Scottish Parliament, 6 September 2007

323 contributions from 88 members. The official report.

Official Report 6 September 2007

Foot-and-mouth Disease

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a statement by Richard Lochhead on the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. As the minister will take questions at the end of his statement, there should be no interventions during it.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I would like to make a statement on the response in Scotland to the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Surrey. I understand that there may have been a delay in some of the other parties receiving copies of the statement. If that was the case, I apologise, and will have it investigated.

As members will be aware, August was a turbulent and difficult month for Scotland's livestock and red-meat industries. Disease was confirmed in the early evening of Friday 3 August. That came as a considerable surprise, given that the international surveillance work for exotic diseases suggested that the risk of foot-and-mouth disease to the United Kingdom was low. Clearly, the news was of serious concern to the many rural communities and agricultural businesses whose memories of the devastation caused by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in 2001 remain painful and whose contribution to the Scottish economy is vital.

When the outbreak was confirmed, leave was cancelled for ministers and key officials. On receiving the news, the Scottish Government acted quickly to put its emergency arrangements in place. The Scottish foot-and-mouth disease contingency plan was activated, and the Scottish Government's emergency room arrangements were immediately implemented within Pentland House. My officials and I immediately returned to Edinburgh to participate in key meetings and to direct the precautionary and proportionate response to the events. The Scottish contingency plan incorporates many lessons learned from the 2001 outbreak. One of the key lessons was that confirmation of disease within the single epidemiological unit of Great Britain would lead to a nationwide movement ban on susceptible animals as quickly as possible.

Following confirmation of this serious animal disease, the Scottish and UK Governments took immediate action and the movement ban was implemented at 9 pm on Friday 3 August, just three hours after disease was confirmed in Surrey. That was a necessary, immediate step to protect Scotland's interests, as the disease picture was uncertain, both in terms of its source and in terms of the potential spread of disease. In addition, major agricultural shows were being staged in Scotland over that weekend.

Ministers and officials were in close contact with the other Administrations throughout the UK from the outset, and there were several telephone conferences a day between the Administrations. Parallel movement bans were put in place in England and Wales, and the Scottish Government participated in key meetings, including Cabinet Office briefing room meetings chaired by the Prime Minister, which the First Minister and I attended. The scale of that response reflected the serious intent behind our actions.

The Scottish Government recognised that the introduction of the movement ban, while fully justified by the uncertainty of the origins of the disease, would have consequences for the entire livestock supply chain. That is why, where justified by science and veterinary risk assessment, relaxations were made as soon as possible. In particular, during the first 48 hours of response we permitted movement of dairy cows across roads for milking; we permitted the movement of animals for emergency veterinary treatment; and, as a temporary measure, we permitted the on-farm burial of fallen stock to protect animal and public health.

The rapid introduction of those measures was possible because of the strong and early engagement with Scottish industry and other stakeholders. From an early stage, my officials were in close contact with key stakeholders to spread the message of restrictions imposed and the need for heightened vigilance and biosecurity. That initial communication was supported by the quick establishment of a dedicated area on the Scottish Government's website and the creation of a dedicated foot-and-mouth disease helpline. At its peak, the website took 14,000 hits in one day and the helpline took 1,749 calls over a four-week period.

Through those communication channels and regular meetings with stakeholders, we were able to identify the key challenges and issues that needed to be addressed. That allowed us to consider and prioritise work that needed to be done to support the on-going operation of the Scottish livestock industry. Through that approach, from 8 August—only four days into the outbreak—we were able to allow the resumption of movements direct to slaughter. That was an unprecedented achievement, which was based solely on the available science and risk assessments.

Those risk assessments were undertaken by my chief veterinary officer, Charles Milne, and his team, and I take this opportunity to state on the record my sincere thanks to all my officials. Throughout this crisis they have demonstrated the highest levels of commitment and professionalism. They consistently sought solutions and worked round the clock to ensure that the livestock sector, the media and—as often as possible—MSPs were kept fully up to date with the latest information and that restrictions were relaxed as soon as it was prudent to do so. I am proud, and Scotland should be proud, to have such high-calibre professionals working for us, particularly in such difficult circumstances. I know that the many people involved in the livestock sector that I have spoken to would echo my vote of thanks to them. As a result of their efforts, Scotland was able to be the first part of Great Britain back in business. Similar risk assessments allowed Scotland to move early to open up collection centres on 22 August; movement between farms on 24 August; and—a significant achievement—to allow markets to resume operation on 27 August, a whole week earlier than other parts of the UK were able to achieve.

The Scottish Government's activities were not solely related to the livestock sector. We worked with the media and others to send out a message of reassurance to Scotland and the wider world. In particular, we wanted to ensure that everyone understood that Scotland's countryside remained open for business. We were aware that a significant number of agricultural shows were planned for August. I ensured that the organisers of each show that was planned for the weekend on which disease was confirmed were contacted and provided with advice on how their shows could continue, albeit without livestock. I personally spoke to a number of show organisers and was privileged to be able to attend the Turriff show on 5 August with the First Minister. I later also attended the Keith show. Indeed, ministers from across the Government attended many shows throughout Scotland over that four-week period.

As the disease situation became clearer, further restrictions were relaxed. In particular, the islands were removed from the restricted zone on 12 August, allowing them to return to pre-3 August activities. From an early stage, the Scottish Government worked to consider how Scotland could roll back from the restrictions. In doing so, we have been ably supported by the Scottish science base, and in particular the centre of excellence in epidemiology, known as EPIC, which is funded by the Scottish Government. As part of that, a team of scientists, lead by Edinburgh University, were commissioned to analyse known movements of livestock from Surrey to Scotland. That work considered both direct movements and indirect contacts between livestock within 20km of the infected premises in Surrey and animals that moved to Scotland between 16 July and 3 August. Not only did that work provide important evidence, enabling restrictions in Scotland to be relaxed, but it provided a significant contribution to the wider debate. I record my thanks to the EPIC team for its efforts.

Discussions with other Administrations were vital in making a successful approach to Europe for a return to full European Union trade. Exports to the EU had been suspended on 3 August. For Scotland, early resumption was critical, given the value of exports to the industry and the Scottish economy. The Government considered all available opportunities for regaining access to export markets. Regionalisation was one option that was given serious consideration. I had early discussions with a wide range of industry representatives to consider the desirability of such an approach. The conclusion from those discussions was that regionalisation would be difficult, particularly given the significance of trade with other parts of the UK. It was an option, but not the preferred option under the circumstances of the August outbreak.

Fortunately, it did not come to that. On 23 August, Europe's Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health unanimously agreed to allow the resumption of export trade in live animals and animal products from Great Britain, with the exception of the Surrey surveillance zone. The value and volume of trade with England and Wales meant that that was a particularly good result for Scotland. To the industry's enormous relief, the export ban was lifted three weeks after the outbreak rather than the potential three months. I express the Scottish Government's appreciation for the efforts of the European Commission officials and the UK's negotiating team in achieving that result. Once again, the speed and scale of the result was unprecedented.

It is worth noting that an important factor in allowing exports to resume so early was the robust response taken throughout Great Britain. A core part of that was the national movement ban. However, there is still work to be done. We have been successful in securing EU trade, but third-country exports remain an issue and we continue to engage with the UK Government to support negotiations with the OIE, the World Organisation for Animal Health.

When I announced the lifting of movement restrictions in Scotland, the Scottish Government put in place some temporary safeguards: the 20-day movement standstill, the suspension of separation agreements and the requirement for a veterinary presence at markets. That was a temporary measure recommended by my chief veterinary officer until the risk levels returned to those of before 3 August.

I have already announced that the temporary safeguards will be lifted in parallel with the lifting of the surveillance zone in Surrey. That is currently scheduled for Saturday and will mean in practice that the additional standstill restriction amounts to only an additional two days beyond the normal 13 days. By Sunday, Scotland will have returned to the normal movement regime.

Overall, Scotland has achieved much over the past month. This was a team effort of the highest order, with industry and Government working together with a common goal. I would also like to record the good support that we have received from other agencies, particularly the Meat Hygiene Service, local authorities and Animal Health. In particular, this event was an early test of the new co-ordination arrangements between the Scottish Government and Animal Health, which saw a senior agency official embedded within the Edinburgh strategy team for the first time. This was invaluable in ensuring close co-ordination with the vets in the field and helped to address emerging issues quickly.

Although there have been successes we must not be complacent. It is our intention to learn from these events and to be even more prepared in the future. Today, I can announce that the Scottish Government is commissioning an independent review into the Scottish response to foot-and-mouth disease. The review will led by Professor Jim Scudamore, who has extensive experience in the animal health field, having held the post of chief veterinary officer to the United Kingdom Government, including during the 2001 outbreak, and also having served as assistant chief veterinary officer for Scotland.

I will meet Professor Scudamore next week to discuss in detail the scope and timescales for the review. I intend the review to inform our contingency plan and to reflect on our experience in relation to this outbreak. I will keep Parliament appraised as this review progresses.

I am also commissioning research into the economic impacts of the movement ban and the relaxations that we were able to introduce. This is important in guiding our future response and ensuring that our actions are proportionate.

We understand that the industry and the rural economy have been disrupted. The livestock sector before the outbreak was already facing pressures, particularly due to the effects of cereal prices. With that in mind, I wish to say a final vote of thanks to those who were most adversely affected by this outbreak: the farmers, auctioneers, hauliers, processors and people who form every link in the livestock supply chain and whose resilience, understanding and co-operation in the face of this crisis has been truly magnificent. They have responded to the restrictions with patience and understanding and I assure them that the Scottish Government will do everything that it can to support them at this challenging time.

We have acted quickly to respond. We have committed £100,000 to support a Quality Meat Scotland lamb promotion campaign. This is a practical step to aid speedy recovery and we will continue to offer practical support. The demand for quality Scottish produce in export markets and the premium price that this produce can command will bring huge benefits to the industry in Scotland. We will continue to work across the sector to maximise Scotland's opportunities.

I know that we all agree that it is vital that every effort is made to identify the source of the outbreak. We await the official outcome of the investigations by the Health and Safety Executive and Professor Spratt, who are concentrating their efforts at the Institute for Animal Health and the Merial facility at Pirbright. Whatever the source, it is absolutely vital that every step is taken to prevent any lapses of biosecurity in future.

In concluding, I reiterate my thanks to all involved in achieving what has been a positive outcome for Scotland. Within the space of three weeks, we responded to a significant outbreak of a notifiable disease. Furthermore, within those three weeks we were able to relax movement restrictions and restore export markets. Scotland set the pace and was able to lift many of the restrictions ahead of the rest of Great Britain, when it was safe to do so.

Although there is a need to maintain the highest standards of biosecurity and to remain vigilant and alert to the threat of animal disease, there is no question but that in the handling of this outbreak the Scottish Government has delivered the best outcome for the Scottish people.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I intend to allow about 30 minutes for the minister to take questions on the issues raised in his statement. Rob Gibson will ask the first question, followed by Rhona Brankin.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

People across the country have welcomed the possibility of the early lifting of the bans. The minister and his team are to be congratulated.

At the moment, Britain is one epidemiological unit in relation to exotic disease. In terms of our economic interests and biosecurity, would it be practical and beneficial to explore the prospects of Scotland being treated by the EU as an epidemiological unit?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

We have considered regionalisation over the past few weeks and many of those issues have been highlighted. Those are the kinds of issues that it is important for Professor Scudamore to analyse. However, we must recognise that the reason why Great Britain is identified as one epidemiological unit is because of the integrated industry and the fact that there are no natural boundaries.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I welcome Rob Gibson to the ranks of the official Opposition.

I, too, pay tribute to the responsible reaction from the farming community and the broader rural community. The events of 2001 remain a vivid memory for many people in Scotland and throughout Britain. There is still a high level of understanding of the need for alertness and biosecurity measures throughout the country. Indeed, I echo the praise of the commitment and professionalism of the officials who were involved at the Scottish level, the British level and the European level. I am aware that some of the officials who are sitting at the back of the chamber have the misfortune to be going through this process for the second time and I pay special tribute to them, as I was in the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department at the time of the previous outbreak.

I welcome the minister's commitment to the independent inquiry under Professor Scudamore. I ask the minister to ensure that the results of the inquiry are brought before the Parliament at an early opportunity. We all await with interest the results of the Health and Safety Executive's inquiry and the Spratt report.

Despite the tendency of the minister to try to make political capital out of the suggestion that Scotland does things better than England, does he agree that politicians make decisions only on the basis of the advice of chief veterinary officers and that that is how it should be? Further, will he join me in recognising the importance of team GB and of close working with the rest of the UK when dealing with such a crisis?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I thank Rhona Brankin for echoing the thanks that I paid to our officials. I was interested in her comment about making political capital out of this issue.

With regard to the independent review, it is imperative that we keep both Parliaments and the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee up to date with Professor Scudamore's work.

Throughout the crisis, all our decisions were made with regard to the advice of the chief veterinary officer in Scotland. However, as I explained in my statement, at the beginning of the crisis the chief veterinary officer, I, other officials, the First Minister and the Government decided that we had to go forward when the chief veterinary officer's advice allowed us to do so, but that we should accept that we wanted to lift the relaxations as soon as possible because of the impact on the industry. That twin-pronged approach was essential if we were to get through the crisis as quickly as possible. Of course, the fact that we did not have a disease outbreak in Scotland helped us move at a quick pace.

I assure Rhona Brankin that all decisions were taken in the light of the scientific advice. I have already paid tribute in my statement to the co-operation between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. From the beginning of the crisis, I had daily conversations with Lord Rooker; or Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; or Jonathan Shaw, a minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The First Minister was involved in conversations with the Prime Minister. There was a good team effort across Great Britain and it produced the results that we wanted in Scotland.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I apologise to the chamber for not calling the Opposition spokesman to ask the first question, which, of course, I should have done. I can only put it down to ring rustiness after the summer recess.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, declare my interest as a farmer, and welcome the appointment of Professor Scudamore to carry out the review as discussed this morning. I also congratulate the minister and his team of dedicated officials at Pentland House—particularly Charles Milne—on their sterling efforts during the crisis. I might, however, gently rebuke the minister for his comments about champagne corks popping all over Scotland last week; none were, because normal service has not yet been resumed.

While the foot-and-mouth crisis has mercifully largely been overcome, it will pale into insignificance unless producers—particularly those in the pig and poultry sector—start to receive a return from the marketplace that matches the hugely escalating costs of production, driven by the doubling of world grain prices, as the minister noted.

What progress is the minister making in resolving the transport issue by seeking a temporary relaxation of the restrictions on lorry drivers' hours so that the backlog of livestock movements can be cleared up, particularly in Scotland where it is such a problem? Can the minister also advise those farmers who are considering buying livestock this week whether they should do so, considering the fact that the 20-day movement rule is not being lifted until Sunday? If animals are bought today or tomorrow, will they be subject to the 20-day or the 13-day restriction rule on Monday? Will the minister assure us that he is doing all that he can to ensure that only the 13-day restriction rule is in place from Monday?

What will the Scottish Government's response be if the evidence points to foot-and-mouth disease having escaped from a Government-licensed facility? Will that affect the Scottish Government's view on the proposed animal disease levy?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I thank John Scott for his initial comments and three questions.

Transport is a serious issue for hauliers and the livestock sector in Scotland. The current situation is unusual because the movement restrictions have caused a backlog of livestock on farms and, potentially, in markets. We need to relax temporarily some of the restrictions on drivers' hours and the industry and the Scottish Government have conveyed that message to the UK Government. The day before yesterday, I wrote to Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Transport, to ask her for a change of heart and to allow a relaxation of the restrictions for a short time so that we can deal with the livestock backlog. That would be of enormous benefit to the livestock sector in Scotland. In the aftermath of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease there are unusual circumstances. There was a similar relaxation of the restrictions on drivers' hours in 2001, so I think we have a strong case for that to be repeated.

As I indicated in my statement, the plan is to remove the 20-day standstill period on Saturday if all goes well. So by Monday, we will be back to the situation as it stood before 3 August—a 13-day standstill. As members can imagine, I have spoken to many farmers during the past few weeks and they are understanding about the situation. I am hopeful that, by Monday, the industry in Scotland will be back to the pre-3 August situation.

On Pirbright and the source of the outbreak, it is important that the chamber, and I as cabinet secretary, await the outcome of the investigations that are being conducted by the Health and Safety Executive and Professor Spratt. Once we have the reports—which I hope to receive as soon as they are made available—we can reflect on their contents.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I have two specific questions for the minister.

First, given the likelihood that the Health and Safety Executive findings that are due to be published tomorrow will show that the foot-and-mouth outbreak occurred as a result of identified biosecurity lapses between the Government-run Institute for Animal Health and the private company Merial, what action is the Scottish Executive taking to press the UK Government to compensate all those Scottish farming operations that have suffered direct financial loss because of that failure of biosecurity measures?

Secondly, the minister said—and I listened very carefully—that he followed advice at all times. However, I want to check something with the minister. Did the minister not reject specific advice that he received from his officials on biosecurity measures for people visiting agricultural shows, when deciding that those shows should continue during the outbreak?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I do not want to speculate on the investigations at Pirbright. We should await the publication of the reports and then reflect on the findings. I assure Mike Rumbles that I am engaged in regular discussions with farmers' representatives and the livestock industry, and I will continue with those in the coming days. No doubt our discussions will reflect on the contents of the forthcoming reports as they become available.

