Scottish Parliament, 25 October 2007

379 contributions from 84 members. The official report.

Official Report 25 October 2007

Free Personal Care

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-679, in the name of Mary Scanlon, on free personal care.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I wish to declare that my daughter is a solicitor with Brodies LLP, which was the legal representative for Argyll and Bute Council. She had no input into this case.

Lord Macphail observed that the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 is "unusually complex", so I will start by outlining the background. The case involved a complaint to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman that Argyll and Bute Council failed to provide funding to cover the personal care costs of an elderly resident, Mr McLachlan. As was the practice of some other local authorities, Mr McLachlan was placed on a waiting list until funding was found. In the interim, his family arranged and paid for care in an independent home. Like many other families, they did what they thought was right and best for their father.

The family then sought to be reimbursed from the date of their father's assessment. The ombudsman decided that the council had been obliged by the terms of the 2002 act to provide Mr McLachlan with free personal care. She further recommended that the council should have made payments from the date when he became eligible, following assessment. Argyll and Bute Council challenged that.

This brings us to Lord Macphail's Court of Session judgment. He took the view that Argyll and Bute Council was not required by section 1 of the 2002 act to meet the personal care costs of Mr McLachlan, as the act states:

"a local authority are not to charge for social care provided by them (or the provision of which is secured by them)".

In Mr McLachlan's case, the care was provided through an entirely private arrangement between his family and the care home.

Although I have no doubt that it was the intention of the Parliament to provide a universal entitlement to free personal care, the consequence of Lord Macphail's judgment is that no such statutory right exists in the legislation as drafted.

Now we come to the crucial point. Before reaching his final decision, Lord Macphail gave the Scottish ministers an opportunity to instruct counsel to appear before the court to make submissions "in the public interest" about the correct interpretation of the legislation on free personal care, but they declined to do so. Lord Macphail expressed his disappointment that he had not been afforded such assistance and indicated that he had reached his decision with reluctance. His decision stated:

"it was not possible to interpret the legislation about free personal care as obliging a local authority to make payments for personal care that was not provided by them."

The case has gone from being one in which the ombudsman recommended that the council should calculate and pay a sum equivalent to the payments for care from the date of eligibility, to one in which a Court of Session judge decided that it was not possible to interpret the legislation as obliging a local authority to make payments for personal care that was not provided or secured by it. The judge further stated that the ombudsman's decision that the 2002 act placed a statutory duty on the council to provide funding was incorrect.

We now have a judgment that casts doubt on whether councils are obliged to pay for care in the independent sector and which appears to legitimise the use of waiting lists and the rationing of personal care by councils such as Argyll and Bute Council. More than 9,000 self-funders are in care and others are being assessed, and they need reassurance and clarification from Parliament—and, I hope, from this debate—to put their minds at ease.

On a matter of such importance, it is deplorable that the Scottish ministers refused to make a submission to the court about the correct interpretation of the legislation, as they were invited to do. The summary of Lord Macphail's judgment stated:

"the matter was of great importance".

Lord Macphail himself said:

"the Court would derive invaluable assistance in arriving at a decision on that very important issue from hearing submissions on behalf of the Scottish Ministers."

I agree with the judge's further comment that the legislation is "unusually complex." All this mayhem happened because the Scottish ministers refused to co-operate. Now there is a judicial review that casts doubt on whether councils are obliged to pay for care in the independent sector. All of us in the Parliament are aware that the court decision is not in line with the spirit of the free personal care legislation and Parliament's understanding of it. Frankly, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing's time would have been better spent providing assistance to the court before the judgment was made, rather than writing letters to the newspapers afterwards.

Labour and the Lib Dems are not blameless either—I am sure that we will hear from them. They indicated to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman in February that they did not intend to intervene.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I do not have much time, and I know that the member will have the opportunity to clarify later.

Had the ombudsman been given assistance by the Liberal and Labour coalition, would the decision have been different? Had the judge been given assistance by the nationalist Government, would his decision have been different? We will never know the answers to those questions.

While I do not think that the cabinet secretary has covered herself in glory in relation to this case, it is fair to acknowledge the steps that have been taken to deal with the problems inherited from the previous Scottish Executive, as outlined in the Scottish National Party amendment. If the cabinet secretary is prepared to give the assurance that the Scottish Conservatives seek today for people who are in care and for families who are affected by the judgment, we will accept the amendment in her name and lend our support to legislation that may be required to resolve the matter once and for all. Older people in Scotland deserve no less.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern that the interpretation, implementation and funding of the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 has been beset by difficulties, many of which remain unresolved; believes that the decision of Lord Macphail on the Petition of Argyll and Bute Council dated 17 October 2007 is contrary to the intention of the Parliament, and calls on the Scottish Government to assure all people over 65 currently resident in independent care homes who have been assessed as eligible for free personal care, and others who may be assessed in future as so eligible, that councils will continue to fund their personal care regardless of whether or not there is a contract to which a council is a party.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Although we may not agree with the exact wording, I endorse the sentiment of Mary Scanlon's motion. We all want the free personal care policy to work more effectively and to reassure people that, in line with Parliament's intention, their care needs will be met.

