might be done in the future to do away with that problem?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The Minister for Transport has already had discussions with the rail companies. Ensuring that stations and tracks are clean is the operational responsibility of First ScotRail and Network Rail, and I understand that they are working to improve the trackside environments at stations. Network Rail will soon trial a deep-clean process at Aberdeen station, which will be in addition to the regular cleaning that takes place there. If the process successfully keeps the station trackside environment clean, it will be rolled out across the network, including at Inverness.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am tempted to say that if the train journey from Inverness to Thurso were much shorter, fewer people would need to use the train toilets, and that we might be able to solve that problem if Liberal Democrat members argued for the Dornoch link.

How much would it cost to upgrade the trains that work on extremely long lines, rather than all class 158 trains, which may provide suburban services? Can we seriously get down to a figure for upgrading those trains so that the nonsense of having emissions on tracks stops?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

As I said, action has already been undertaken to deal with concerns that have been expressed about effluent at Inverness station. Members will be aware that there have been a number of failures in the service quality regime. The track at Inverness will be cleaned weekly. Litter will be picked up and biowaste spray will be used to neutralise and break down discharges. First ScotRail will also improve the signage on trains without CET to prevent passengers from using toilets on them at stations.

In the longer term, a £9 million refurbishment programme will improve the spacing on trains and their storage facilities and will help to refurbish toilets. That programme will substantially improve passenger comfort and facilities and help to make services more attractive to passengers in the Inverness area.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to fast track the Aberdeen 50m swimming pool and other sporting facility projects so that top-class facilities in Scotland can be offered as training camps for the 2012 Olympics and, if Glasgow's bid is successful, the 2014 Commonwealth games. (S2O-12079)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Sportscotland has not yet received an appropriate application for a 50m pool from Aberdeen City Council, but it has committed to assist the council in preparing such an application. There are no plans to fast track any sporting facilities under the national and regional sports facilities strategy. There is a rigorous two-stage process in place for approving awards under the strategy and it would be wrong to take short cuts in that process. Applications from Scottish facilities for inclusion in the London 2012 pre-games training camp guide are being actively considered. In addition, sportscotland and the Executive will be considering how best to promote facilities that could be used by other countries and sports in preparation for London 2012.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I thank the minister for her reply, which I find extremely disappointing. If we do not take action to fast track such facilities, the promises that have been made about the Olympic games being for all of the United Kingdom—or indeed, if Glasgow is successful, the Commonwealth games being for all of Scotland—will be empty, especially in light of the likely raid on the lottery funds in the near future. Will the minister assure me that she will make the appropriate representations on behalf of Scotland in relation to the lottery funds to ensure that sporting facilities are available here for the development of our elite athletes and to maximise the opportunities for all of Scotland to take part in the Commonwealth games, should Glasgow be awarded them?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Not even the Scottish National Party in its wildest moments would regard it as sensible to award money for a scheme that has not been developed yet. However, £7 million of sportscotland support is already going in to facilities in Aberdeen. I hope that Aberdeen City Council and its partners are actively considering whether those facilities would allow the city to attract teams to its area in the run-up to 2012.

I should point out to Mr Adam that the £25 million in lottery funding that has been allocated for the training of elite athletes in Scotland is guaranteed and will be there to help our elite athletes in their preparation.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As well as the significant capital costs, swimming pools are often expensive to run and maintain, to the point that most of them operate at a loss. Is the minister doing anything to support operators with on-going costs? Given high energy costs, what effort has the minister made to support the introduction of more efficient and greener systems of energy use in sports facilities?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