My response to Mike Rumbles's second question is that that is simply not the case. I am not sure where he got his information from. Under no circumstance did I, as cabinet secretary, reject advice from the chief veterinary officer. That did not occur during those four weeks. I would be interested to find out Mike Rumbles's source for that information.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

One of the matters that became clear during the incident was the rejection by the National Farmers Union Scotland of a regional, Scotland-only approach to the management of the crisis. The lamb sector, to which the minister alluded, along with beef, is so integrated into the rest of the UK for the purposes of slaughter and export that it would have been ineffective to take a solely Scottish approach to the crisis. Does the minister accept that the UK market operates as one market, that the Scottish sector is so integrated with the rest of the UK that it would not be appropriate to take a solely Scottish approach to such problems, and that such matters are always best dealt with at a level above that of the Scottish boundaries alone?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Peter Peacock's initial statement was incorrect. The option of regionalisation was not rejected outright; there was simply a preferred option of the surveillance area being exempted from the lifting of the restrictions in the rest of GB because that was in Scotland's interests. Peter Peacock's initial comment was, therefore, inaccurate; it was a case of there being a preferred option, which I accepted completely.

We adopted a Scottish approach; we did not reject such an approach and it would have been foolish to do so. Because we took that approach and reflected Scottish circumstances in Scotland, we were able to relax the restrictions in the islands as soon as possible and Scotland was able to relax a number of other important restrictions before the rest of GB. That was the right thing to do.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the phone call that I received on the Friday night that the outbreak was made public. The Perth show had opened on that Friday and was to continue on the Saturday, so the impact on my constituency was immediate. I also commend the people who organised Perth show for doing the enormous amount of work that was necessary in the middle of the show to comply with the various newly imposed restrictions.

We have heard how well things were handled, but the outbreak was a stark reminder of the consequences of foot-and-mouth disease and other diseases for the agricultural sector. Although the source of the recent outbreak seems to have been lab based, which is pretty shocking, the importance of very strict controls was highlighted. Is the cabinet secretary aware of the serious concern about the potential for contaminated imports, whether they come into the country legally from countries such as Brazil, for example, where the regulatory regime is seen to be inadequate, or whether they are illegal? Has any analysis of the extent of that problem been done in Scotland? Is the cabinet secretary pursuing that matter with the relevant authorities given this summer's stark reminder of how badly things can go wrong?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I did my best to contact many of the Opposition spokespeople and representatives of the areas in which some of the key agricultural shows were taking place during the weekend of the outbreak. I contacted some of them in lovely overseas countries and they were clearly enjoying their holidays at the time.

Roseanna Cunningham's questions raise an important point about ensuring that adequate safeguards are in place at ports of entry throughout Great Britain and Scotland to prevent illegal imports from entering the country, especially given the threat that that can pose.

The issue has been raised previously in committee reports, in both the Scottish Parliament and the House of Commons, and it continues to be a concern. In the weeks ahead, I intend to meet the other devolved Administrations and the UK Government to reflect on the foot-and-mouth outbreak and I will seek reassurance from the UK Government on the matter at that meeting.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I put on public record my thanks to the cabinet secretary for the efforts that he made to assist me in having direct contact with senior officials during the worst part of the crisis, to deal with specific points that constituents had raised with me. I also record my gratitude to the chief veterinary officer and his staff for the efforts that they made to ensure that problems were dealt with effectively and in a timely manner.

I have a specific point to make on the minister's commitment to a review of the way in which the most recent foot-and-mouth outbreak was handled. Although it seems likely that that outbreak will turn out to be an open-and-shut case, I ask the minister to take the opportunity to extend the review to ensure that it considers the experience of dealing with the 2001 outbreak, as that presents us with two possible learning opportunities.

First, it might be possible to consider some of the proposals made during the review of the 2001 outbreak that have not yet been acted on. Secondly, time has passed since that outbreak and there may be opportunities to give further consideration to proposals that were rejected in 2001, but which the cabinet secretary might think it appropriate to take up in response to any future outbreak of the disease. Will he give an undertaking that the review that is to be conducted will take into account the experience of the 2001 outbreak?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I and my officials very much appreciated the contacts that we had with constituency members the length and breadth of Scotland who made representations on behalf of their local farmers. Those representations were fed into discussions involving me and my officials and were helpful in determining our way forward, so I thank all the members who made them during the four-week period.

I will meet Professor Scudamore shortly to discuss the precise terms of reference of the review and will take on board many of the good points that have been made this morning. Alex Johnstone makes an important point. We must bear in mind that the current contingency plan was drawn up in response to the 2001 outbreak. It makes sense to recognise that the 2007 outbreak was different from the 2001 outbreak, to reflect on the existing contingency plan, which relates to 2001, and to examine the specific circumstances of the most recent outbreak so that we can update the contingency plan to take into account all the factors that Alex Johnstone mentioned.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

During the Environment and Rural Development Committee's scrutiny of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill in session 2, we had detailed discussions on the contingency plan and the biosecurity measures, during which Richard Lochhead was highly critical of the approach of former ministers. In the light of the cabinet secretary's criticisms, what changes did he adopt in the Scottish Executive's response to the recent outbreak? Are there any specific issues that he intends to put on Professor Scudamore's agenda that he feels the previous Scottish Executive did not address properly?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Many of the criticisms that were expressed after the 2001 outbreak were reflected in the new contingency plan, from which I and my officials benefited greatly. If the member is suggesting that I should pay tribute to the previous Administration for taking on board those criticisms and updating the contingency plan, I am happy to do that. The outbreak in 2001 was extremely serious and I would have been amazed if we had not learned lessons from it. We learned important lessons, the main one of which was, as I explained in my statement, the need for a rapid response and the imposition, as soon as is practical, of restrictions on the movement of animals.

At this stage, we have an open mind on the precise terms of reference of the review. As I said to Alex Johnstone, we will take into account many of the points that members have made today. If there are specific issues that members are keen for the review to include, they should write to me and I will ensure that their suggestions are passed on to Professor Scudamore. I am sure that he will take the opportunity to speak directly to members in the Parliament in the weeks and months ahead.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement. Members must forgive my voice—it sounds as if I have picked up a form of foot and mouth. Members should not laugh because if that is the case, a 3km cull might have to be declared. I declare an interest in farming.

I acknowledge that the Government reacted swiftly to the latest outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I am concerned about our facing such a devastating disease again so soon after the tragic 2001 outbreak, so I urge the Government to support a full investigation into how the outbreak came about. In addition, I am concerned about imports from countries in South America and south and east Asia, where foot-and-mouth disease is rife and traceability is doubtful. There is no doubt that the recent outbreak has caused a disturbance in their usual markets.

Yesterday's statement on the legislative programme made no mention of local food procurement by public agencies. Has the Government turned back on its promise for such procurement?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Questions are supposed to be about the foot-and-mouth outbreak, but I leave it up to the cabinet secretary whether he wishes to reply to that.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The member's question is reasonable, given that promoting Scottish food will help farmers to obtain a better return for their top-quality produce at a difficult time.

The £100,000 that we have given to Quality Meat Scotland is aimed at promoting Scotch lamb, given the specific pressures that the lamb sector in Scotland faces. I know that that has been warmly welcomed.

I remind members that the on-going Scottish food fortnight provides us with an excellent opportunity to spread the message of encouraging Scottish consumers to get behind our farmers and food producers at this difficult time by purchasing Scottish food. It would be an enormous help if they would do so. This morning I had a bacon roll for breakfast, as I did yesterday. I am sure that other members have been doing the same.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

Will the independent review address the backlog in livestock movement and the practical problems that are faced by Scotland's haulage industry, which are linked to animal health? I congratulate the minister on his prompt and highly effective action. Looking forward, what steps is he taking to ensure the full recovery and future prosperity of the red meat industry in Scotland?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Throughout the outbreak, we were highly conscious that not just farmers, but hauliers, abattoirs and other sectors connected with the red meat industry were affected.

We will learn lessons from the past few weeks. It would be arrogant of us to say that everything was done correctly. We want to learn any lessons that can be learned. That is one of the purposes of the review that we will undertake.

As regards support for the red meat sector, I reiterate what I said to Jim Hume. We have scheduled meetings with the NFUS and other organisations for the days ahead, starting this afternoon, at which we will discuss the pressures that the red meat sector in Scotland faces. Those pressures are due to a wide range of factors, some of which have arisen as a result of the foot-and-mouth outbreak, but many of which were already causing severe difficulties for livestock farmers in Scotland.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the minister agree that the approach that was taken not only in Scotland, but across Great Britain has been crucial to minimising the impact of the outbreak on Scottish farmers? Does he agree that the review that he has announced should be informed by the impending UK Government report? There have been many questions about the review's terms of reference. Once the minister has met Professor Scudamore, when does he expect to be able to report on that to the Parliament and the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Richard Baker is right to say that across Great Britain the response to the outbreak was first class. Our response was part of a joint team effort involving Scotland and the UK.

As I explained in my statement, my general approach is that we want the review to inform the contingency plan for responding to foot-and-mouth disease and to reflect on the experiences of the past four weeks. In broad-brush terms, that is our approach to the review. However, the precise terms of reference will reflect many of the points that have been made this morning. We will report to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and the Parliament as soon as possible.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I call Liam McArthur, to be followed by Andrew Allan.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement. I also thank him and his officials for making themselves accessible to me throughout the recent outbreak. I note that calls were made to various members on 3 August, although not to me; I readily confess that I was overseas at the time, but I point out that it is extremely difficult to travel round my constituency without constantly being overseas.

I echo the praise that has been expressed by members for Charles Milne and his team. I cannot guarantee that he will be given the freedom of Kirkwall any time soon, but he can be assured of a warm welcome throughout Orkney when next he visits.

There is real concern in my constituency about the price that is being achieved in the early market sales, especially for store cattle. With significant increases in the cost of barley, the situation is serious. What specific steps will ministers take with the industry to improve consumer confidence and a return to a more sustainable price for cattle? The cabinet secretary said that £100 million has been committed to the promotion of lamb for specific reasons. Although I welcome that, what steps is he considering to support likewise our important beef industry?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I point out that we have allocated only £100,000, not £100 million, for the promotion of lamb. Had we allocated £100 million, that may have scuppered yesterday's legislative announcements.

I thank Liam McArthur for the cup of tea that he gave me in his constituency office last week, when I was in Kirkwall. I received such a warm response in Kirkwall that I thought I was about to be given the freedom of the community, which I am sure would have worried Liam McArthur.

Yesterday, I had the great privilege of attending the Lairg sales prior to coming down to the Parliament. I spoke to many sheep farmers from the Highlands, as well as from throughout Scotland, who were there to buy lambs. The prices are down on those of previous times, which is a worry; however, thankfully, yesterday's prices at Lairg appeared not to be as bad as expected. Some of the early sale prices were very encouraging. I therefore hope that the sheep farming sector, which is crucial to the Highlands and Islands and elsewhere, will recover from some of the pressures that we are witnessing currently.

I reiterate that the First Minister and I will meet farmers' representatives this afternoon and that such meetings will continue over the next few days and weeks. We are keen to do everything in our power to help the red meat sector to get through these difficult times.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I call Alasdair Allan and apologise for getting his name wrong the first time.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I associate myself and all the representatives of the islands with the remarks that have been made by Mr McArthur and others about the gratitude that is felt in the islands for the role that was played by officials in ensuring that a difficult situation was contained relatively quickly.

Despite the attempts of one or two members today to make this a constitutional issue—reflecting some Labour members' constitutional obsessions—most people understand that the process was science driven and that the response was proportionate. In particular, I am grateful for the fact that the situation of the islands was recognised in that response. Should another outbreak occur in the future, although we hope that that will not happen, what lessons have been learned specifically about the situation of the islands, particularly with regard to ensuring that people are able to get livestock to markets on the mainland as soon as it is safe and practicable to do so?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

My colleague, Michael Russell, has visited the Western Isles in the past few weeks, and I have had the privilege of visiting the Shetland and Orkney islands as well. We have, therefore, had the opportunity to speak to many crofters and farmers on all those islands and we are well aware of the specific nature of the livestock sector on the islands.

We will have an opportunity to consider that area in the review. The islands face specific circumstances—a fact that, to a certain extent, we were able to reflect in our response over the past four weeks. The islands were the first communities to have the restrictions relaxed, because of their geographical nature and their links with the mainland trade. I feel that there is an opportunity there. We are willing to learn the lessons to ensure that the specific needs of the islands are taken into account in the future contingency plan.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That brings us to the end of questions on the statement on foot-and-mouth disease. I will allow a brief suspension while members change their seats.

Drugs Misuse

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-415, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on tackling drugs misuse. I call Fergus Ewing to speak to and move the motion.

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

It is fitting that the first Government debate of the new parliamentary year concerns an issue that is vital to the future of Scotland. If we are to realise our aspirations for a safer, stronger and healthier Scotland, it is critical that, as a nation, we succeed in tackling perhaps the most pernicious social challenge of our time—the misuse of drugs.

When we came to power in May, we said that we were committed to building a new national consensus on tackling drugs misuse. In June, we gave effect to an initiative that was developed by the previous Labour-Liberal Administration and which was based on proposals that were put forward in the chamber by the Conservatives—a new online directory of drugs services, which can be accessed at www.scottishdrugservices.com. I launched the initiative in Drumchapel and, to date, there have been more than 2,300 visitors to the website.

In July, following discussions with Annabel Goldie, we announced that we would explore how the most successful features of the well-established and successful drug treatment and testing orders could be applied to those who are at an earlier stage in their drug addiction. Later that month, we published and publicised five reports that were commissioned by the previous Labour-Liberal Administration, including the findings and recommendations of an expert group that had investigated the use of methadone in Scotland. We made it clear at that time that we agreed strongly with the key conclusions of the group—that methadone has a vital part to play in reducing harm, but that it cannot be the only treatment that people receive. We need, at the same time, to place a much greater emphasis on promoting recovery.

At the end of July, I chaired a meeting of the key experts and practitioners in the field—the Scottish Advisory Committee on Drug Misuse—who gave me their perspectives on the key challenges that we face in Scotland.

Today, it is the turn of Parliament to express the concerns of the people and communities of Scotland on this critical issue. All members will have experienced in their constituencies the devastating effects that drugs can have on people's lives, through tragic deaths from drugs misuse, the break-up of families and the crime that funds the desperate addictions that drugs misuse can bring.

Those personal, local experiences add up to a dismal account. Only last week, we learned that the number of drug deaths in Scotland had hit a record high of 421 deaths in 2006. Earlier this week, we learned that more than 42,000 drug crimes were recorded by the police throughout Scotland—the second highest figure on record. The figures also showed a near 50 per cent increase in the illegal cultivation of drugs, to say nothing of the crimes of dishonesty that will have been driven by dependency on drugs. It is estimated that, throughout Scotland, there are around 52,000 problematic drug users, and some 10,000 to 19,000 children in Scotland live in households where at least one adult is a problematic drug user. It is a challenge that we can meet only by acting together. If ever there was a case of our needing to set aside party-political affiliations, this is surely it. Our aim today, therefore, is to build on the consensus that we believe exists and to shape it to take forward a national policy to tackle the scourge of drugs misuse.

Today, I confirm that the Scottish Government is committed to taking forward a new strategy. For the next few months, all our work will be focused on discussing, designing and delivering a new approach to tackling the damage that drugs do to our people and our nation.

It is for all members to play their part. I see around me many whom, I suppose, I could characterise as old hands—I had better not name them—but there are also many new members who I hope will take an active part and, developing that, be as active as some of the old hands in together fighting this national problem.

First, we have already learned from the reports that have been published that we do not have the full range of services throughout Scotland to reach our goal of promoting recovery. Secondly, we need treatment and care to be more strongly focused on recovery. We need better information about what treatment people are getting and what the results of that treatment are. Thirdly, we need to improve quality and accountability across the board.

As part of that strategy, we will set key national outcomes for tackling drugs misuse that are founded on promoting recovery. We will set out clearly the responsibilities and functions of Government, local service commissioners and managers and other national and local bodies and how they should relate to one another in pursuing those outcomes. We will also ensure that funding for services is clearly aligned with those outcomes. We will develop the framework in consultation with those in the field and with SACDM. We will engage with our communities and with service users. In short, working together we will ensure that services are robust, focused and effective.

As all members know, one of the most damaging aspects of drugs misuse is its effect on families and on the children in those families. It is imperative that we tackle the complex problems that are faced by children living in substance-misusing households. That means working with local agencies to improve the identification of children at risk to address their needs more effectively. A great deal of such work is already being carried out, but much more remains to be done. We want a renewed emphasis on prevention and early intervention, so that we support young people and families to make positive choices for safe and healthy lifestyles, and holistic support for substance misusers during pregnancy.

We also want to strengthen drugs education in our schools. It is important that all who are involved in delivering drugs education to our children, including our teachers, should be confident in their ability and have suitable resources that are appropriate for each age group. We need to maximise the benefit of important and well-established initiatives such as choices for life—which, I believe, reaches out to 82 per cent of primary 7 children—by placing them within a more effective and more broadly based approach to drugs education.

There will be no let-up on enforcement. Tackling the supply of all forms of illegal drugs remains an essential part of our strategy. We will be unstinting in our support of the police in disrupting the drug-dealing networks and the organised crime groups behind them. We will foster even closer co-operation, joint working and intelligence to produce results. Only recently, Strathclyde Police seized £12.5 million-worth of heroin. Those drugs are no longer on the streets as a result of the force's excellent efforts.