The policy for free personal and nursing care has had a positive impact on the lives of more than 50,000 vulnerable older people. People are receiving free care that previously they would have had to pay for. That applies to people whose care is arranged entirely by a local authority and to those who arrange their own care with council support only for the free personal and nursing care element.

There has been significant and widespread misunderstanding of last week's ruling by Lord Macphail—Mary Scanlon herself said that it was a complex case. I want to take this opportunity to reassure all those older people and their families who are concerned about the reported implications of the ruling.

The ruling does not mean that certain people who are assessed as needing personal care are not entitled to receive payments for it from their local authority; nor does it mean that an individual or their family is prevented from arranging their own care in a care home of their choice. Neither does the ruling say that payments to self-funders by local authorities are ultra vires. Indeed, at paragraph 87 of the ruling, the judge specifically rejects that argument. There is, therefore, no risk of any self-funder who is already in receipt of free personal care having it withdrawn or reclaimed. It is important to give that reassurance.

The ruling confirms that the obligation on the local authority to make payments begins not at the point of assessment, but when the local authority has a care contract in place with a care provider. That is consistent with the guidance that was issued to local authorities by the previous Administration in July 2003, and it reflects the operation of the law as we inherited it.

In the vast majority of cases, the time between the local authority assessment and the contract being in place is minimal. However, in some cases—as in the Argyll and Bute case that Lord Macphail considered—there is a delay and, effectively, the operation of a waiting list.

The issue of waiting lists is one of a number of concerns about the operation of the current policy that we identified in opposition—as did the Conservatives—and are committed to addressing now that we are in Government.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Does the cabinet secretary accept that the delay on the part of Argyll and Bute Council was deliberate and not a consequence of trying to arrange a service?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Indeed, that may be the case, but the ruling confirms that what Argyll and Bute Council did is in line with the existing guidance issued by the previous Administration. That suggests that there may be a problem with the existing guidance that we now have to address.

Let me outline the actions that we are taking forward, which I previously outlined in June when we debated free personal care. We are engaging closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to address issues about the implementation of the current policy, including waiting lists, food preparation and eligibility criteria. As I indicated in June, we are prepared to revisit the legislation if, as a result of those discussions, we consider it necessary.

In addition, we have asked Lord Sutherland to chair an independent commission to examine the funding of free personal care, so that we can ensure that it can be put on a sustainable basis for the long term. Of course, we are committed to increasing the payments for free personal care from next April, which will be the first time they have been increased since the policy was introduced.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

If the member lets me make some progress, I will take an intervention shortly.

I will now address a central point. As well as the ruling being misunderstood, comment has been made—we have heard it again this morning—about the Scottish Government's decision not to be represented in the case. Let me make it clear that the Scottish Government was not a party to the case, and after careful consideration we decided that it would not be appropriate for the Government to participate. I respect the fact that others take a different view, but it is worth noting that the previous Administration also declined to enter the case when asked if it would do so by the ombudsman.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Let me make progress. The member will have a chance to express his view later.

It is also worth noting that the judge made clear that he was bound to make a literal interpretation of the law and that ministerial statements could not change that position.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

rose—

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I will take the member's intervention now.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Given the comments of the cabinet secretary and Mary Scanlon, it is important, for the removal of doubt, to make it clear on the record that at no point did ministers in the previous Administration decline a request to give evidence at the hearing, nor did we at any point commit any incoming Administration to refuse any such request.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The ombudsman asked the previous Administration whether it intended to become involved in the case, and it said that it had no intention of doing so. That is a matter of fact.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I have to move on, as I am in my last minute—I took the member's intervention.

What I believe is important now—Mary Scanlon addressed the issue well in her speech—is that collectively as a Parliament we reassure older people, their families and their carers that free personal care will continue on a strong and sustainable footing. The policy is positive and has received all-party support. I hope that that support continues.

The Scottish Government is committed to addressing the issues in relation to the existing policy that have caused and are causing concern and to securing the policy's place at the heart of our social care agenda for many years to come. In seeking to do that, I hope that we will receive support from throughout the chamber.