That is an interesting point concerning the energy uses of swimming pools and other sports facilities—a matter that is being actively considered and one that will be very much at the heart of the issue regarding the facilities that would be provided for the Commonwealth games. It is fair to say that swimming pools that are operated by local authorities—which I think Mr McGrigor is referring to—should be maintained and looked after by those local authorities as part of their responsibility to provide for sports in their areas. The first part of Mr McGrigor's question should be addressed to those local authorities.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has made, or intends to make, any representations to the United Kingdom Government on behalf of the Scottish live music industry in respect of the recent meeting between the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and representatives of the UK industry concerning ticket touting. (S2O-12150)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I very much welcome the steps that are being taken by the music industry and internet auction sites to protect the interests of fans from ticket touts. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has hosted a number of meetings to discuss that issue, which have been attended by UK organisations that represent Scottish interests.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The minister may be aware that Scotland sells more live tickets than any other part of the UK. I am sure that she will appreciate the importance of protecting Scots who are passionate about their music. Will she assure me that she will continue to protect Scotland's interests against ticket touts and discuss with the UK ministers the possibility that legislation may be required to stop ticket touting by those who gain commercial benefit by exploiting young people in particular by grossly inflating ticket prices?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I am sympathetic to the points that Pauline McNeill makes. I have followed the debate with great interest and have discussed the matter with colleagues. It looks as though the measures that are now being put in place by the industry as a result of its conversations with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will offer a resolution to the difficulty, but I am reassured that the Westminster Government has not yet ruled out the prospect of legislation, should those initiatives not be found to work. Obviously, in that context, we would work on devolved matters with our colleagues at Westminster if that was the route that we decided was the best one to take.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2733)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I remind the First Minister that in his manifesto for the last election he promised that every maths and English class in secondary 1 and secondary 2 would be cut to a maximum of 20 pupils. However, in a letter from the Education Department a few weeks ago, local authorities were told that it is now only the average class size that has to be as low as 20. Why has the policy changed?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The question contains an inaccuracy, because both in the chamber—where we first debated the issue in 2004—and in letters to directors of education at the end of 2005, it was made clear, following representations from directors of education and from head teachers, that where teachers requested some flexibility in a policy that we had said originally was absolute, head teachers would have that flexibility to ensure that the interests of their pupils came first, but only under certain conditions and controls. It is simply wrong of Ms Sturgeon to claim that there is a recent discovery, announcement or change of policy. What there is, is a listening approach. We have listened to head teachers who want to ensure the best possible education for youngsters.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I remind the First Minister that the original pledge was that no pupil would be in a class of more than 20, but under his new policy many pupils will be in classes of more than 20. Everybody knows that that is a substantial shift. Let us leave that to one side and focus instead on the First Minister's new policy.

Is the First Minister aware that even his watered down target is not close to being met? I draw his attention to figures obtained by my office under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Is he aware that, of the 25 councils that responded, not one single mainland authority is meeting the new target of an average class size of 20? Why is it that, even when he shifts the goalposts, the First Minister still misses the goal?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The second point is irrelevant, because the target is for this September not last September, as Ms Sturgeon herself said in her previous question.

As a result of the investment, every penny of which stands; the additional teachers, every one of whom will be in place; and the additional trainee places, every one of which has been achieved, we will of course reach the level of resources required to keep those classes to that size. In fact, we have increased the number of people studying to become primary teachers by more than 100 per cent since 2003, we have increased the number of people studying to be mathematics teachers by more than 75 per cent since 2003 and we have increased the number of people studying to become English teachers by more than 100 per cent since 2003.

The local authorities have every resource that they require to fulfil the requirement by September 2007, which is the date that they were set. We listened to those voices that said to us that the target should be, in the hands of the head teachers, open to flexibility. The Scottish nationalist party may laugh, but they may not laugh when I remind them that, back in 2002, Fiona Hyslop, who is of course the education spokesperson for the Scottish National Party, said:

"We should listen to what teachers and head teachers say. Head teachers have told me that they would prefer the flexibility of making their own choices, rather than the dislocation and disruption of ... classes, which result from the requirement to meet the class size target."—[Official Report, 7 February 2002; c 6182.]

That is another example of the Scottish National Party saying one thing on one day and a different thing on a different day, or saying one thing to one audience and a different thing to another, or being prepared to say absolutely anything to try to win votes in an election. We put the education of pupils first.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I remind the First Minister that he helpfully distorted that quote once before, which allowed me to go back and check what was said. Ms Hyslop said that the Executive should listen to head teachers and reduce primary class sizes by using more teachers, not more composite classes.

However, I was asking the First Minister about his change of policy on secondary education that will leave many pupils in classes of more than 20. The First Minister now says that he wants to give himself until September to meet this target. When he first launched this policy, just before the last election, he said that it would be delivered by the end of the four-year term. Now, as well as shifting the goalposts on the policy, the First Minister wants extra time.

The problem is that the policy objective is not even close to being met. I point out to the First Minister that 12 of the local authorities from which I have received responses still have average English and maths class sizes of 25 or more. Is he aware that, in his own back yard of North Lanarkshire, the average S1 class in English and maths has more than 26 pupils? Is it not the case that, however we look at it, this is another broken education pledge from Labour?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That is absolutely not the case. In fact, today we have an average ratio in primary schools of 17 pupils per teacher. In our secondary schools, we have consistently managed to reduce class sizes by the employment of additional teachers and additional staff to work alongside them.

I point out, to those in the chamber and those beyond it, that any Scottish National Party policy of reducing class sizes will not happen because of its plans to end the school building programme and ensure that youngsters do not even have the classrooms that would be needed to implement the policy.

I assure Ms Sturgeon that 2007 was the target year for the implementation of the policy, and it will be met this year. I will read out to Ms Sturgeon the words of Mr Jim Dalziel—I do not think that I have ever met him—who is the head teacher of Eastbank academy in the area of Glasgow that she represents. Following the story at the beginning of the week, Mr Dalziel wrote in today's The Herald:

"The First Minister should be congratulated for having the vision to set what was a very ambitious target, achieving it, and now allowing the new minister, Mr Henry, to take it forward in such a sensible manner."