On that point, I commend two Aviemore police officers—Sergeant Maggie Miller and Police Constable David McAlpine—who recently received commendations for their work, as a result of which a known drug dealer is now serving eight years in prison and a large quantity of class A drugs has been kept off our streets.

Finally, as noted above, we need to continue to improve the link between the criminal justice system and treatment for offenders. I believe that there is a real potential for adapting the current model of DTTOs to, for example, the needs of child and female offenders. Those two groups do not fit the current criteria for such orders. Our review of community disposals will explore that possibility.

Our strategy will have five strands: first, better service delivery to promote recovery; second, early intervention to protect children; third, drugs education that works; fourth, effective enforcement; and, fifth, more appropriate court disposals.

Our action on drugs will be embedded in an approach across the various directorates of Government. Shona Robison will lead a ministerial task force on health inequalities that will provide specific actions to be taken forward. We will offer more of our young people opportunities to do something positive and constructive with their lives. We have already announced a new approach to ensuring that the funds that have been recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are invested in our communities. We will look to ensure that those funds are used to best effect in order to promote confidence and self-esteem among our young people.

In tackling the challenges that we face, we must remember that there is hope. Thousands of people throughout Scotland are working day in and day out with those who are affected by drugs misuse. During my visit during the summer to south-east alternatives—at the Adelphi centre in the Gorbals in Glasgow—I saw at first hand the difference that the workers there were making to the lives of the people whom they help. They told me how disheartening it was when drugs issues become a political football. Although we must debate and agree on the course that we need to set, we owe it to those on the front line to recall that we need to work together for the nation to build consensus on the way ahead.

Tomorrow, I will take the opportunity to thank staff at a project in Kingussie for the work that they do in assisting young people who are at risk of developing drug and alcohol problems. On Monday, Shona Robison and I will chair a meeting in Edinburgh of the alcohol and drug action teams. There is much more work to be done.

In conclusion, there is success to build on but we have much to do. I look forward to today's debate. I am sure that all members will provide a valuable contribution to the policy that we all wish to develop.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that tackling drugs misuse is one of the great social challenges of our time, requiring determined and sustained action; welcomes the Scottish Government's commitment to build consensus around a new strategy for tackling drugs misuse; welcomes the recent publication of reports, commissioned by the previous administration, on key aspects of drugs services; supports the Government's determination to improve services to promote recovery from drug addiction, to ensure that children are protected from the drug addictions of their parents, to improve drugs education, to offer young people more opportunities to do something positive and constructive with their lives, to strengthen enforcement and to provide courts with more effective ways of dealing with those whose crimes are driven by addiction, and recognises that there will be resource implications in meeting this challenge.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I thank colleagues for their courtesy in allowing me to head off early because of my back problems.

I echo Fergus Ewing's comments on the importance of the issue, so I am delighted that this will be the first debate since the summer recess in which I have the opportunity to speak.

In 2006, we had a record 421 drug-related deaths. We now have 21,000 people who use prescribed methadone. Some 70 per cent of all court cases are believed to have a drug-related aspect and the cost of drug-related crime is around £330 million a year. Those are not just statistics; they represent broken lives, destroyed families and devastated communities. There are no easy answers. We require a mixed approach, greater investment and joint efforts among not only health, education, justice and social work professionals but politicians.

The Executive's motion is fair enough and contains nothing with which we particularly disagree. I certainly do not disagree with anything that Fergus Ewing said in his opening speech and I note his remarks about recovery and monitoring of outcomes. However, we feel that the motion does not go far enough. Our amendment makes some specific suggestions, which I hope will be taken up by the minister and will attract cross-party support.

Each £1 that is invested in drug treatment saves £3 in the cost of enforcement. We are calling for a doubling of funding for drug and alcohol treatment that would amount to more than £100 million of extra resources over the next spending review period. I know that the Conservatives and others were keen to see such a commitment, which was included in their manifestos, so I hope that we can all move forward together on that.

We want to see an expansion in the number of residential places because they are more effective than methadone treatment. Fewer than 4 per cent of addicts who have stabilised on methadone manage to become drug free within three years—that should be our ultimate aim—whereas 30 per cent of addicts become drug free after being treated in residential rehabilitation. However, despite increased investment over the past few years, few addicts have access to such an option. Only one addict in 50 is offered a residential place.

It is also important that community after-care services are in place to assist addicts after they have returned home. From my experience of work that has been done in my constituency, a key issue is that many people feel that, although they benefited when they were in rehab, the difficulties really hit them when they returned to the community where they again faced the same pressures.

There is a great deal of discussion about heroin and methadone policy. The Liberal Democrats and, I suppose, most of us in the chamber, want to take a pragmatic approach that is based on what works. Although methadone has a role in tackling drugs misuse in Scotland, it should form part of a package of services.

The prescribing of heroin cannot be undertaken lightly. Pilots are under way in England and Holland, where it has been found that patients who were prescribed heroin and methadone together have experienced a 25 per cent increase in improvements in their physical and mental health in comparison with those on methadone alone. Complex issues are involved in such treatment and we should develop our approach together. I will be interested to hear the cabinet secretary's views on that.

The drugs scene is a constant and evolving challenge for service providers. For example, we could be about to experience much greater use of crystal meth, a relatively new drug to Scotland that is three times as addictive as cocaine, and the cannabis that people now use is much stronger than before. It is perfectly reasonable for the United Kingdom Government to keep the reclassification of drugs under review because the picture is changing.

We must continue to invest in services to help the thousands of children in Scotland who are living with drug-using parents. The previous Executive invested in important schemes that gave funds to the voluntary sector organisations that work with children and young people who are affected by substance misuse. As our amendment states, we believe that early intervention work with kids at risk of the misuse of drugs—whether they are in care or have parents who are users—should be a key priority. Drugs misuse is a significant factor in criminal behaviour. Tackling the supply and use of drugs—particularly class A drugs—through law enforcement activity must remain a priority.

Members of the Justice Committee recently heard about the work of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, which should be applauded for and supported in its work, in relation to not only the amount of drugs and assets seized and assets redistributed but the important job that it does in harrying and disrupting the businesses and lives of the gangsters—the hoods—who feed off that despicable trade.

The previous Administration introduced a range of different disposals, and I look forward to our considering them in the review of community sentences. Studies indicate that drug treatment and testing orders have a significant impact on reoffending rates, with almost half of those who completed an order having no further convictions within two years of the start of the order. That is why we would like the ability to issue DTTOs to be extended to Scotland's district courts and used more frequently to address the abuse of alcohol, which we all agree is another significant factor. I was pleased to hear Fergus Ewing's comments about extending the use of DTTOs and I hope that the Government will take on board our suggestion for their further use.

The previous Administration put in place drugs court pilots in Glasgow and Fife, with dedicated drugs court sheriffs and the use of multi-agency pre-review hearings. I hope that the cabinet secretary can tell us when those pilots will be reviewed and whether he shares my view that we should look seriously at developing the specialisation of sheriffs and courts, in either a drugs or family context. We suggest that the use of drugs courts could be rolled out throughout the country.

We want to see greater use of arrest referral schemes. Pilot schemes that have been in place since 2003 have successfully allowed drugs workers to offer offending addicts access to treatment when they are arrested, which seems to be an ideal time to get hold of them and offer them different options.

I pay tribute to the very important and challenging work of all the agencies throughout Scotland. The Liberal Democrats will support the Scottish Government in taking on the challenge of tackling drugs misuse and I look forward to working with people from all parts of the chamber on such a crucial issue.

I move amendment S3M-415.1, to leave out from "supports" to end and insert:

"believes that increased opportunities, improved facilities, more drug-free activities and better drug education are necessary to give young people a positive alternative to drugs; calls on the Scottish Government to introduce a strategy for early intervention with vulnerable young people, particularly those in care or living with a parent who has a drug problem; calls for the establishment of a national register of drug and alcohol services including residential placements; believes that additional resources are required to increase drug and alcohol treatment places, cut waiting times and create more family support services; calls on the Scottish Government to commit to at least double the funding for drug and alcohol treatment in the first year of the next spending review; further notes the direct link between drug and alcohol use and crime and supports the greater use of arrest referral schemes across Scotland; further believes that Drug Testing and Treatment Orders (DTTOs) introduced by the previous administration can make a real difference in cutting crime and reoffending, and calls for DTTOs to be extended to Scotland's district courts and used more frequently to address alcohol abuse among offenders."

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I thank Miss Smith for her courtesy in informing me that she is unable to stay for the entire debate.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

You will note, Presiding Officer, that we have not submitted a Labour amendment to the motion. That should not imply that we have no questions or issues to raise; I intend to raise many with the new Scottish National Party Executive—or, rather, Government.

Given the scale of the problem that we face, it is appropriate at this stage in the parliamentary session to indicate that we are prepared to engage with, reflect on and assess possible ways forward and that we look to work constructively with the Government, as we have been asked to do. Indeed, the tone of the motion indicates a recognition of the previous Executive's work. As Fergus Ewing said, the challenge of dealing with drugs in modern society is one of the most profound that we face, and it defies crude analysis and standard approaches. Given the scale of what we face, none of us is in a position to dismiss easily others' arguments.

I am glad that Fergus Ewing said that we cannot underestimate or undermine current practice and the serious work that is taking place in Scotland in services, the voluntary sector and communities.

I suppose I am one of the old hands that the minister referred to. As a committee convener in the first parliamentary session, I chaired one of the first parliamentary inquiries into the links between drugs and poverty. As we listened to the evidence that was given during what was a significant parliamentary inquiry, we heard drugs rightly described as one of the truly wicked issues that we face and an ever-changing problem: when we take action on one front, another problem emerges elsewhere, such as a new drug coming on to the market.

Recent statistics on drug deaths not only signal the scale of the problem, but draw our attention to the human cost of those desperate individuals and the appalling impact on their families and communities. None of us can avoid facing the full implications of that cost. We are now dealing with the social consequences of people using drugs over many years. We know from evidence that has emerged since that first inquiry of the strong correlation between deprivation and drugs misuse. Even in a city such as Glasgow, which carries a disproportionate share of the burden of drugs misuse in Scotland, the experience of drugs is highly differentiated.

Few of us in Scotland are immune to the impact of drugs, but some people have to live with it daily—every time they open their front door, it stares them in the face as their next-door neighbour sells drugs to children. Can we imagine what it is like to try to raise a family in such a situation? I ask members to imagine what that would be like for them or their children—or any child—and to think how they would and should respond.

The challenge to public policy makers is to target resources, direct services and co-ordinate our intervention to address that reality. As has been said, dealing with drugs requires a spectrum of approaches from prevention to care, support and of course, enforcement.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I hope that the member does not wish to create the impression that illicit drugs use occurs exclusively in our deprived communities, because that is not the case. I am sure that that is not the impression that she wishes to give. Perhaps she will acknowledge that although there is a higher preponderance of drugs misuse in our deprived areas, it occurs throughout society.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I suspect that Brian Adam is the only person to draw that conclusion, as I did not say that drugs misuse is exclusive to deprived areas. However, statistical evidence suggests that Glasgow bears a disproportionate share of the burden. Given that Kenny MacAskill is nodding, I am sure that he recognises that. I am not implying for a second that the problem is an urban phenomenon only. As I said clearly, few people in Scotland escape the impact of drugs. As I am a Glasgow MSP, Brian Adam will appreciate that my knowledge of drugs is informed by my knowledge of that area. We cannot run away from the strong correlation between poverty and drugs—I assume that he agrees.

We have made some progress. The minister referred to education programmes, and although there is evidence to suggest that they have an impact on young people, a table in the statistics shows that such programmes are less effective among more deprived young people. Ministers want to do more work in education, but I hope that they recognise that teachers in the more deprived communities face a more difficult task and should be given support.

Most people recognise the need to develop treatment and care services with an emphasis on what works. As the minister said, we need to develop more holistic approaches. We cannot just provide rehabilitation services and then send people back to circumstances in their communities where drug taking is all too easy. We need to develop a social model as well as a medical model. We also need to link into education and employability programmes that provide proper opportunities, routes out of drug use as well as care.

That is the context for this deadly serious debate. In Glasgow alone, it is estimated that as many as 7,600 children are affected in some way by the serious problem drug use of their parents.

Methadone has been used—at times effectively—to stabilise addicts and enable families to stay together. However, as I am sure that Duncan McNeil will point out, we cannot afford to fool ourselves that that approach is enough. Indeed, the statistics tell us as much. Methadone was never meant to be an end in itself, and we must come to terms with its limitations and think beyond traditional approaches.

In that respect, I have a few questions that I hope Kenny MacAskill will answer in his summing up. The SNP stated in its manifesto that it would set up a drugs commission, which I presume would address these issues. Is it still committed to establishing such a body? Has it commissioned civil servants to carry out exploratory work on the matter? Is it able to give us an indication of timescales?

In what I suspect will be my concluding 30 seconds, I want to raise with Kenny MacAskill a couple of points on the vital issue of enforcement with regard to drug dealing. We need to be very cautious with those who dismiss our approach to antisocial behaviour. As drug dealers actively encourage and engage those who are involved in street violence, if we deal with antisocial behaviour, particularly among the under-16s, we will cut off their options. It might well be seen as tough love, but we need to divert and stop young people before they are caught up in a cycle of despair, addiction and criminality.

I also wonder whether, in his summing up, Kenny MacAskill will respond to two very quick questions. First, is the SNP still committed to delivering a 20 per cent increase in funding for drug treatment and rehabilitation services? Secondly, will it give us some indication about its commitment to £10 million of dedicated funding for drugs education, and to ring fencing moneys in that respect? After all, in dealing with the challenge of drugs, it is vital that we keep all options open. In that regard, I must point out that, if the SNP Administration goes through with its plan of limiting the ability of sheriffs and judges to send to prison those whom they think should be sent there by getting rid of sentences of less than six months in some sweeping gesture, it will find that it will not be able to tackle this problem. If it wants tough sentencing for drugs offences, it simply cannot get rid of such sentences. As I have said, we must keep all options open.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I very much welcome this opportunity to debate the issue of tackling drugs misuse and congratulate the cabinet secretary on bringing the topic to the chamber at such an early stage in the new session.

Mr Ewing said that drugs misuse is "the most pernicious social challenge of our time", and I endorse every word of that. I also feel comforted. Scotland has entered a new political age, and there can be no dispute about the new political mix and attitude in the Parliament. I genuinely detect a change in political will with regard to drug abuse. At this point, I put on record my respect for and acknowledgement of the First Minister's role in that change of direction. The launch of the directory to which Mr Ewing referred is indicative of such progress, and I am encouraged by the willingness to consider the possibility of extending the ability to issue DTTOs to district courts, which is something that my party advocated in its manifesto. I accept, however, that that will have resource implications.

It is vital that we put past failures behind us. We have spent far too much time ignoring direct evidence not only from the wide range of people who work with addiction but from addicts themselves, and we have been far too reluctant to challenge methods of and approaches to dealing with drug abuse that were conceived 15 or 20 years ago. Things must change—and quickly. However, I am confident that if members of the Parliament work together in the way that Mr Ewing has called for we can achieve real and lasting change.

We need to move into a new era in which none of us is scared to face up to the real challenge of eradicating drugs from our society. None of us is scared to face up to the reality of what is going on. As other speakers have pointed out, the situation in Scotland is singularly depressing. Indeed, Margaret Smith referred to the fact that the number of drug-related deaths has recently soared to 421.

However, as depressing as the picture is, I pay tribute to the outstanding professionalism and commitment shown by individuals throughout Scotland who fight drug abuse every day. We should be very proud of their efforts at grass-roots level, and we must ensure that approaches and practices that demonstrably work are encouraged by recognition, support and resource.

As I have indicated, the Conservatives support the expansion of the use of DTTOs in our courts. After all, it is believed that 70 per cent of court cases have a drug-related aspect. That said, we must get things into a logical, sensible order. Although increasing and expanding referral and intervention facilities is an attractive option, unless we can get the basic rehabilitation sector ready to deal with individuals we will simply be putting the cart before the horse.

An important part of what we are trying to do involves our prisons, where I believe we need a comprehensive system of drug treatment and testing. After all, if we do not know the extent of the problem, how on earth can we address it? If we can find the political will to tackle the problem in our prisons, the benefits to society will be great.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The mandatory testing system that the Conservatives introduced at great expense into the prison service a considerable time ago has been counterproductive. Instead, we must engage those in prison by offering them drug testing and rewards for testing drug-free and by improving drug-free zones in prisons. Simply imposing further testing will be expensive, and there is no evidence that it will work. Perhaps the Conservatives should stick to their mantra of "Let us do only what works".

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am not able to agree totally with Dr Simpson, although his attitude probably explains why we now have such an unprecedented drug addiction problem in our prisons that even our prison officers are at their wits' end to know what to do. At the moment, there is no information base on which to assess the best way of dealing with drug-addicted prisoners.

That said, I accept the latter part of Dr Simpson's proposition. It is, of course, not just a question of finding out who is addicted; the prison must have the support facilities to begin to deal with the problem.

If we can start to tackle what is by any assessment an appalling problem in our prisons, we cannot lose. We will have lower levels of reoffending, less crime and a safer prison environment, which will be good for addicts, families and society as a whole. Moreover, we urgently need a proactive rehabilitation programme—not just within our prisons, I should add—that allows agencies to work with addicts in prison to prepare them for release into the community.