I move amendment S3M-679.1, to leave out from "has been beset" to end and insert:

"have raised difficulties, many of which remain unresolved; notes that the decision of Lord Macphail dated 17 October 2007 on the Petition of Argyll and Bute Council reflects the guidance issued in July 2003; wishes to reassure those assessed, either now or in the future, as requiring free personal or nursing care that their entitlement to receive it is not affected by Lord Macphail's decision; agrees, however, that the current operation of the law, although in line with existing guidance, may in some cases result in an undue delay between assessment and a local authority care contract being concluded; therefore supports the Scottish Government's ongoing dialogue with COSLA to address issues such as waiting lists, eligibility criteria and food preparation, together with its assurance that it will take action, if necessary, to clarify the law, and considers that Lord Sutherland's review of the level and distribution of resources for free personal care will make a valuable contribution to ensuring that the policy is put on a secure and sustainable basis for the long term."

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Our amendment has three key elements. The first is to re-emphasise the Government's failure to represent the public interest at the recent judicial review of the decision made by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. Secondly, and equally important, is the Government's failure to understand the point at issue that was before Lord Macphail in the judicial review. That failure has been confirmed again this morning. Thirdly, notwithstanding the review that is being carried out—I am not critical of Lord Sutherland's role—the Government must address certain issues to reassure local authorities and individuals, particularly self-funders, on the provision of free personal care.

Lord Macphail's decision to invite the Government to represent the public interest was clearly not taken lightly. He said:

"the Scottish Ministers had had no notice that that argument"

that was before him "would be presented".

Furthermore, he stated:

"It is difficult to envisage how the nature and importance of the dispute could have been more clearly stated."

On the issue about the previous Government's failure, let us be clear that the point at issue was not before the ombudsman—it was not the issue that came into dispute—and that the case as stated by Argyll and Bute Council, and particularly the stance of the ombudsman, was entirely consistent with the view taken by the then Scottish Government. Only in the course of the case did it emerge that Argyll and Bute Council had changed its stance. I quote from paragraph 71 of Lord Macphail's judgment:

"They did not suggest to the Ombudsman that they had no such obligation, and no such argument was mentioned in their petition for judicial review. The argument was presented in the third speech, on the third day".

That is why the previous Executive did not present itself, but it is no excuse for the current Government, because all those facts were made clear to it.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I do not see how Ross Finnie can say that the original decision of the ombudsman was in line with the view of the previous Government. The guidance issued by the previous Government states:

"payments will commence once the ... care service is being provided. It does not start before and will not be backdated ... to the date of ... assessment."

That is the guidance that the previous Administration issued and that is the view that Lord Macphail's judgment confirmed.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The issue that was before the court was clear: Argyll and Bute Council's changed position that no payment could be made to those who were in premises that were not owned by the council. Therefore, there was a huge risk—

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

That was rejected.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Whether it was rejected or not, the judge believed that there was a public interest that ought to have been considered. Despite that clear injunction, the cabinet secretary declined to go there. As Mary Scanlon said, Lord Macphail stated:

"the Court would have derived much assistance from submissions made in the public interest which in the circumstances of this case the Scottish Ministers were well qualified and entitled to present. I can only record my disappointment that such assistance has not been afforded to the Court."

It is staggering that in those circumstances the present Government declined the opportunity.

It is equally important to recognise that there are no excuses for the Government's failure to understand the issue before the court. In deciding not to enter the process, the Government stated:

"The dispute in this case is essentially a matter between the Council and the Ombudsman as to the scope of the Ombudsman's powers ... The interpretation of legislation is ultimately a matter for the courts".

Lord Macphail described the first defence as being

"based on a curious misunderstanding. The dispute was not as to the scope of the Ombudsman's powers."

Lord Macphail's euphemism can be interpreted as implying a total failure to understand the point at issue that was before him. He was less kind in his description of the Government's second defence:

"It is trite that statutory interpretation is a matter for the courts: the vital consideration, which has been overlooked, is that when determining an issue of such general importance as this the Court would have derived much assistance from submissions made in the public interest".

The Government was content for the public interest to be overlooked. I submit that that is not acceptable. If Government ministers are not prepared to represent the public interest, who is? The Government must assure the Parliament that ministers will not desert the public interest, as described in the particular circumstances, by default.

I acknowledge that, as was made clear in the cabinet secretary's intervention, the judicial review has confirmed that there are issues of interpretation. I also acknowledge that Lord Sutherland has been instructed to conduct a review, which will probably be of great assistance. Nevertheless, there are concerns about people who are at the initial stages of the process, particularly those who are self-funders.