That is the role of a responsible Government—to set a clear target, to allocate all the required resources, to make the changes to the buildings and to teacher training that will deliver that target, and then to say to head teachers that if, on rare occasions, they wish to adjust those class sizes for the educational benefit of their pupils, we would listen to them and not run their classrooms for them. If SNP members believe that they should run every single classroom in the country, they are wrong. The education of pupils comes first, ahead of them and their political posturing.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The First Minister mentioned Glasgow. Glasgow City Council said, in answer to my freedom of information request, that it does not collect the figures on S1 and S2 class sizes. That is absolutely extraordinary for a flagship policy.

It is about time that the First Minister took some responsibility for his record, instead of making up scare stories about the SNP. I remind the First Minister that Labour was elected on a pledge of "education, education, education." Is it not the case that, as we have seen with nursery education, school discipline and class sizes, Labour's legacy is actually one of "broken promise, broken promise, broken promise"?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

For the record, I will be very specific about the facts. The level of attainment in Scotland's schools has gone up consistently since the introduction of devolution. That has happened both in primary schools, where the level of attainment in reading, writing and mathematics has gone up from 70 to 79 per cent, and in secondary schools, where the level of attainment at S2 has gone up from 41 to 59 per cent—an 18 per cent increase. Those increases make a difference to every one of the youngsters concerned.

In every case, the 200 brand new or rebuilt schools that have already been provided are improving the education of the pupils who enter them every morning, and the new schools that we will continue to build after the election will improve the education of Scottish pupils, too. The SNP will pay a price for wishing to stop the school-building programme, which would make it more difficult to reduce class sizes and to give youngsters the facilities that are required in the 21st century. The SNP cannot accept the fact that head teachers and teachers in this country are getting exactly what they require and what the SNP used to call for before it changed its tune in an effort to get cheap votes at an election. Over the years, the SNP and others called for more freedom for teachers and head teachers in our schools, which they are now getting. That is why results are improving and why head teachers and teachers support our policy.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I remind the First Minister that crimes and offences are up. Indeed, a crime or an offence is committed in Scotland every 30 seconds. Even more worryingly, that is just reported crime. The recent Scottish crime survey showed that three out of every four crimes are never reported. Why do the people of Scotland have so little confidence in Scotland's criminal justice system?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Miss Goldie misrepresents entirely the progress that has been made in the system. The number of police officers is up, more of them are spending time on operational duties and they are supported by community wardens and by better laws that allow them to take more action in the community. In addition, since devolution it has consistently been the case throughout Scotland that recorded crime has come down and clear-up rates have gone up. At last communities are beginning to have some confidence in a system that is being restored to order and is being applied properly after the years of decline and decay that we saw under the last Conservative Government.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The figures that I quoted to the First Minister are the Scottish Executive's. Crimes and offences are up. The First Minister has many shortcomings, but self-delusion is clearly at the top of the list.

He will be aware that, at present, prisoners who serve sentences of four years or less are released after serving half their sentences, while longer-term prisoners walk out after they have served two thirds of their sentences. His new sentencing proposals will mean that all prisoners—even those who serve sentences of more than four years—may be able to stroll out of prison at half-time or even earlier.

Last week the Scottish Conservatives lodged stage 2 amendments to the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill, which would have led to all prisoners serving at least 90 per cent of their sentences in jail. We know that the SNP is soft on crime and on criminals, but the First Minister claims to be a tough guy, so why did the Lib-Lab pact vote to give criminals an easy ride?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

For the second time, what Miss Goldie says is simply untrue. The reality is that, for the first time, criminals who are put into custody once they have received a prison sentence will serve the full custody part of that sentence. That is a significant improvement on the system that the Tories introduced, which allows criminals not only to leave halfway through their sentences, but to do so without conditions. As well as ensuring that prisoners serve the full custody part of their sentences in custody, we will impose conditions on prisoners outwith the custody period. That is the right policy for Scotland's prisons and it will properly protect local people in their communities. If the Tories had any honesty, they would admit that we have improved a system that they damaged and would get behind our proposals and support them.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

For the first time, the Scottish Executive will tie the hands of our judges by prohibiting them, by statute, from giving custody-only sentences.

Let me give the First Minister another chance to send a message to the Scottish people that he is on their side. The Scottish Conservatives propose that the criminal law in Scotland be changed so that persons who have been acquitted of serious criminal charges can be tried again if new and compelling evidence comes to light. If the Lib-Lab pact is really committed to justice, will it drop its amendment to our motion on double jeopardy and support the victims of crime in Scotland?