I will not rehearse the statistics that other speakers have quoted, but they say it all about the scale of the problem that we face. We should all acknowledge that they are not simply sterile facts on bits of paper; they are depressing, disturbing and horrifying, and should stop us in our tracks.

We need a clearer strategy that rehabilitates those who have been caught up in a life of drugs and helps them on the way to abstinence while adopting a zero-tolerance attitude to drugs and, especially, to drug dealers. As politicians, we must ensure that such a strategy is in place and that we manage to provide a coherent and robust rehabilitation programme.

On harm reduction, I have in the past said publicly that methadone has a role to play, but only as one of a range of options. The Conservatives want an end to the overreliance on methadone as a dominant response to addiction.

I endorse and applaud the minister's approach. We can make progress with this matter, but only if we refrain from managing the problem. We must now be prepared to tackle it, and I pledge my party's unstinting support in charting that new direction. We will do everything that we can to help mend our broken society and, in that regard, I support Mr MacAskill's motion.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will endeavour not to repeat statistics that have already been cited in the debate, but perhaps I can begin by highlighting a few other figures. Although I fully agree with Margaret Curran's response to Brian Adam's intervention that there is a high incidence of drug abuse in the pockets of deprivation in Glasgow, I should point out that, according to last year's drugs misuse statistics for Scotland, the trend with regard to new referrals is also increasing in rural areas. In 2001-02, 118 referrals were made in the Borders, whereas, last year, there were 219. I believe that the figures are worst of all in Tayside, where, in 2001-02, 346 referrals were made while, in 2005-06, there were 902. Perhaps that trend suggests that dealers are simply moving out to fresh fields.

I welcome the tone of the debate and the view that it is the duty of the Parliament, including both ministers and committees, to try to deal with this major issue, which is a tough one. If it were not, somebody would have solved it somewhere and we could just pick up a map and follow the solution.

Another unfortunate statistic, to which someone may have referred earlier, is that, according to Professor McKeganey, there are currently 50,000 heroin addicts in Scotland and 22,000 on methadone. All their families and communities are also affected by this dreadful plague.

After eight years of this young Parliament, we have increased drug addiction, increased alcohol abuse and an increased prison population, which relates both to acquisitive crimes and to crimes of violence—the former are more often related to drugs and the latter are more often related to alcohol. Unfortunately, there is also the ever-increasing spiral of teenage drinking. This morning's Herald has the headline "Teenage drinking spirals into drug abuse and crime".

Many years ago, when I was on the Justice 1 Committee, we visited Barlinnie prison. A medical officer there made it plain that, in his view, the gateway into drug addiction is alcohol. Sadly, that point is now reflected in the report in The Herald.

This is obvious stuff and there are short-term and long-term solutions. On the former, I welcome the attitude to the failure of custodial sentences because, as we know, short-term sentences do not give prison officers an opportunity to get into the rehabilitation of prisoners. There is no joined-up progression from rehabilitation in prison to life outside it. The drug dealers used to wait at the prison gates and sometimes threw the drugs over the prison walls to the prisoners. There was a cycle of drug abuse that just brought people back into prison.

The public quite rightly expect people who steal and who are violent to be punished, and they expect to be protected from such people, but there must also be a role for rehabilitation. The protection and the punishment are only short term if someone offends again after a short-term sentence and then receives a further short-term sentence. That view is sometimes a hard one to sell; it appears that we are being soft on certain people, when in fact we are trying to be hard in a way that helps the individual and society.

I commend the work of the drugs courts, which I have seen in operation. However, their work is very intensive and involves a lot of sheriff manpower. For a drug and/or alcohol abuser, it is often one step forward, two steps back. The drugs courts service must therefore have a high level of commitment, but that is dependent on available funding and manpower.

The issue of education on drug abuse is difficult. What we do does not work. Advertising campaigns about drug addiction tend to be just short term; at the time, they look as if they will work and they might indeed have some impact. Some public health advertising campaigns in other areas have worked. For example, campaigns about violence against women have had an impact. However, the message on drug addiction is obviously not getting through to our young people, who think that they are immortal.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry to contradict Christine Grahame, but the Scottish schools adolescent lifestyle and substance use survey, which is a two-yearly study that looks at attitudes to drugs among secondary school children, has shown that, since 2001, the level of use of drugs by young people has stabilised and has begun to drop. I agree with Christine Grahame that we need to do more, but to say that drugs use continues to increase is to mislead.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I defer to Dr Simpson's knowledge in certain areas, but the headline that I quoted refers to a serious report, which I hope he will read. Its evidence reflects what we see on our streets. When we talk about drug addiction, we must also look back to see where that comes from for our young people. Obviously, it often starts with excessive alcohol consumption.

Professor McKeganey states that there only 300 places for residential treatment. National health service boards refer people with drugs and alcohol problems to residential places in Castle Craig hospital in the Borders for treatment and rehabilitation. There were 149 such referrals in 1997, but it is predicted that there will be only 33 this year. Either NHS boards do not have sufficient money, or they are not using their money for residential treatment.

I welcome the new structure of the cabinet, which is much more integrated than it was previously. I hope that that structure will be reflected in how the parliamentary committees work. When the Health and Sport Committee was considering whether to do work on drug addiction and so on, members kept saying, "Well, that's a justice issue," "That's an education issue," or "That's a housing issue." It would be useful if committees could work together on a parallel investigation on drug addiction and do so in tandem with the Government.

I commend the Social Justice Committee's report of December 2000, to which Margaret Curran referred. Everything that it said is worth while. I do not know whether that was one of the reports to which the minister referred. If it was not, he should read it.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The motion says everything—well, almost everything. There is not a lot in it with which we could disagree. However, there is not enough—or perhaps anything—about how to address the underlying cause of addiction. We have not looked at that seriously.

The question is how we achieve the measures to which the motion refers. Margaret Smith talked about projects that are giving people heroin. I am not going to tell members what age I am—they can look that up on the web—but when I started in social work, there were 38 heroin addicts in Glasgow. I had them all on my case load and looked after them. They came in every day, got their heroin and went off to work or did whatever they had to do. However, as we all know, things have changed.

How did we get to where we are? After heroin hit the streets, the first thing that we were told was that we had methadone and that it was a great thing. It was first introduced to those of us who worked with addicts, but it was not seen as an answer to addiction. We were not sold that line and I did not sell it on to addicts with whom I worked. I did not say, "If you take this methadone, then your addiction will disappear." What I did sell was an answer to a chaotic lifestyle and an opportunity for them to look after their kids and settle their lives into some kind of order, with plenty of constructive support.

We found that the approach of having someone at the end of a phone 24/7 could work. Those of us who got involved and tried it argued that it could work generally, but it did not happen. Why not? Is it because it takes a lot of money? David Liddell, the director of the Scottish Drugs Forum, says that we need to spend between £7,000 and £10,000 for each addict. That is a lot of money, but I think that it would be cost effective. It is less than the cost of keeping someone in prison or of caring for looked-after children. It is also a lot less than we pay for kinship care, which I will come to later. Will the Executive have the guts to spend such an amount of money on those individuals? I am not sure. The Executive is spending money like it has gone out of style, so I do not know whether there will be anything left. The motion states that the Executive

"recognises that there will be resource implications".

However, I am not sure whether that means that it will meet those resource implications.

Let us look at attitudes. There are still those around who do not believe that addiction is an illness. They say that people can give up whatever it is. They say that if someone is anorexic, they eat; if someone is fat, they do not eat; and if someone is using drugs, they give them up—it is easy. However, that is not true. There is a wide range of people who are on drugs.

Margaret Smith and others pointed out that drug addiction affects not only a particular social class but all social classes. Many drug addicts have mental illnesses and they are moved from pillar to post. One minute they are in an addiction centre, the next they are in a hospital. Nobody involved talks to anybody else, so they do not know what the individual's main problem is.

We are dealing with a multimillion pound industry out there. There is a lot of money around in drugs. Dealers nowadays are often addicts, which is not what I saw in the 1980s.

What is needed? We need a wide range of quality support from different services. Service provision is patchy at the moment. Services can occasionally be accessed quickly. For example, there is apparently no waiting list for services in Fife. However, in general, access to services is a slow process. There is a need for wrap-around services and for that old chestnut, the joined-up approach through the single shared assessment.

Addicts may have separate assessments for housing, education, training and family support. Why? That is a waste of time and money. The assessments that are available through the drug treatment and testing orders are costly, but they are just single assessments and are therefore probably a better way of spending money. I have some sympathy for the proposal to extend the DTTOs into district courts.

So what are the solutions? We need to invest in early support for the most vulnerable families—everybody agrees with that. Children whose parents are addicts can be easily identified. They tend to be withdrawn at school, or they can be the opposite and be very aggressive. The children tend to have no confidence and live in social isolation.

When I talk about drugs, I mean drugs and alcohol. However, I think that some people separate alcohol off. We must think about doing that in this case, perhaps, because of what is called hidden harm. It is much more difficult to identify that someone has an alcohol problem than it is to identify that they have a drugs problem.

We must ensure that we do not channel the resources to the user and forget the child—that is what worries me. We need proper material and financial support for kinship carers—that is an absolute. My colleague Wendy Alexander is interested in considering that matter closely.

Alcohol and drug action teams need to have a thorough review of the treatment, care and rehabilitation in their areas and the health services need to be included in their decisions. If we agree that more needs to be spent to achieve our goals, we must consider ring fencing. That might take away local accountability, but if councils have the money in a soft budget line, we should ring fence it. However, whatever we do, it will take time. There are too many long-term addicts, some of whom are now in their 50s. Care packages must reflect the whole problem, both during and after drugs misuse. As Margaret Curran said, there is an undisputed link between drugs, alcohol and antisocial behaviour. The SNP must be careful not to lose that link if it considers antisocial behaviour legislation. That is one of the most important points.

Many parents are desperate for help, but they do not want closed-circuit television cameras in their living-rooms. Children of addicts need care and protection to be provided by social work departments, other interested parties and voluntary organisations, which should adopt health and care programmes that ensure that young citizens escape the blighting of their lives that is brought about by parents who themselves are in need of support and treatment.

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

I will use speeches that we have heard so far as the framework for mine. Fergus Ewing gave a full account of the work that he is undertaking—we wish him the best on that front. He mentioned the problems of crime and the break-up of families and used the phrase "joint working and intelligence". I shall support Margaret Smith's amendment, with its call for increased expenditure. She talked about joint working and mentioned, among others services, the NHS and social work. Margaret Curran referred rightly to the work of the voluntary sector. Christine Grahame properly made the point that the gateway to drug abuse is often alcohol and she rightly drew attention to the rural perspective.

On 20 December last year, I had a meeting with Steve March and Jack Law of Alcohol Focus Scotland, who pointed out to me that all parts of the Highlands except Caithness have councils on alcohol. There was a Caithness council on alcohol until fairly recently but, for reasons that I will not go into, it went out of existence. I was told that, although Alcohol Focus Scotland spends a great deal of money throughout Scotland, it was not impacting on what Christine Grahame referred to as one of the gateways to drug abuse. Let us remember that the councils on alcohol, despite their title, have responsibility for drug abuse, too. Previously, NHS Highland and Highland Council gave £7,500 towards the service, but it is no more. That meeting was on 20 December last year. By a fortunate coincidence, there was a debate that same evening in Maureen Macmillan's name about drug abuse in the Highlands, during which I raised the matter and asked ministers to give it attention and consider why Caithness did not enjoy the service.

I move forward to today, a number of months on. I am indebted to Jon Webster, a community mental health nurse and the chair of the Caithness drug and alcohol forum, who has pointed out that we are still in the same situation today, several months on. We have now had 18 months without the service. Evidence has been gathered locally in Caithness to support the need for an effective counselling service and separate proposals have been made by Birchwood Highland and Alcohol Focus Scotland, two organisations with which Fergus Ewing will be familiar. The proposals have been put to NHS Highland and Highland Council, but as yet no move has been made to address the issue, although measures may be in train and officials could be dealing with the matter. My only reason for speaking in the debate is to say that a rural part of the world is not enjoying the level of service that it could, which is relevant if we accept Christine Grahame's argument about alcohol being the gateway to drug abuse. I wonder what problems are being built up for the future. When the service was working, it helped approximately 200 people per annum, but that is now not happening.

The point of my speech, which will be briefer than the six minutes that I have been given, is unashamedly local and related to my constituency. The problem of drugs is not the preserve of the deprived or the rich or of rural areas or cities—it is everywhere. However, right now, one part of Scotland is not enjoying the service that it should have. On a personal level, I say to the minister that I would be extremely grateful if he and his colleagues could at least take a look at the problem and, if it is as bad as it appears, help us to put it right.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Members will have various experiences of the drugs problems in Scotland and in their local communities. I certainly hope that the new SNP Government can build a consensual approach to tackling the issue. The problem of drugs abuse is shocking. On 24 July, the Daily Record had a report in which it quoted Professor Neil McKeganey and stated that 50,000 people in Scotland are on heroin, 22,000 are on methadone and we have only 300 places for residential treatment. Christine Grahame mentioned some of those figures earlier and the minister highlighted other statistics. The problem is vast. It is obvious that every stakeholder should get involved in the fight against drugs misuse.

To follow the consensual approach, I point out that I am not averse to some policies in the other parties' manifestos for the recent election. The Labour Party suggested providing a wider range of drug treatments that are tailored to the individual, making it easier to seize assets using the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and reinvesting drug dealers' money in the communities that are hardest hit by drugs. Labour also said that it would not shy away from taking children away from drug-misusing parents for their safety and well-being and that it wanted to take into account the wider family in rehabilitation programmes. Some of those proposals are laudable. I am also keen on the Conservative policy of putting £100 million into tackling drugs.

Obviously, I stood on an SNP platform, with SNP policies such as developing a national drugs commission; increasing by 20 per cent the funding for drug treatment and rehabilitation programmes; increasing access to abstinence programmes; dedicating £10 million to drugs education in schools; and increasing support services for the families of drug addicts and the families of those who misuse alcohol. I hope that some of those policies are included in our national strategy. I am happy to have a broader, non-partisan approach to continuing the struggle and, judging from what has been said so far in the debate, I think that that is true of other members.

In the run-up to the election, I visited the Haven rehabilitation centre in Kilmacolm, which opened my eyes. I was humbled by the success stories that I was told. Of the people who go to the Haven, 65 per cent come out rehabilitated and drug free. That success rate means that the blight on our communities from drug abuse is reduced and people go back into society to play an active and positive part in our communities. I was told one story that I am sure has been replicated throughout the country. The Haven has a graduation ceremony for those who go back into the community. When one individual who is now clean and back in the community attended the ceremony, his family, including his child, were there, which was the first time that he had seen his child in about eight years. When drug addicts become clean and get their lives and families back together, that is a major achievement for them and for our society and communities.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am sorry, but not at the moment.

I live in Greenock in Inverclyde, an area that has well-documented drugs problems. Duncan McNeil and I are fully aware of the devastating effect that drugs have had in Inverclyde. I may not always agree with Duncan's comments on drugs, but I know that he wants Inverclyde to be a better place and that he wants a successful outcome in combating the problems and challenges of drug abuse. Combating drug abuse will help Scottish society immeasurably. It will help those drug addicts who want to be clean and want to get their lives back in order and it will help our communities to live in a stronger Scotland, where criminal activity perpetrated by drug addicts is reduced and where our citizens can live in a safer society.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue. Because of its impact on communities and families right across Scotland, no issue is more important for us to discuss. Who could argue with the view that we should reach a political consensus on how to deal with the issue? However, our views on how to deal with it sometimes differ.

The current methadone programme is a key part of the harm-reduction approach to drug abuse. It was supposed to stop addicts dying, but drug-related deaths have continued to rise—up by 25 per cent last year. It was supposed to get addicts off drugs by providing a legal substitute, but 70 per cent of those on methadone are still getting their illegal hits anyway. It was supposed to cut drug-related crime, but 80 per cent of addicts on methadone are still committing crimes, and our prisons are full of inmates with drug addictions.

We have to grasp this issue. Members may not all agree, but I feel that by making drug use affordable and acceptable, current policies are conspiring to keep addicts in what—over generations in some cases—has become a way of life. The sad fact behind recent reported deaths is that some of those people were not our children but our grandparents. The harm-reduction approach has increased the risk for our children and our communities. Therefore, calls for "more support" or "more of the same" will not help. We have heard such calls from members this morning.

Is the answer not to challenge the lack of ambition that saw stabilisation as the only realistic policy goal? We have to move towards cessation schemes. We have to challenge drug-taking behaviour and have a clear ambition—as Stuart McMillan said earlier—to get as many people as we can back to their families, back to work and back into the community.

We have to acknowledge that some people who take drugs have multiple problems. However, whether we accept it or not, there are also people who like drugs and choose to take them. That behaviour has to be challenged. Those people are not the only innocent victims; the child, the neighbour and the parent of the addict are the victims as well.

If the Executive is intent on setting up another consultation, that is a worthy intention. If we can reach a consensus on how to challenge the present situation, that will be great. However, I give members a reminder—as if it were needed— about how the children of drug-abusing parents find their way on to the priority lists. The reminder is from the recently published letters of assurance that the Executive sought from local authorities. Those letters reveal that any number of children in Scotland may be living—unidentified and unprotected—in the squalor of parental drug addiction.

Among the correspondence is a submission in which Strathclyde Police chief constable Sir Willie Rae and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde chief executive Tom Divers concede that

"At this present time, we could not provide general assurance that all children affected by substance misuse have been identified."

Those men are very senior figures delivering services in our communities.