The gap still exists. There has been some acknowledgement that the waiting list issue still arises, and there is the issue of cost. I cannot believe that, given the clarity of Lord Macphail's judgment, local authorities will not have difficulty and that therefore individual self-funders will not have some difficulty. The local authorities that previously took a totally different view from that of Argyll and Bute Council will now want to review their position. The Government has to address the issue.

I move amendment S3M-679.2, to leave out from "with concern" to end and insert:

"the judgement of Lord Macphail on personal care and its consequences; notes with disappointment the SNP Government's handling of this issue and recognises the need for urgent clarity to allay the concerns of older people and their families as well as to give clear guidance to service providers; calls on the Scottish Government to take the appropriate steps to provide this clarification as soon as possible, including a statement to the Parliament on the issue, and further calls on the Scottish Government to take all steps necessary to ensure that local authorities do not find that in providing free care for self-funders they are acting ultra vires."

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In this short debate, I will deal with the cabinet secretary's attempts to divert from and obfuscate the central problem. I will put on record the previous Executive's position. I will clarify the SNP Administration's incompetence in not presenting itself to the court and, finally, I will examine the alternatives to address the results of the decision.

The original case led to the ombudsman making a judgment, which we know about. The cabinet secretary has accused the Labour Party of hypocrisy in what she said was its decision not to attend when the petition's appeal went to Lord Macphail. In fact, the previous Government responded not once but twice. In February, the Scottish Executive indicated that the outcome of the ombudsman's review was satisfactory and that it did not feel the need to become involved, at least until the response by the ombudsman was submitted. In March, having seen the ombudsman's response, ministers indicated that the Executive would not get involved at that time, but made it clear that it would watch progress.

The original grounds of the petition ultimately were rejected, as the Government expected. However, on the third day of the hearing, as Ross Finnie has made clear, new grounds arose, and it was on the basis of those new grounds that Lord Macphail invited the Government to become involved. He said:

"the Scottish Ministers had ... no notice"

that the new arguments would be presented to the court, and:

"It may be that if the Scottish Ministers had been given notice that such an argument would be deployed, they would have sought an opportunity to convey their views to the Court."

He also said:

"I observed that the Scottish Ministers had had no notice that that argument would be presented. It occurred to me that if they had been given notice in the petition that such an argument would be deployed, they might have decided to enter the process."

It was on that basis that, on 10 July, he invited the Government to become involved. On 7 September, the Scottish Government—the cabinet secretary's Government—decided that it would not participate, with the conclusions that we have found.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I accept that other parties do not agree with our decision not to participate in the case, and they are entitled to put on record their criticisms. As members would expect, I will reflect on all of that. However, will Richard Simpson address the flaws in the policy that we now need to sort out? Does he accept that the existing guidance, which was issued by the previous Administration, is flawed and that that is why some of the problems have arisen?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We would not be in a court situation if there were not some difficulties in interpreting the law. However, the point is that Nicola Sturgeon accused the Labour Party of hypocrisy completely inappropriately, and she should apologise to Lewis Macdonald, who was the minister at the time, for the inferences that she has drawn to besmirch him and the previous Government. That was entirely inappropriate.

The new arguments that were presented to the court were crucial, and on that basis Lord Macphail sought the Government's opinion as a "vital consideration" that might have been overlooked. He said that

"in ... this case the Scottish Ministers were well qualified and entitled to present"

their submissions, and continued:

"I can only record my disappointment".

That is mild language, but, coming from a judge, the meaning is much stronger. The cabinet secretary should apologise to Lewis Macdonald for the inferences that she has drawn.

We are left with a number of questions. Why did the SNP fail to respond to the wholly new issue that was not in the original petition? Would the result have been different had it presented evidence? As I said on "Newsnight", we will never know the answer to that question. Indeed, we might not have been having the debate if the cabinet secretary had chosen to stand up and represent the public interest. The last question is: where do we go from here? The SNP should stop indulging in picking fights with Westminster and concentrate on the serious devolved issues with which Scots are concerned, of which free personal care is one.

The minister has to review the decision without waiting for the Sutherland review, as the Liberal Democrat amendment suggests, and come back to Parliament with the necessary measures to ensure in particular that councils do not use the judgment to create waiting lists, as Fife Council is hinting that it will do. That would be unacceptable, so you need to come out with specific guidance—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

No, I do not, Dr Simpson. I do not need to come out with any guidance.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am not sure if that is the case, but on this issue you are right, Presiding Officer.

The Government needs to come out with clear guidance on the gap between assessment and care provision where care is available—that is the issue at stake. Care was available, and the family chose to use that care. Why was there a gap in a care home that Argyll and Bute Council was already using? It was purely to create a waiting list, which is unacceptable. Indeed, the MacGregor judgment of Lord Hardie indicated previously that that was unacceptable. I hope that the Government will deal with the issues and make an apology.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will deal briefly with the Macphail judgment to get it out of the way, because the whole debate surely cannot focus on that.