However, that is just the tip of the iceberg. The Executive's own summary acknowledges that

"the vast majority of ... areas experience difficulty in consistently identifying those children affected by drug misuse."

That was reported by child protection committees.

In Inverclyde, the past council leader Alan Blair acknowledged that children were living in such circumstances. He admitted that their safety could not be guaranteed. In North Lanarkshire, a report signed off by council, health and police chiefs states:

"We cannot provide a definitive guarantee that all children who ... have parents who are misusing substances have been identified."

Senior figures in South Lanarkshire assert that the reason why

"it is never possible to be entirely confident in relation to the identification of all children ... affected by parental drug use"

is that drug users are hidden from services. However, precisely where those self-sufficient drug addicts—who have never accessed housing benefit, child benefit, council tax benefit, a general practitioner, a social worker, the housing department or any other public service—are to be found is, alas, not divulged.

I could go on, but time is limited and I am sure that members get the picture. Children are being failed by a system that does not even see them as a statistic. Local authorities have been given a clear duty by the Executive to ensure that addicts' children get the services they need before they are at risk of harm. However, as has now been revealed by the letters of assurance, local authorities are nothing like able to meet that obligation.

The inability to identify, far less protect, a significant number of children and young people is not only creating much needless suffering but risking another child's preventable death. I therefore renew my call to the minister—whether it be Shona Robison, Fergus Ewing, Kenny MacAskill, Adam Ingram, or whoever can be put in post specifically to deal with this issue—to act now. There are no excuses and there can be no delay. Those children need our help now.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

A couple of weeks ago, I served a night shift with the local police force down in my constituency in the Borders. I was able to see at first hand what the police encounter every day and to discuss their concerns about how we can improve general policing and safety records in the Borders. It is clear—as it is throughout the United Kingdom—that drug abuse and crimes connected to drug use take up a lot of police time.

It is often assumed that drug abuse is a problem of the big cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh. However, as Christine Grahame stated earlier, it is as much a blight on the streets of the towns and villages across the Borders as it is elsewhere. Indeed, in some league tables on drug crime, the Scottish Borders area comes ahead of West Lothian and Falkirk and is on a par with Edinburgh.

The drug dependency figures for young people in the Scottish Borders show a worrying trend. In a recent survey, a staggering 20 per cent of 15-year-olds had used drugs, which is higher than the average for Scotland. What is more, the number of drug-related deaths of people in their early 20s is disproportionately higher in the Scottish Borders. Drug use is clearly becoming a problem at an earlier age in the Scottish Borders, and there is no clear evidence as to why.

The decision of the previous Scottish Government to replace the just say no campaign with the much weaker know the score programme was perhaps not the wisest decision. We need to make children much more aware of the dangers of drugs from an earlier age.

I note the SNP's election pledge to ensure £10 million investment in classroom-based drug education. I hope that the new Administration can fulfil that election promise.

We must consider the provision of services to tackle drugs misuse from a rural perspective. The health service has been increasingly centralised in the big towns and cities. In rural areas a home visit can sometimes take up most of the day. For safety reasons, such visits often have to be carried out by more than one person. Such issues have to be given greater consideration. An extra £15,000 of funding might go a long way in Glasgow or Dundee, but it will not even pay the cost of an extra member of staff in somewhere like the Borders. The downgrading of the Borders local treatment centres has had an adverse consequence. It is only right that the Government should reflect on that in future funding plans.

Social responsibility and social entrepreneurs have an important role to play in dealing with social problems. It is therefore important not to forget the role that the voluntary and charitable sectors, as well as social entrepreneurs, can play in tackling problems. I would like that to be recognised more, and those sectors to be included in public policy reviews to a much greater extent. Government does not always know best and it does not always have the right answers—sometimes it is better for it to stand aside and let others take over. I am waiting eagerly to see how the new Administration will approach that aspect of the drugs challenge.

I am proud of the work that my Conservative party colleagues have done in pursuing drug abuse. Annabel Goldie has highlighted the issue consistently, often when it was not fashionable to do so. The damage that drug abuse does to our communities is immeasurable. Annabel Goldie and the Scottish Conservatives should be congratulated on the work that they did in the previous session to push the issue to the top of the agenda. My Conservative colleagues and I intend in this session to ensure that that work continues.

I am pleased that so far the new Administration has been prepared to co-operate on the matter. I am sure that there are many areas on which we will disagree, but there is great potential for us to work together on drug abuse to bring about positive change.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I can give Bill Wilson just under six minutes.

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer—that means that I can put some of the scored-out bits of my speech back in.

I congratulate Fergus Ewing on his presentation of the motion, which contains much that is to be welcomed. It refers to better treatment of addicts, the need for better protection of addicts' children, the need to improve drugs education and, not least, the need to offer young people better opportunities in life. An effective drugs policy would be cost effective, as it would cut crime; reduce total costs to the national health service, police and judiciary; and reduce the suffering of addicts, their families and the many victims of drug-related crime. An effective drugs policy would pay for itself.

To get such an effective, cost-effective policy we need honest, evidence-based debate. We must move away from the old knee-jerk, tabloid-proofed, party political but essentially empty and counterproductive rhetoric of the past. That is why we should welcome the proposal to introduce a national drugs commission with the aim of producing an evidence-based long-term strategy. In the late 1960s, there were a few thousand addicts in the United Kingdom. Today, across the spectrum of drugs use, there are approximately a quarter of a million. Heroin and methadone account for 85 per cent of drug-related deaths. In the European Union there are between 8,000 and 9,000 opiate deaths each year.

Addicts damage not only themselves but the fabric of society. According to one source, each of the estimated 40,000 heroin addicts in the UK commits an average of 432 crimes a year at a cost of £45,000—£1.8 billion in total. In the USA, Superior Court Judge Howard Scheinblum—I hope that I am pronouncing his name correctly—estimated that 90 per cent of criminal cases in the state of Connecticut were connected in some way to the pursuit of illegal drugs. Judge James P Gray of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, stated that the sale of illicit drugs was by far the largest source of funding for terrorists around the world. In Afghanistan, the drugs eradication policy is not only alienating impoverished farmers but has just resulted in the largest illegal opium crop in history. Meanwhile, there is a world shortage of legal sources of opiates—Africa is in a pain crisis. Where is it going, who is being harmed, and who is benefiting?

It is clear that previous policies have not been and are not being successful. The past two decades of special measures, drugs tsars, higher sentences and various education campaigns here and in many other countries appear to have resulted in more drug users than ever, the profits from selling drugs being greater than ever and the incentive to produce, distribute and push drugs being greater than ever. Is that the universal picture? Are we irretrievably doomed? Ilka chiel maun dree his ain weird—is there no escaping ours?

If we are to fix things and to have a comprehensive, evidence-based debate, we need to look not only at what does not work—the policies that have gone before—but, more important, at what does work. A study of drugs services in six Dutch cities published in the British Medical Journal showed that the clinic-based prescription of heroin as part of an overall package of care, though expensive, resulted in a reduction in drugs-related crime and a net saving per patient of £8,600 per year; in other words, it more than paid for itself. A successful drugs policy will also pull the carpet from under the feet of the drug dealers.

In Zurich, a programme of clinic-based administration of heroin and methadone saw an 82 per cent reduction in the number of new addicts over 10 years, and there is an on-going annual decrease. Incidentally, addicts on the programme, in which the taking of heroin is greatly deglamorised, successfully come off the drug. The Lancet has called for a thorough trial of drug-consumption rooms in the UK, and there are currently Home Office pilot projects in London and Manchester. I am delighted that the Executive is committed to developing an evidence-based policy, is prepared to consider innovative approaches and recognises that not all of what has gone before works.

I conclude with the words of those who should know about the issue—a few present and retired police chiefs. Chief Constable John Vine of Tayside Police states:

"The idea of a heroin clinic has potential. Unless we get past the hand wringing, do nothing stage, there will be no progress."

Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom of North Wales Police states:

"the current regime is untenable and it is not going to be successful any more than controlling alcohol was through prohibition in the US. We are making it easy for organised crime".

Inspector Jim Duffy, chairman of Strathclyde police federation, states:

"We are not winning the war against drugs and we need to think about different ways to tackle it. Tell me a village where they are drug free".

If we want to keep people safe and to protect them, we must examine new approaches, develop evidence-based policies, tackle poverty and consider alternative methods of rehabilitation.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I am delighted that the first debate of this term to which I am contributing is on the important issue of drugs misuse. I thank Kenny MacAskill for bringing the issue to the chamber. There are a number of topics that I want to address today, but I will enter into the consensual spirit of this period in Scottish politics for a moment and say that I welcome those parts of the SNP motion in which ministers commit themselves to promoting recovery from addiction, ensuring that children are protected and improving drug education.

Although the Scottish Liberal Democrats fully support tough enforcement of the law against drug dealers, we must consider the recent comments of Tom Wood, the chair of the Scottish Association of Alcohol and Drug Action Teams, who said:

"We have lost the war on drugs. We must re-focus resources on education and deterrence."

The role of enforcement should be to tackle class A drugs and to seize the assets of drug dealers. Users need help and support to get off drugs. If the SNP focuses on those two issues, I will be more than happy to support it.

The facts about drugs are clear. Margaret Smith, Annabel Goldie and others have already made this point, but I have no hesitation in making it again: in 2006 there were 421 drug-related deaths. There are now 21,000 people on methadone, and 160,000 children in Scotland live with drink or drug-dependent parents. Duncan McNeil made the extremely good point that those are the children we know about. Another member pointed out that drug use is an issue throughout society. Has anyone done research into those children who live in middle and upper-class families in which the drug that is misused is cocaine? I am pleased that the minister is to give more support to families and children.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The answer to the member's question about whether research has been done in this area is yes. The estimated number of children who are associated with drug-using families is more than 50,000—some would say 60,000. The number of children who are associated with families in which alcohol is a problem is 70,000—some would say 100,000. Between 100,000 and 150,000 children are affected, which is the equivalent of three birth years.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I take Richard Simpson's point and, like others, bow to his knowledge of the area, which is greater than mine.

Trish Godman was absolutely right to make the point that antisocial behaviour is almost always the result of misuse of mainly drink, but also drugs. In Edinburgh, the way forward has been seen through action on alcohol and drugs, a partnership of the key bodies in the city that deal with different aspects of alcohol and drugs misuse. The partnership performs a key role in allocating funding to agencies offering treatment and rehabilitation in the area of drug and alcohol misuse. It is a great scheme that seeks to ensure that there are no gaps or overlaps in the services that people with substance misuse problems receive. Funding of such schemes needs to be increased. For every £1 that is spent on treatment, £3 is saved on enforcement.

Trish Godman pointed out that it costs up to £10,000 to treat someone. She obviously has experience of that. We need to take cognisance of such experience.

I hope that the new SNP Government will spend more money on preventing drugs misuse. It has long been my party's policy that Government should spend to save in many areas of public policy. That needs to be done in this area. The cost to society of drugs misuse is huge. The Scottish Executive—when it was the Scottish Executive—estimated a cost of £330 million in relation to absenteeism, crime and the criminal justice system. If a fraction of that was better channelled towards treatment and rehabilitation, we would be a better society. What will the Government consider doing in that regard?

The previous Executive made a good start in changing our culture of drugs. I welcome the minister's commitment to extend drug treatment and testing orders, particularly for females and children. I disagree with Annabel Goldie, and think that Richard Simpson is right: we do not need more testing in prison—we should be sending fewer people to prison for short-term sentences and should use DTTOs to keep such people out of prison and thereby reduce our prison population. Duncan McNeil was right to say that we need to keep families together as far as possible and to give them help, rather than putting the mother or father in prison.

DTTOs have cut reoffending rates: 48 per cent of people given an order have not reoffended within two years. Seventy per cent of cases dealt with by the courts are believed to be drug related. The DTTO method of dealing with drugs misuse is the best way of addressing drug-related criminal behaviour. That has been coupled with the work of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, which seized £70 million of drugs in 2005-06.

We have also tackled people who are engaged in trafficking and organised crime, with 43 new finance investigators working to seize the assets of drug dealing. Some of those assets have gone directly to communities—I know that the Royal Mile outside the Parliament is cleaned by a washer truck that was bought using such money.

My colleague Margaret Smith highlighted the need for more residential rehab places. Such rehab is very effective for most people, but at present only one person in 50 is offered a place. If we had spent more money on residential rehab for drug users it could have had a serious impact.

I am pleased that the SNP has addressed the issue, but we still await the details, as we do with so much of its programme for Government.

Our amendment highlights the way forward and I urge members to support it.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I have found this debate encouraging. Not only have there been a lot of positive contributions in which members have drawn on their expertise from previous occupations, but what has come across is a consensus and determination to address the major problem that Scotland faces today.

The buck stops here. Although the ministerial team has special responsibility for finding a solution to the problem, every one of us has to buy into doing something about this 21st century scourge, which has cost so much in lives and resources. That is why it is good that the mood of the debate has been one of quiet determination to do something about the problem.

What do we do? As Christine Grahame said, there are no easy answers—if there were, people would have found them long before now—but we can make a start. I congratulate the Scottish Government ministers on the start that they have made. They have acknowledged that the mood of the Parliament is that there requires to be some lateral, out-of-the-box thinking and that some of the sacred cows that have governed the drug policy of all parties have to be slaughtered.

I am particularly pleased about the intention to extend DTTOs through the district courts to young offenders in respect of the children's hearings system and to female offenders. I have long felt that the way in which the court system operates prejudices those at the lower end of the scale of criminality and those who might have a greater degree of determination to overcome their drug difficulties. The move is therefore wise and positive.

I am also encouraged by the determination shown by ministers to build on the achievements of the previous Administration by acknowledging that confiscations under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 should be directed towards activities involving young people. The devil will find evil for idle hands to do. We have to keep youngsters occupied.

I am also encouraged by the determination to look anew at some problems. We are not going to reach agreement about everything that we have discussed, but we have to try, because the figures that have been bandied about this morning are chilling. Margaret Curran referred to the report that was produced seven years ago by the then Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee on drug abuse and its effect on poorer areas. One of the worst things to come out of the report—Margaret Curran will correct me if I am wrong—was the evidence that there were many families in the Glasgow area in which three generations were addicted to drugs. If that was the situation seven years ago, it will be much worse now. We have to do something about it.

I suggest that the way forward is a tripartite approach involving prevention, enforcement and rehabilitation.

We will support the activities of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency and demand that the toughest possible sentences be given to people who peddle human misery.

On prevention, we must send out a clear, unequivocal message that the use of drugs is not only crazy but unacceptable. In the past, we have not got the educational message correct, nor have we been able to direct it effectively towards young people.

We have to consider rehabilitation carefully. We have to involve everyone. Of course we have to involve the public sector, but we must also consider what has been successful in the private and voluntary sectors. We must garner good ideas that have worked and use them effectively.

On prisons, I do not agree with Richard Simpson that drug testing is negative, but I do agree that we should encourage drug-free areas in prison and provide back-up to prisoners when they leave. I recollect visiting a unit in Barlinnie in which the people were staying clean—they seemed to me to all intents and purposes to be clean. However, I acknowledge the pressures that such people face when they leave prison. It is likely that they would be tapped on the number 37 bus back to Pollok, where the drug dealers would be going up and down the stairs giving them freebies. The pressure under which such people operate must be severe.

We must consider the provision of residential rehab units. The approach is multifaceted. Interesting ideas have been raised this morning, although I do not agree with some of them, such as the suggestion—if I heard it right—from Bill Wilson regarding heroin provision, which is off-the-wall and will not receive unanimous support.

The debate has been encouraging and we must continue along that route.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I want to maintain the spirit of consensus, after one slight interruption. John Lamont said that Annabel Goldie raised the issue of drugs misuse even when it was not fashionable to do so. I argue that all members in the chamber have raised the issue and that it has always been the fashion to do so, because drugs misuse affects many parts of Scotland. It is important that we learn. We are not pioneers of the cross-party approach. I am old enough—I suppose that most of us are—to remember the Scotland against drugs campaign, which is the one thing for which I give Michael Forsyth credit. The campaign highlighted the need for parties to work together and the need for us to acknowledge the challenges that our constituents face.

It is important that we move away from the language that members have used today and in previous debates—the word "holistic", the "joined-up approach" and many other such references that have been made—and talk about the specifics. Duncan McNeil and other members raised specific points, and it is important that we take them on board. He also raised the issue of the importance of having a more robust regime in the methadone dispensing programme. I know that in my constituency there is a role for pharmacies to play in supporting addicts who are involved in the methadone programme and ensuring that they and their children receive services during that process.

Trish Godman made a constructive and informed speech on the importance of kinship. Every member in the chamber values the role of grandparents and other carers in respect of tackling drugs misuse. In that area, members of the Parliament can move away from using language such as "holistic" and "joined up" and say, "Yes, we will take on board the importance of the role of kinship, and we will move forward to ensure that grandparents and other carers feel valued." To be honest, I am afraid that grandparents and other carers do not feel valued at the moment. When they do, we will be setting a clear agenda on which we can move forward.

As in previous debates on drugs misuse—I checked the Official Report—members mentioned that there were 421 drug-related deaths in Scotland in 2006. We talk about the challenges that arise in relation to drugs, but we should also consider how we can learn from that statistic. We are talking about human beings and human tragedies, and many families are affected by drugs misuse. Is it time to consider establishing a drugs commission? I would like to hear the Executive's view on that. Will the Cabinet Secretary for Justice take the matter forward and consider holding a more detailed inquiry into how those deaths occurred? Are there lessons to be learned from the specific detail of the deaths of those individuals? We are referring to human beings; they are not just statistics. Perhaps we should take a more detailed approach to ensure that we learn from the statistics. The Parliament launched an inquiry in respect of the McKie case. I argue that a public inquiry might be required into the 421 drug-related deaths in Scotland. Such an inquiry should at least be considered, because it would help us to understand the statistics and ensure that, when we invest in challenging the misuse of drugs, we get best value.

I turn to the question of how we tackle antisocial behaviour and the importance of ensuring that the right environment does not exist for the drug dealers who are the scourge of our communities. Let us face it—constituencies such as mine and Margaret Curran's are havens for drug dealers. Through the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, we successfully provided unprecedented levels of investment to tackle drug dealers. I speak from my personal experience in dealing with Glasgow's neighbourhood relations team. For the first time in my career as an elected representative, which will have lasted 14 years in December, I had a call and an e-mail from the neighbourhood relations team in respect of a drug dealer who was carrying out activities in my constituency. The team asked for a letter of support in respect of a court action. That happened because the team is working with the various authorities throughout Glasgow to tackle the drug dealers in our constituencies. The action is a result of the previous Executive's unprecedented investment in tackling antisocial behaviour. I call on the Government to continue that high level of investment, including the investment in closed-circuit television, which plays a crucial role in tackling drug dealers.

I am sure that we all wish Graeme Pearson every future success as he retires from the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency. He has played a crucial role in providing leadership to those who tackle the most dangerous individuals in our communities—individuals who supply drugs. I welcome his innovative approach. I hope that the new Government will ensure that every support is given to the SCDEA so that it can continue its good work. Nothing hits drug dealers more than the recovery of assets from them and their families. Constituents often raise concerns with members about the fact that drug dealers' families benefit from their activities.

We on the Labour benches will continue with the spirit of consensus. I am sure that other members will do so, too. However, it is important that we hold each other to account and have a robust and constructive dialogue, that we drill down into the 421 deaths, and that we do our best for communities throughout Scotland.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I thank colleagues from all parts of the chamber for their contributions to the debate. Many members spoke eloquently, passionately and, indeed, poignantly—some because of their commitment to the issue since they entered the world of politics and others because of their experience in their previous occupations. Each added to the strong commitment that the Parliament must have to tackle the problems of drugs misuse.

I am grateful for the consensual nature of the debate, which was pointed out by Bill Aitken and Paul Martin. Paul Martin is correct; in seeking to create a consensus, we do not expect to have a supine Opposition. That would never be the case, and the adjective "supine" does not describe the members involved, but we are keen to try to work together towards common solutions.

We accept that the Opposition will disagree on some matters and it is appropriate that it should challenge us—that is the role of the Opposition—but we hope to make it clear that our door is open and that others can come and speak to us before something becomes an issue of political debate. If we can resolve the matter, all the better. If we cannot, we will require to disagree about it and vote on it in the chamber, but let us seek to work together first. I am grateful to the members throughout the chamber who have sought to make a commitment to do that.

The Government acknowledges that we do not face the problem of drug misuse alone. It is a problem that we must tackle together. We do not face the problem alone because it does not exist only in Scotland. Most western democracies have significant problems with drug taking. I recently returned from a weekend in the island of Ireland. It is well known that those of us on the SNP benches and in the Government greatly admire the success of the Celtic tiger and the Government of Ireland, but we should not forget that a significant drug problem exists not simply in Dublin but in rural Ireland too. Members from all sides made the point that drug misuse occurs not only in areas of urban deprivation but in rural areas. In Ireland, it occurs not simply in Tallaght but in the Gaeltacht.

The United States of America has the strongest economy in the world, but it still has significant problems with drug abuse. Even with all the resources of its drug enforcement agencies, its military and its police, it cannot stop drugs coming in. It is clear that there is a significant problem. Bill Wilson mentioned that there are even significant problems with drug taking in Switzerland, which everybody in the world recognises as a haven of great wealth and stable democracy. The problem affects us all and we have to try to reach a solution.

I welcome the change in terminology. The Westminster Government is to be given credit for moving away from the language and nomenclature of a war on terror, but we must do the same in relation to drugs. It is not a war on drugs, because that would be a war on our own communities and on individuals who are often more to be pitied than punished. Certainly many are to be punished, and I heartily endorse the credit that Paul Martin paid to Graeme Pearson. The Government will not seek to diminish the action that is taken against those who peddle drugs and those who are involved in serious and organised crime, with the attendant risk to those in law enforcement, but we have to accept that this is not a war; it is far deeper and more pernicious than that.

As many, such as Margaret Curran and Trish Godman, have said, it is also clear that beneath the statistics there are stories and tragedies. Paul Martin commented on that in relation to his area. For all the statistics, these are individuals. They may not be citizen of the year or the most pleasant people to spend time with, but they are somebody's son or daughter. Tragically, they are quite often somebody's mum or dad, and they are a death far too soon that we could do without. Something about common humanity means that we have to address that.

We have listened to many of the points Liberal Democrat members have made, and we will be happy to reflect on them, but I ask them, in the spirit of consensus, to consider withdrawing their amendment, which we do not feel able to accept. We accept the spirit in which it was lodged, and we hope that we can rally around that.

I will try to run through the various points that members have raised. If I do not manage to deal with them all, the error will be mine and I will be happy to meet privately or answer a letter.

Margaret Smith spoke about the expansion of residential places, which we clearly have to address. We have to provide support for those who recognise that they have reached such a juncture in their lives and make a cry for help. Some of that can be given as direction from the centre but, ultimately, it has to be delivered at grass roots level. We have to work with all bodies to ensure that those who work in the community are able to provide support. We are reviewing the matter, and on Monday coming the Minister for Community Safety and the Minister for Public Health will meet alcohol and drug action teams to work out how we can improve delivery, because this is an area in which we must deliver.

Margaret Smith and Bill Wilson mentioned heroin prescription. It is sometimes forgotten that practitioners may already prescribe heroin if they so wish, although they require a Home Office licence to do so. Three practitioners in Scotland have such a licence but are not currently using it. It is not a simple matter, as there are clear problems related to it and there is no real suggestion that it is necessarily better, but it must obviously be reflected on. As I said, heroin prescription currently exists, but we would delude ourselves if we thought that it was a panacea.

Margaret Smith mentioned drugs courts. They started as a pilot, and we have welcomed their success. They were a pilot until March 2006. At that juncture, it was agreed to fund the courts for a further three years, and we will continue to maintain them under operation. She also touched on a variety of other courts. I remind her that what operates in one jurisdiction does not necessarily operate in another because of several factors, including the number of sheriffs and the size of the court. What can be done in Glasgow is vastly different from what can be done in Tain or Dornoch, but we accept that drugs courts have worked and are an important factor to be considered.

Margaret Curran raised the idea of creating a drugs commission. We are determined to build on the national consensus, and we will consider a variety of views. We are conscious that, before we formed the Government, the Parliament had taken some steps and that Mr Pignatelli had been charged with investigating certain matters. We are considering a variety of mechanisms to take on board the genuine consensus and to work together—not simply in Parliament, because the issue involves all of civic Scotland.

I echo the point made by Margaret Curran and others that we sometimes forget and ignore the role of the voluntary sector in Scotland. Trish Godman and Duncan McNeil recognised the importance of kinship and those people who do a great deal of good collectively through organisations or individually through simply dealing with their families. We wish to engage with them as they are significant. We should not forget them.

This is a question not simply of spending more money, but of spending it wisely. We must also recognise that we address the problems in different ways. Some are dealt with through health, education and criminal justice; some are dealt with at central Government level; others are correctly dealt with at local government level. We are committed to providing the appropriate resources. Ring fencing will be difficult because of how such matters are laid out and how money is dispensed, but we are committed to ensuring that the appropriate resources are available to tackle not simply the health manifestations but the problems that we face in education.

Drugs in prison have also been mentioned. There is clearly a significant problem that we have to tackle.

We announced £4 million in additional funding last month to increase training opportunities for foster and kinship carers.

Duncan McNeil raised points about children, which I would be happy to discuss with my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, because some of the matters he raised fall outwith the sphere of criminal justice. However, we have to ensure a holistic and joined-up approach.

If I have not answered any particular points, members should feel free to come to me and I will address them in greater detail. I pay tribute to the consensus that prevails in the chamber and recognise that we have a job of work to do. We understand that if we work together, we are more likely to reach a solution. Matters are being addressed; we just have to work harder and work smarter.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to ensure that all children living in families where there is parental drug or alcohol misuse are properly assessed and protected. (S3O-506)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Scottish Government is determined to tackle the problem of parental substance misuse and to make real and lasting improvements to the lives of children being brought up in such households.

We will adopt a twin-track approach. Prevention and early intervention will be given significant emphasis to stop the development of abuse and neglect. Our aim will be to build the capacity of families to deal with their problems directly, avoiding the need for future crisis intervention.

At the same time, we need to improve support for children who are already affected by parental substance misuse. For that to happen, we need to ensure effective multi-agency working with integrated assessment and care planning at its core. The Government is committed to the "getting it right for every child" agenda.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

My question is precisely about that. In 2005, the previous Administration issued the first consultation "getting it right for every child" and in December 2006 to March 2007 it issued for consultation the draft Children's Services (Scotland) Bill, to implement "getting it right for every child". That built on the "Hidden Harm" report and the "Getting Our Priorities Right" guidelines.

In other words, there was a pattern of work that should have resulted in the Children's Services (Scotland) Bill being in the programme for government yesterday. The bill would revolutionise the provision of services for children, including, as the minister has just said, a multi-agency, integrated assessment, recording and planning framework. Why has the Government not included that bill in its programme for this year?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member knows from his own experience that this is a complex and challenging area of work for us all—policy makers as well as front-line staff who deliver services.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Try answering the question rather than reading the prepared—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is important to acknowledge that a lot of good work is going on in the field. Many local authorities and other agencies are making significant progress, particularly with integrated assessment and care plans. There has been a marked improvement in multi-agency training, and the three-year child protection reform programme has been successful in those terms. However, as the letters of assurance exercise showed, we still have some considerable way to go, not least in developing front-line capacity to identify, assess and support every child at risk. We do not need legislation for that.

As I have said already, where this Government differs from the previous Administration is a question of emphasis—less on crisis intervention and enforcement, and more on early intervention and family support.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a supplementary question from Jim Hume.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

Sorry, that is for later.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

In which case, I will take a supplementary question from Rhoda Grant.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

There are groups who seek to support young people who care for parents and family members who have drug and alcohol problems, as well as those who care for family members with ill health and disabilities. One such group is Skye and Lochalsh young carers project, which was successful this week in obtaining Big Lottery funding to develop services that were identified as needs by the children themselves—but the core funding for the group is not guaranteed, and neither is it guaranteed for similar groups throughout Scotland.

Will the minister ensure that all young people in such a terrible situation have access to support from a local group in their area? Will he also ensure that they are provided with a statutory obligation for provision and dedicated funding?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am happy to give the member an undertaking to look seriously at those matters. Indeed, I offer to have a meeting with her to discuss the issue.

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

One of the less complex issues that the minister outlined in his long response to the question is the requirement for a child's plan to be in place for December 2007. That plan would streamline the process when there are children for protection going into hearings. So far, the Government has not mentioned the child's plan requirement for December 2007. Is there still a requirement for such plans to be delivered?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am happy to confirm that the December 2007 target still requires to be met. I visited the Highland pathfinder project the other week. The issue in question was high on the agenda.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to develop the role of voluntary organisations in supporting vulnerable and older people in their communities. (S3O-484)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government greatly appreciates the voluntary sector's valuable contribution towards supporting vulnerable and older people in their communities. Consequently, we look forward to continuing to work with it on a range of important issues.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

In East Lothian in recent weeks, the Scottish National Party-led council has rescinded grants to lunch clubs and day centres throughout the county. It has—I am glad to say—properly reinstated those grants, but the fear is that when ministers try to persuade councils to freeze council tax levels, some will see voluntary sector grants as a soft target for savings. Will the minister give an assurance that, in the fruitful discussions between ministers and councils that we heard much about yesterday, it will be made clear to councils that they must continue to fund the vital work of voluntary organisations in supporting the elderly and vulnerable?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank the member for that augmented supplementary question.

We must remember that grants of £660 million or thereabouts have been made available from executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and health boards. We are looking to do something that is very much in line with what the member wants us to do. We want to bring together the voluntary sector, councils and other stakeholders to optimise the situation. We have taken a similar approach with the private sector and believe that that approach will work effectively so that there is a spirit of openness and we adopt a common goal, identify constraints and work to achieve better outcomes. We can and hope to achieve greater optimisation and use money better in the longer term.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many probationary teachers who completed their probationary year in June 2007 have been unable to find full-time employment. (S3O-466)

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I thank Ms Alexander for her question. From now on, it is likely that her questions will be to the First Minister only, so I will take the opportunity to congratulate her on her position-elect and to wish her a long and happy time leading the Labour Party in Scotland—in opposition.

The precise number of probationary teachers who completed their probationary year in June 2007 but have been unable to find full-time employment will be known once the annual teacher census has been conducted on 19 September and once the General Teaching Council for Scotland's probationer survey has been conducted in October.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I thank the minister for at least some of her sentiments.

The minister has said that more than 3,500 probationary teachers were in training in Scotland last year. It would be a tragedy if those probationary teachers were lost to the profession because they could not find employment. Yesterday, the First Minister gave a commitment on class sizes. I look forward to a commitment from the Executive to make an undertaking to train and allow employment for those who have been trained and who risk not having careers in the teaching profession in Scotland.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I reassure Ms Alexander that the situation for newly qualified teachers this year is no different from that in previous years. Indeed, the situation is better as a result of our injection of 300 extra teaching posts into the system. With respect to the 3,350 newly qualified teachers, local authorities have told us that 3,000 posts have been advertised since Easter.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to support Scottish art and culture. (S3O-517)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Presiding Officer—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I call Linda Fabiani.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am sorry, Presiding Officer. I was anxious to answer the question.

The Scottish Government is undertaking a wide variety of actions to support the arts and culture in Scotland. In the coming months, I plan to make further announcements that will make clear our commitment to supporting excellence in, and widening access to, the arts and culture. Our future cultural policy framework will affirm the place of culture in Scotland and acknowledge the important role that the varied cultural and creative practitioners play.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

How will the minister ensure that the creative industries are properly considered?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The creative industries are a real success story in Scotland and a significant and growing part of our economy. The Scottish Government is determined to play its role in creating the conditions for the sector to continue to flourish.

Members may be interested to know that, earlier this week in the Parliament, the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts held a joint meeting with the Parliament's futures forum. There are powerful lessons to be learned from the delegates and the summing up of what happened at the conference. In particular, I want to consider the need for the different arms of government to work closely together and for funding mechanisms to be capable of responding much more quickly and flexibly to the creative industries' needs.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The convention is that members ask the question that is on the oral questions paper. Christina McKelvie did not do that; she referred to the Scottish Government rather than the Scottish Executive.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We will move swiftly on.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

As the minister will be aware, there is an extensive network of arts organisations in the Highlands and Islands that provides services throughout the region. What do ministers plan to do to ensure that there is an enduring legacy from the 2007 year of Highland culture and to ensure that that legacy is spread throughout the Highlands and Islands and adds to the existing support that is given to, for example, theatres such as the Eden Court Theatre?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I have been impressed by what I have seen of the work that all the agencies that have been involved have put into the year of Highland of culture. From what Highland Council and those who have been closely involved with all the events that have taken place—some of which ministers have been fortunate enough to attend—have said, there will be a lot of discussion about how we can capitalise on a very good year for culture in the Highlands.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Scottish culture certainly needs support, but does Linda Fabiani believe that it was appropriate for the First Minister to stipulate that the £2 million extra funding that the Government granted to the Edinburgh festival this year should have been earmarked to promote exclusively Scottish work? We are talking about the world's pre-eminent arts festival, which generates £185 million a year for the Scottish economy. Are we in danger of making ourselves an international laughing stock for parochialism by insisting that only Scottish work should qualify for extra funding?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Many wonderful Scottish artists of all descriptions would be disturbed to learn that the Conservative party's arts and culture spokesperson thinks that their work is parochial.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The minister is aware that the Scottish Mining Museum in Newtongrange is in my constituency, but is she aware that Lady Victoria colliery, which is the finest surviving example of a Victorian colliery in Britain—indeed, it is the last remaining such colliery in Scotland—is facing a £2.5 million bill to conserve its grade A listed buildings? Will she commit the SNP Government to conserving the colliery and funding those urgent repairs?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am aware of the many issues that smaller museums throughout the country face and know that the Scottish Museums Council is active in dealing with them. I would be happy to meet Rhona Brankin to discuss specific issues relating to the mining museum in her constituency, just as I have met members with a particular interest in Scotland's Museum of Lead Mining in Wanlockhead.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support is currently available to local authorities for community regeneration. (S3O-528)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

All of the Government's support for local authorities has a role to play in regenerating communities. The most specific support for community regeneration is through the community regeneration fund. That support is provided to community planning partnerships and not just the local authority.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

As the minister will know, the City of Edinburgh Council's previous Labour administration dismally failed to win support for stock transfer, and the release of capital that that would entail. Given the serious financial difficulties that the council has inherited after 20 years of mismanagement by a Labour administration, will the minister commit to support the council as it tries to improve large areas of the city, including Gilmerton in my constituency?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Far be it from me to intervene between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. Clearly, the end of their honeymoon has come sooner than ours. I have already met members of City of Edinburgh Council to discuss a number of matters in relation to housing and regeneration. I am more than happy to commit to work with the City of Edinburgh Council to ensure that our capital city benefits from future investment and development. There are areas of priority need within Edinburgh that we must ensure are on the radar for redevelopment and regeneration. This Government is committed to regeneration, and we will ensure that Edinburgh does not lose out in regeneration funding over the next few years.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Is the minister aware of the island of Kerrera in Argyll and Bute, which lies within half a mile of Oban town centre? Despite that proximity to urban life, the long-suffering community has no community hall, no road links between the north and south communities, substandard roads, no school, and no ferry link to Oban after 5 pm. Will the minister look into that sorry state of affairs and do something, so that Kerrera and its people can achieve parity with other Hebridean islands, which is something that the local authority has so far failed to achieve?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

It certainly sounds like the result of more than 20 years of mismanagement by successive Labour and Tory Governments. I am more than happy to look into the matter and I will discuss it with ministerial colleagues, perhaps in rural affairs, who may also have a part to play in that area.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what it will do to ensure a sustainable future for Scottish village and community halls. (S3O-526)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish Government aims to help rural communities thrive and to enhance rural development. The Scotland rural development programme will inject £1.6 billion into rural areas over the next seven years. It contains specific measures worth £32 million to help provide leisure, recreation, sporting, catering and other rural community services and facilities, including village and community halls.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

Bearing in mind the vital role that those halls play, particularly in rural and remote locations, as highlighted by the halls for all campaign, will the minister confirm what steps his department will take to ensure that access to funding will be made easier? Will he further confirm that water charge exemption will remain in place beyond 2010? Finally, is the minister in a position to confirm whether funding will be available to village and community halls through the rural development programme, and when it will be available?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am sure that every MSP who represents rural communities wishes to pay tribute to everyone who helps to maintain and run their local village halls and community facilities. I assure the member that not only do we have the £32 million in the programme that I referred to, there is an additional £40 million under the LEADER programme, all of which should be available to our rural communities, including those who run rural halls.

In July, I had a productive meeting with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations to discuss support for village halls. We will discuss a number of issues in the weeks and months ahead, including many of the issues the member has raised.

NHS 24

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it intends to review the performance of NHS 24. (S3O-458)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The performance of NHS 24 is and will continue to be the subject of close and continuous review by the Scottish Government. As part of that process, I met the chairman and key members of the NHS 24 board when I chaired the board's annual review early last month.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister will be aware of the serious criticisms of out-of-hours services that are expressed in the recent Audit Scotland report.

On 23 July 2006, Shona Robison, who is now the Minister for Public Health, told the Sunday Herald:

"We believe there needs to be a fundamental restructuring of the service, with it devolved to health boards to provide the out-of-hours service including the element of NHS 24."

Is that still the position of the SNP now that it is in government? If so, when will we see that necessary review of the working practices of NHS 24?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

If the member had been paying attention to the annual review of the NHS 24 board last month, he would know that I discussed with it how it can continue to expand the network of local call centres that I consider to be important to ensure that our out-of-hours access is satisfactory and locally based. The board has made good progress with that already and I made it clear that I want that progress to continue. I think that that will continue to increase patients' satisfaction with out-of-hours services.

First Minister's Question Time

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

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-113)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I welcome Cathy Jamieson to her place. Later today, I will be meeting officials of the National Farmers Union and other representatives of rural Scotland to discuss pressures on the Scottish livestock industry as a result of rising cereal prices. I will also be making a speech to the Scottish Confederation of British Industry.

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

I wish the First Minister well in those discussions.

I want to focus on a few points, following the short debate in the chamber yesterday, when we heard quite a lot about the limitations of minority government. Although I accept that the First Minister will require a parliamentary majority for legislation, a range of manifesto commitments' delivery would not require a parliamentary majority.

Will the First Minister keep his manifesto promises to provide £2,000 grants for first-time house buyers, to end public-private partnerships, to freeze council tax and to reduce class sizes? Does he require legislation to deliver any of those commitments?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The SNP is going to work through all of its manifesto commitments over the four-year term of this Administration.

Yesterday, I was struck by the negative response that Cathy Jamieson gave to the Government's programme—an approach that was shared by the other parties. I had to contrast that with the response from outside this chamber. While Cathy Jamieson was saying that the programme contained very little, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, Rape Crisis Scotland and the Law Society of Scotland were welcoming the legislative programme and looking forward to productive communication as this Government implements its manifesto over the next four years.

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

There might have been some selective quoting of yesterday's debate. I said, on record, that there were things in the programme that we welcome and on which we would work with the Government—indeed, a significant number of things came from work that was commissioned by the previous Executive.

To make things slightly simpler for the First Minister, let me pick one of the manifesto pledges of which I spoke earlier. His manifesto was clear that first-time home buyers across Scotland were to get a £2,000 grant. Will they get it? Yes or no.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We will be addressing the housing crisis in Scotland. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

This autumn, we will publish our proposals. That crisis was left to us after eight years of the Labour and Liberal Democrat Administration.

Cathy Jamieson says that I quoted selectively. However, the Labour Party's acting leader has been quoted as saying that she "blasted" the programme—she says nothing in the article that is before me about all the things she welcomes. The contrast between the negative attitude of the Labour Party and the positive response of the people of Scotland could not be clearer.

The tens of thousands of people in Scotland who are currently in housing crisis as a result of the failures of the previous Administration will welcome the SNP's proposals when they are published this autumn.

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

I am sorry that the First Minister was not able to answer that fairly straightforward question.

Another of the SNP's pre-election commitments was to scrap PPP. On 14 August, however, John Swinney said:

"We said before the elections that PPP could continue as one of several delivery options open to public sector bodies."—[Official Report Written Answers, 14 August 2007; S3W-2599.]

On "Newsnight" last week, Alex Neil said that, within the next three months, the SNP will announce detailed plans for getting rid of PPP. What is the First Minister's view of that? Is PPP being scrapped—mebbes aye or mebbes no?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We will bring forward a range of options that will, as I said during the SNP election campaign, crowd out PPP by offering better mechanisms to fund the capital stock of Scotland.

Cathy Jamieson must be aware of the published research that shows the huge obligations that have resulted from her addiction to the private finance initiative. During the past few weeks, we have seen the new leader of the Labour Party divorce her policy from that of the acting leader and welcome our proposal that will bring prisons back into the public sector instead of taking the prison service down the PPP route. Given all that, I do not think that PPP is a particularly good area for Cathy Jamieson to be discussing.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Three-nil to Cathy.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order, please.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-114)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I will meet the Prime Minister as soon as possible, although I am tempted to call him the First Lord of the Treasury after what I read about what he might call the Scottish Government.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That is the least of the First Minister's worries.

The Scottish Conservatives are committed to building the prison capacity that Scotland needs to contain those whom the courts decide should be in jail. In contrast, the First Minister's proposals to give burglars, muggers and others the softer option of community sentences shows that he is clearly more interested in emptying our jails than in protecting the public. When it comes to tackling crime, the public wants prisoners to be in prison; it does not want convicts in the community. Does the First Minister have the political will to build another prison if protection of the public demands it?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Annabel Goldie must be aware that within the first 100 days of this Administration, we made decisions about the prisons estate that had been awaited for as many years as I can remember. We decided to back away from the Labour Party's privatisation plans, which would have left us with a higher proportion of prisoners in the private sector than the proportion in the state of California. We also made the welcome decision to build a state-of-the-art prison in the north-east of Scotland to replace the Victorian facilities in Aberdeen and Peterhead. I would have thought that Annabel Goldie would have found much to welcome in our rapid and decisive action on the prisons estate.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice recently cast a slur on the prison staff at HMP Kilmarnock—a prison that is recognised for dealing with offending behaviour and combating addiction—by suggesting that officers are vulnerable to bribery and corruption. Given the First Minister's comments yesterday about that prison, it is disturbing to think that he backs Mr MacAskill. The truth is that the First Minister and his party are openly dogged and dogmatic in their prejudice against the private sector, whether it be in prisons, the health service, or any of our other public services. Will the First Minister reconsider his attitude to the private sector and apologise for his cabinet secretary's unfortunate comments?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice was pointing out that prison officers in the private sector are unfortunately very low paid, in many cases. I am sure that they would agree because they have made that point to me on a number of occasions.

We are not dogmatic in our approach to politics; we are pragmatic, as we indicated yesterday. I challenge Annabel Goldie to find just one representative of the Scottish Prison Officers Association—the organisation that represents our prison officers—who would advocate that we should go down the privatisation route that the Conservative party still advocates, but which has now been rejected by the incoming leader of the Labour Party.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-121)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Yesterday the First Minister announced a proposal to give every patient in Scotland an individual waiting-time guarantee. Will that guarantee be legally enforceable?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We will consult on the nature of the legislation, as the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing said yesterday.

The plan is to have a guarantee that is meaningful rather than one that is meaningless, which was the state of play under the previous Administration. Even Nicol Stephen must remember the scandal of the hidden waiting lists, the existence of which was denied by the Labour Party. People suffered the frustration of having guarantees and guidelines that meant nothing. I would have thought that Nicol Stephen would join the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing in looking forward to productive discussion on our welcome proposals.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Why is the position not clear cut? Why is the SNP so confused on the issue? The First Minister's manifesto said that the waiting-time guarantee was to be legally binding. Yesterday the Deputy First Minister said that that was just a detail and that she would have to think about it. Today the First Minister says that he will consult. Is not it the truth that the SNP made the promise because it sounded good—it was a great soundbite?

The reality is now clear. The SNP's proposal will mean American-style litigation in Scotland's health service, with a lawyer by every bedside, and it will result in health service staff spending time in the courtroom rather than the treatment room. How much money will health boards have to divert from the treatment of patients to prepare for the legal onslaught from our First Minister? Will final decisions on treatment be taken out of the hands of doctors? Will clinical decisions by Scotland's doctors now be influenced by the shadow of Scotland's lawyers?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Nicol Stephen could not be accused of self-interest in his attacks on Scotland's lawyers.

The system that we have proposed and put out for genuine consultation is based on the system that is used in the Norwegian health service, where it works extremely well. I do not know whether Nicol Stephen has managed to have a look at the Norwegian health service, but I advise him to do so before he dismisses the option of having in our health service waiting and delivery times that are meaningful to patients. Our initiative is patient centred—it puts the patient first.

As far as having time to do things is concerned, we have had an electoral test in Nicol Stephen's area. The council by-election in Aberdeen resulted in an SNP gain, with the Liberals coming third—although Alison McInnes said that the Liberals were denied a famous victory. With optimism like that, Nicol Stephen should—[Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

I will take a supplementary from Margo MacDonald.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I ask the First Minister for a reply to the questions that I posed to his deputy yesterday, but which she forgot—by accident, I am sure—to answer.

Edinburgh's situation in relation to the schools programme points to the unsatisfactory nature of the funding stream for the capital city of Scotland, which provides the services that we all expect for the rest of the country. Will the First Minister give me an undertaking that he will give serious consideration to the introduction of capital city funding? When he next meets the Prime Minister, will he tell him that it is just unfair that Edinburgh tenants, who chose to stay with the council rather than transfer their stock, have a burden of debt that Glasgow tenants no longer have?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The distribution formula for local authorities is always kept under review to ensure fairness and parity.

Regarding the financial situation in Edinburgh, I heard what was said by one of the Liberal members about the allocation of responsibility to the Labour party. As Minister for Finance and Public Services, Andy Kerr made the claim that the last local government settlement was the best local government settlement in history. The problem with the Liberal member's point is that the Liberals were in coalition with the Labour party when that settlement was agreed.

Productively for Margo MacDonald, the fairness and equity of the local government distribution formula is always kept under review by the Government.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the First Minister agree that Edinburgh and every other part of Scotland would benefit from the transfer of powers over Scotland's oil and gas resources to the Scottish Parliament? Will he continue to pursue his worthy campaign for the transfer of those powers?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

For the second time in two days, I agree with Alex Neil. In David Cairns's picking a fight with me at the "Offshore Europe" conference, I detected that there is some upset at the suggestion that the people of Scotland should share in our own resources. To David Cairns and others, I say that it is not just in the health service that Norway has much to teach Scotland. We look across the water to Norway and see a capital investment fund of £165 billion, which has been accumulated over the past 10 years. The obvious point is this: when somebody asks Norwegians how long their oil and gas is going to last, they say forever. That fund is available to power forward the Norwegian economy and Norwegian society. O, that we had the same situation in Scotland.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

To ask the First Minister whether he will ensure that there is appropriate co-operation between the Scottish Executive, the Crown Office and the UK Government in any consideration of a judicial public inquiry into the explosion at the Stockline factory on 11 May 2004. (S3F-116)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The decision on the type of inquiry to be held into the circumstances surrounding the explosion and resultant deaths will be made by the Lord Advocate, as she has sole responsibility for the investigation of deaths in Scotland.

There are three kinds of inquiry that the Lord Advocate can consider. There could be an inquiry under section 14 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, which would be held by the relevant United Kingdom department. There could be an inquiry held jointly by Scottish and UK ministers under the Inquiries Act 2005. Or there could be a fatal accident inquiry ordered by the Lord Advocate under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976.

The Lord Advocate has consulted Lord McKenzie, the UK minister who is responsible for health and safety. Yesterday, she met representatives of the Stockline families and Patricia Ferguson. Once she has finished her consultation, she will come to Cabinet to consult me and other colleagues. The Lord Advocate has undertaken to make her position clear by the end of the month.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I thank the First Minister for his response, and I put on record my thanks to the Lord Advocate for the meetings that she held with me and the families yesterday.

The First Minister will know that, because the two companies that were involved in the tragedy pled guilty to breaches of health and safety legislation, it was not possible for all the issues of concern to be aired in court. Does the First Minister agree that a full judicial public inquiry is necessary in order that all the lessons of the tragedy can be learned?

Furthermore, given that some of the contributory factors, such as health and safety legislation and the regulations that apply to the conveyance of gas through pipes are reserved, whereas others, such as building control and the interaction of the various agencies are devolved, does the First Minister agree that the most appropriate way to proceed is by an inquiry initiated by the UK Government working in tandem with the Crown Office to ensure that we send out a signal that, in this country, it is completely unacceptable that nine people should lose their lives just because they went to work?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

If there was an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, it would be ordered jointly by Scottish and United Kingdom ministers. Patricia Ferguson makes some strong points about the range that such an inquiry should have, but I think that it would be best to allow the Lord Advocate to complete her discussions and consultations and, after consultation of all concerned, to come to a decision by the end of the month. In addition to what Patricia Ferguson said, I have offered to meet the families and their representatives. I think that all members will join me in welcoming the fact that the Lord Advocate has undertaken to move the process forward and to make a decision in early course.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does the First Minister agree that the recent Stockline report is one of the most hair-raising reports that members have ever had the misfortune to see? In the further discussions that are taken forward either by the First Minister directly or by the Lord Advocate, will priority be given to dealing with the issue of hazardous processes and plants that is identified in the report?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

A range of issues are mentioned in the report, some of which—as Patricia Ferguson rightly said—touch on devolved responsibilities and some of which touch on reserved matters. Given that the nature of the criminal proceedings meant that, although there was a successful prosecution, some of the evidence was not required to surface in the course of the proceedings, I think that all are agreed that an inquiry in public is necessary. The points that have been raised by Robert Brown and Patricia Ferguson indicate that there is a wide spread of support for ensuring that any such inquiry should be the fullest inquiry possible so that it can look at the full scope of all the issues involved.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the First Minister how he will ensure that there is sufficient school accommodation of the correct type for him to meet the promises on class sizes and early intervention and the expectations of parents. (S3F-125)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Within the 100-day programme, we have already taken the necessary first steps to start driving down class sizes in primary 1 to primary 3 and to provide access to a nursery teacher for all children, but we are targeting the most deprived areas first. As well as announcing funding for an extra 300 teachers and for 250 more teacher-training places from August, we have allocated an additional £40 million in capital funding for school buildings to enable councils to plan investment. After 113 days of Administration, that is a pretty good record on fulfilling our aims and ambitions for Scotland's school children.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In Perth and Kinross, the deputy director of education has estimated that 12 schools will not, with existing resources, be able to meet the targets. He said that he would need 19 additional classrooms, the additional teachers for which alone would mean a bill of somewhere in the region of £735,000 on top of his budget of £2.1 million for this year. His fear is that the additional financial burdens are so great that classrooms that are currently used for art, music and drama might have to be sacrificed, with consequent damaging effects on children's education. What will the First Minister do to ensure that that does not happen?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The pace and scale of delivery are, of course, dependent on discussions with local authorities and with the universities that will deliver the additional teachers that we need. However, I believe that there is overwhelming support among both the profession and the people of Scotland for recognising that the policy of early intervention and the measures that we have already taken on funding for extra teachers are the best way forward. The substantial support in local authorities and teaching organisations suggests that our approach to consulting on teacher numbers is the right way forward for delivering on one of the Administration's most important commitments.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Will the First Minister tell us why his SNP colleagues on the City of Edinburgh Council were so ignorant of their party's policy on class sizes that they thought it right to close 22 schools and make the implementation of that policy impossible? While welcoming their U-turn—the fastest U-turn in political history—will the First Minister ensure that in the future his SNP councillors have some minimal acquaintance with party policy, or do his councillors believe that the class-size policy, like many other SNP election promises, will never be implemented?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I thought that Malcolm Chisholm would have stayed away from the schools in Edinburgh issue since it is widely known that the so-called hit list was devised under a Labour Administration. We have already discussed that the budgetary condition of Edinburgh must by definition be the responsibility of either the previous Labour Administration or indeed, shared by its Liberal allies in the previous Scottish Government.

I thought that Malcolm Chisholm would welcome the fact that the SNP group in the council took action to stop a schools closure programme. Although as First Minister of Scotland it is not my job to run the schools of Edinburgh, I offer this bit of advice: if a council education convener proposes a programme that is based on the argument that schools are half empty, it is best not to have on the list for closure some schools that are 75 per cent full. Therefore, the SNP group made the right decision on behalf of the people of Edinburgh.

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

The First Minister spoke again today about the £40 million in the schools fund that is targeted at areas of deprivation. He will have seen in guidance that was issued by his Government on 10 July 2007 that the funding is

"to be given to projects to enhance and upgrade sports facilities in schools".

He will also have seen that of the £40 million, only 5 per cent is to be allocated to areas of deprivation. Why is only 5 per cent of that funding going to areas of deprivation, which he said today is the priority target of the fund?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The note gives advice to councils about how they should distribute the fund, but the final determination lies with each council. I say to Jeremy Purvis that councils in Scotland now have £40 million more, which is an increase of almost 40 per cent in their budgets for school buildings this year than they would have had if the Labour-Liberal Executive had stayed in office.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Further to my friend Malcolm Chisholm's question, what assurances has the First Minister had from Steve Cardownie that the SNP group will not do yet another U-turn and propose further school closures, which would make implementation of the SNP manifesto impossible?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I thought that as someone who has considerable experience in the City of Edinburgh Council, as well as in this chamber, as well as in the House of Commons, as well as in the House of Lords, that Lord George Foulkes would welcome the fact that the SNP group had brought some sense and sensibility to what the council was doing.

I know from the member's earlier remarks that he was disappointed not to be invited to the Confederation of British Industry dinner in Glasgow this evening, but he should welcome sound common sense when he sees it in the SNP group in the council.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has to improve health support and provision for troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. (S3F-122)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The immediate health-care needs of armed services personnel in Scotland are met by the Ministry of Defence, which provides primary health care, rehabilitation and mental health care through its own medical facilities in Scotland. Military personnel requiring routine in-patient treatment will normally be referred to a national health service hospital, according to clinical priority.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Is the First Minister aware that

"Many veterans have strong feelings of abandonment, the sense of being used and of being forsaken",

that

"One in four is homeless",

and that

"74 per cent of serious crime is committed by ex-forces"?

Those are not my words, but those of Alan Meale—Labour MP and commissioner for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

Will the First Minister, for a start, support a veterans charter that would enshrine a very modest right to a dedicated point of contact—say, at council level—to co-ordinate support for veterans in relation to housing, employment, benefits and health?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Alan Meale has written to me on that very point. There is a great deal to be said for his proposals. I discussed part of this issue with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is also the Secretary of State for Defence, after we attended a few weeks ago an event in Strathclyde park organised by a new charity called Forward Edge of the Battle Area, which considers the recreational needs of former service people. Alan Meale made some strong points in his correspondence, and we will look at this important issue extremely sympathetically to find out what contribution the Scottish Government can make to it.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My understanding of the rules governing back-bench supplementary questions at First Minister's question time is that a back bencher gets a supplementary if it involves a significant local issue, which Margo MacDonald's question was indeed concerned with. I was, however, slightly surprised when Alex Neil then got in with a highly political supplementary that was bowled underarm to the First Minister—which, if I may say so, is a rather startling departure for Mr Neil. Presiding Officer, will you clarify the rules on this matter, given that First Minister's question time is very valuable to back benchers?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The rules clearly state that the choice of supplementaries lies with the Presiding Officer. As a result, I have the right to choose whoever it might be, which is what I have done. I also point out that Nicol Stephen's original question was on the issues that might

"be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet".

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Justice and Law Officers

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

The Scottish Law Commission is working on its final report on rape and sexual offences. It is expected that it will submit its report and recommendations to ministers later this year.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I welcome the Government's commitment to continue the work of the previous Executive in this area. Does the minister share my concern that essential improvements to the prosecution process could highlight the obvious gaps between the law and public opinion? Is the minister aware of an ICM Research poll commissioned by Amnesty International, which indicated the existence of a "sexist blame culture", whereby 34 per cent of those people who were polled believed that a woman is to blame for her rape if she is perceived to be acting flirtatiously, dressed inappropriately or drunk? Is he aware that a recent survey by the Scottish Executive revealed similar worrying attitudes? How does the Government intend to tackle widely held societal attitudes that seem to hold women responsible for sexual attacks that are inflicted upon them, whereas in fact rape is never a woman's fault?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I pay tribute to Elaine Smith's involvement in this area. She correctly pointed out the role of the previous Administration in pursuing the problem. The percentage of people cited in the poll is cause for concern, although we must recognise that the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland do not hold such views. The fact that such a large minority hold those views, however, is clearly a matter of concern. Speaking for the Government, I assure the member that it will never be a defence that somebody was dressed attractively or, I dare say, provocatively. Such a defence is simply unacceptable.

Elaine C Smith—my apologies; I mean Elaine Smith—is correct to point out that we must address a variety of issues. Some of those issues are cultural; some are legislative; some are procedural. My colleagues the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland, now and under the previous Administration, have attempted to make progress. They have travelled far, but there is a considerable journey still to go. They are addressing the issues.

Legislative change is pending, as we have mentioned. We will address issues concerning the Scottish Law Commission and other matters. There remains a cultural factor, in which all of us, both in Government and outwith Government, have a role. We will happily work on that with Elaine Smith, Rape Crisis Scotland and others in order to change some people's neanderthal attitudes, which are unacceptable and inappropriate for the 21st century.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am particularly concerned about sexual offences against children, and specifically about the low rate of custodial sentences that are being given out for such crimes. In recent years, barely more than half of those who have been convicted of sexual offences against children have spent time in prison. I appreciate that prison can only ever be part of the solution, but does the Cabinet Secretary for Justice agree that the protection of our children from such offenders is paramount? Will he examine closely how we can protect children from convicted sex offenders, and will that include consideration of setting up a sentencing commission?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I am grateful for the member's intervention on the matter. I am aware that she has commented and written on the subject—I have seen some documentation on it. It is a matter of concern. We must remember that, although such instances are horrendous, they are thankfully rare in Scotland. That said, they are still far too common and the consequences—of the incident itself and the long-standing effects on the individuals who have been abused—are significant.

We seek to work on the problem on a consensual basis. We have spoken to members of the Labour Party and the Conservative party to discuss how to review and maintain a vigorous regime to address those who offend sexually, against children and in a predatory manner. We will continue to do that. The Government remains committed to a sentencing council, which will have teeth.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice is aware of the highly successful domestic abuse court in Glasgow, which I hope he will continue to support and fund. Does he think that a place may exist for special courts to deal with rape, given the well-known difficulties in the past with the mainstream courts' procedures and processes?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Specialist courts were touched on in this morning's debate on drugs. We support specialist courts. Those that have been rolled out in relation to youth and drugs have been of benefit, as has been the court to which Malcolm Chisholm referred.

We have no plans to introduce rape courts. We believe that the best way to proceed is for the Crown to take a robust approach to prosecution in cases of rape. We will consider how we address the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004, which has been beneficial. The media has drawn to our attention instances in which that act does not appear to be working as best it should, but that does not mean that we should jettison the baby with the bath water. The issues are how we review the act to make it work better and how we change the court system to ensure that it works better.

As I said, we have no plans to introduce rape courts. However, I assure the member that, as I said to Elaine Smith, the Lord Advocate and I will do whatever we feel is necessary to address procedural matters—through legislation if need be—and to address the culture that is at the root of why people suggest rape courts, given that some individuals on juries appear to have had views that we as a society require to change.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it intends to review the legislation on antisocial behaviour. (S3O-510)

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

We will review the national antisocial behaviour strategy to see where it can be strengthened and improved. As part of that review, we will consider the effectiveness of the key elements of the antisocial behaviour legislation.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I hope that, when the minister and his colleagues undertake the review, they will resist any attempts to reduce the budget for dealing with antisocial behaviour.

The minister's colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, was in my constituency recently to visit St Mary's school in Bishopbriggs, which deals with youngsters who have been involved in antisocial and criminal behaviour. In conducting the review, I hope that the ministerial team will speak not only to people who are involved in administering antisocial behaviour legislation. If either minister fancies a return visit to Strathkelvin and Bearsden, they should let me know, because I will introduce them to victims of antisocial behaviour. I am sure that the ministers agree that they will obtain a better insight into the misery that antisocial behaviour causes by speaking to some of its victims.

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

I thank the member for his question and confirm that we are absolutely committed to continuing to tackle antisocial behaviour. We want to hear the fullest range of opinions in the review that is ahead. As I said in my initial answer, that will include a review of the legislation.

Police officers and community wardens are doing much successful work in communities throughout Scotland to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Executive wants to work with people in other parties, such as Mr Whitton, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary and/or I will accept as many invitations as possible to learn more about the consequences for victims of such behaviour.

We wish to have a new focus not only on cracking down on antisocial behaviour, but on promoting good behaviour, by giving young people better things to do with their time, such as participating in sport, outdoor activities, arts and other pursuits.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the minister confirm that the review will pay particular attention to the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour orders? There is no public confidence that those orders are in any way effective and people who receive them treat them with contempt, as I confidently predicted they would at the outset. Does he agree that considerable toughening of the system will be necessary if the use of the orders is not to end up in disrepute?

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

I confirm that the review will, of course, cover the efficacy of ASBOs. We are all aware of the relative infrequency with which ASBOs have been granted, and of the long process that is needed to persuade a local authority to apply for an ASBO, during which time the victims continue to suffer from antisocial behaviour. I am happy to confirm to Bill Aitken that that will form part of the review. We want a new strategy that will be more effective in tackling antisocial behaviour.

We should all recognise that foremost in that strategy will be the police's good work throughout Scotland in tackling antisocial behaviour using their professional skills but not necessarily legal orders.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will bring forward legislation to deal with high hedges. (S3O-527)

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

No decision has yet been taken on whether to introduce legislation to deal with high hedges. The Scottish Government is considering whether to deal with the issue as part of the review of the national antisocial behaviour strategy, which is in its early stages.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

During the past seven years, like many other members, I have received many representations on the matter. I will quote briefly from the most recent letter, which I received this morning:

"Our neighbours have grown a hedge which makes our driveway access unsafe and the only means available to us is to take legal action and we expect to spend around £10,000 in the process."

We need Government-sponsored legislation on this matter, and we need it soon. Will the Executive agree to act on this non-partisan issue as soon as possible?

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

There is a long history of action—or inaction—on the issue, but we prefer to look forward and not back.

I admit to Mr Rumbles that high hedges do not form part of one of the pledges on which we were determined to deliver during our first 100 days; I am sorry if that disappoints him. Nonetheless, as constituency MSPs, we are all aware that the issue is raised with us frequently. Mr Rumbles will know that, as a matter of land law, an owner of land owns the land a caelo usque ad centrum, which means that there is no way in which one can restrict the height of hedges under the existing law other than by pruning that part of the hedge that overhangs one's property. I do not doubt that during the antisocial behaviour strategy review, I will receive representations from Mr Rumbles and they will be considered most carefully.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures will be taken to address the issue of low conviction rates in court cases involving charges of rape and other forms of sexual assault. (S3O-481)

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I welcome the Executive's decision to reform the law on rape. However, the process must not be rushed because the matter is complex and sensitive, and there must be no downgrading of crimes against women.

Will Miss Angiolini assure me that rape cases will remain with the High Court? There must be clarity on that. In relation to the minister's response to Elaine Smith, will the Lord Advocate consider supporting the robust testing of a case by the police before it goes to the procurator fiscal, or after it goes to the PF but before it goes to court? Can we be assured that the exclusion of the sexual history of the victim or the accused will continue to be a matter for the judge under a section 275 procedure?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

This question might be more for the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. In response to a written question lodged by Trish Godman, which requested information on the number of victims of human trafficking who have been freed, the former Minister for Justice responded:

"This information is not held centrally."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 24 January 2007; S2W-30899.]

Trish Godman also lodged a question—S2W-30898—on the number of convictions in human trafficking cases, but those data are also not held. As I understand it, prosecutions take place under different heads—kidnapping, for example. Will the Lord Advocate review how such data are collected, so that we can identify the scale of the problem and the successful prosecution rate?

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the average cost is of training police officers. (S3O-476)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

The average cost of induction training for new police officers at the Scottish Police College is £7,427. Extensive training programmes are also delivered in-force, but details of those costs are not held centrally.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I am surprised by the cabinet secretary's answer, but I thank him for it. I am advised elsewhere by police professionals in Scotland that the cost of recruiting and training a police officer is nearly £44,000—the figure that the cabinet secretary gave does not resemble that sum. If my arithmetic is right, an additional £44 million needs to be planned for in the first budget.

Will the minister say unequivocally which is accurate—the First Minister's statement on the Government's programme or the Scottish National Party's manifesto? The First Minister said yesterday in his statement that the SNP would work with the police

"to increase capacity by the equivalent of 1,000 officers"—[Official Report, 5 September 2007; c 1370.]

Of course, any reasonable thinking person—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Please be brief.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Any reasonable thinking person would say that the First Minister's pledge is not unreasonable. However, it is not what the SNP manifesto said. The manifesto commitment—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

What is the question, Ms Eadie?

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

The SNP said in its manifesto that it would put "1,000 more police" on the streets. Will the cabinet secretary say whether that was smoke and mirrors? Has he got his sums wrong? Will there be 1,000 more police officers in Scotland in 2011 than there are now?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

If Ms Eadie wants to challenge the figures, she can certainly write to me and I will investigate. However, the cost of training a police officer at the Police College is as I said. Obviously there are a variety of schemes in relation to how police forces train officers, and other training happens after people have gone through the initial induction period.

With regard to the broader figure on our Government's commitment to ensuring a visible police presence, I can only reiterate that we wish to ensure an additional capacity of 1,000 police officers. How do we achieve that? I reiterate that we wish to recruit new officers. However, equally, we wish to retain serving officers. One of the tragedies in the Scottish police service at the moment is that far too many officers are leaving who still have a great deal of skill and talent that we need to retain. Some are leaving long before the end of their period of service and others are leaving towards the end of their period of service. It is important that we enhance current schemes in order to retain them.

As well as recruiting new officers, we wish to retain existing officers. We also wish to review how to get best value out of our police officers. The issue is not police officers having to work harder—they work very hard—but how we can help them to work smarter in a much more complicated world.

Finance and Sustainable Growth

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I have already made it clear that the Scottish Government shall announce our proposals for removing or reducing business rates for small businesses in Scotland following the comprehensive spending review. It is our intention to help the smallest businesses for which this will make the biggest difference.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Given that the proposal was included in the Scottish National Party's manifesto "A new approach: Our first steps", I was hoping for further and better particulars on the matter.

On a related angle, is the minister aware that some small town-centre businesses—notably shops—fall far short of the upper rates relief threshold that he has proposed by virtue of their location and subsequent high rateable values? Does he agree that there is a need to look specifically at the ways in which those small firms can be offered help? If so, has he considered any ways of doing that?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The member raises an interesting issue. The small business bonus will increase overall vibrancy in towns, which will bolster existing players. However, I am always keen to engage with business and to see more self-nominating clusters. If a self-nominating cluster of small retail businesses in that band wants to engage with me, my officials, the enterprise agencies and the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, I am more than happy to see what we can do to move things forward.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will make a special grant allocation to the City of Edinburgh Council to cover the financial deficit incurred by the previous administration. (S3O-453)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As a distinct corporate body, it is for the City of Edinburgh Council to decide how best to allocate all the resources that are available to it based on its local needs and priorities.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

When I lodged the question last week, little did I know that the SNP group on the City of Edinburgh Council would do such a rapid U-turn on the council's school closure plans.

In essence, those councillors are now going to come trooping to the cabinet secretary's door, asking him exactly the same question. If the City of Edinburgh Council is no longer going to make savings in its education budget, and the cabinet secretary is not going to allow the council to increase council tax rates, how can it deal with its inherited budget problem without cutting other council services—unless, of course, Mr Swinney stumps up? Given that it appears that the Scottish Government wants to tell SNP councillors in Edinburgh what to do about our schools, will the cabinet secretary tell them—and us—precisely how he proposes that they should square that financial circle?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

That is a curious position for David McLetchie, as a Conservative, to adopt. I thought that he believed in the right of local authorities to take their own decisions and in the importance of public authorities such as the City of Edinburgh Council operating their services efficiently and sustainably. It is perfectly in order for the City of Edinburgh Council to come to its conclusions within its own financial arrangements.

I suspect that I will have more to say on the matter in response to other questions that will be put to me today, but I am seeking to work constructively and productively with local authorities on a range of issues in order to secure both a freeze in council tax rates and sustainable public services at the local level. However, I want to do that in a fashion that frees local authorities to take more of their decisions and operate efficiently. I would have thought that those are values to which Mr McLetchie would have been prepared to give a warmer welcome.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive how it is supporting voluntary sector youth groups. (S3O-533)