I want to discuss whether it would have made any difference if someone from the present Government had made a submission. I am looking at what Lord Macphail said. There was a great deal of argument about how far the courts could go in looking at what was said in Parliament. Lord Macphail said:

"While a court in construing legislation must always seek the true intention of the legislature, it cannot ignore the natural meaning of clear words the legislature has chosen to use. The language used in section 1 and the Regulations is in this respect unambiguous."

I must ask: once all the heat and smoke has died down, would it have made any difference? I say that the answer is no—from the judge's own words, the legislation is clear and unambiguous.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I have only four minutes.

The legislation may be clear and unambiguous, but it is obviously not doing what we thought it would do when we started the process a long time ago. Everybody was so proud of the legislation at the stage 3 debate in 2002, when the then Minister for Health and Community care said:

"Through the bill, we will ensure that nursing care is free for all who need it, regardless of the context—free at home, free in hospital and, for the first time, free in nursing homes."—[Official Report, 6 February 2002; c 6094.]

That was what we meant. We did not mean assessments with months of delay or waiting lists. At present, some 5,000 people are on waiting lists.

We did not foresee that, or a court process in which the law was not as clear as we all thought it was. All members thought that the legislation was clear and unambiguous. Well, it is clear and unambiguous, but not in the way that we meant it to be.

The intention of Parliament has not been reflected in the legislation, therefore we require to remedy that. We will have to consider whether we do that by amending primary legislation. We will have to examine whether the situation can be dealt with in guidance, which is also not doing what we thought it would do. Everybody thought that they understood what help with food preparation meant—help with a tin opener or tattie peeler if someone could not use one, or help with putting the gas on and off if they could not do that. We thought that that was what that meant but, wilfully or accidentally, it has become much more complicated than that.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No.

That point is reflected in Lord Macphail's judgment—which I think has already been quoted by Mary Scanlon—in which he states that the legislation is "complex" and that there is a labyrinth of material. That is a bad sign in legislation.

I hope that we will welcome Lord Sutherland's review of all aspects of the issue. I know that other aspects have been raised by members of the Health and Sport Committee, who will respond to the review commission themselves.

We want to ensure that the legislation works. If it does not work, it fails not just the Parliament but our vulnerable and frail elderly people. That is the last thing that any of us wants. Let us move on from the nit-picking and get back to the issue at hand: delivering what we intended to deliver.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I welcome the debate because it offers a much-needed opportunity to consider the implications of Lord Macphail's judgment in relation to free personal care. I congratulate the Conservatives on bringing the matter to the chamber for debate, but I record my disappointment that the SNP Government did not think that clarifying the policy of free personal care for older people merited Government time.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I do not have time for an intervention.

Mary Scanlon helpfully set out the context of the debate, but I want to look into it further. We know why William McLachlan, who is a resident of Helensburgh in my constituency, complained to the ombudsman. We know why Argyll and Bute Council felt the need to have an unseemly scramble to the courts. Incidentally, the hundreds of thousands of pounds of public funds that have been spent on court fees would have wiped out the so-called waiting list for free personal care in Argyll and Bute. We need to remember that free personal care is only one element of the care services for older people that local authorities deliver. Mr McLachlan had his needs assessed. It was not disputed that he was eligible and in need. The dispute arose because the council claimed to have insufficient money. He was deliberately placed on a waiting list. His family, quite rightly, put his needs first and arranged for him to be cared for in a nursing home.

Members might feel some sympathy for the council. After all, it claims to have had no money. However, it would be a serious mistake to feel such sympathy. The council's actions mask the deliberate and cynical removal of funds from older people. Argyll and Bute Council has consistently spent less than its grant-aided expenditure on older people. Put simply, we give the council the funds but it diverts them to other things—£3 million less in one year; £5 million less in another year; this year, an anticipated underspend of almost £5 million. Previously, the council was controlled by the independents. Now, it is controlled by the independents and the SNP.

I want to look ahead, because I do not think that it is productive to spend time apportioning blame. I understand that the Social Work Inspection Agency will publish a report shortly that will expose Argyll and Bute Council's failings towards older people. It will point to weak leadership, variable quality of provision, underfunding and unmet need. Older people have been comprehensively failed. Apparently, the report will be one of the worst to be seen in a long time. Ministers must intervene in the interests of older people.

I do not think that the SNP is seriously suggesting that it is okay for people to wait for extraordinary lengths of time because a local authority decides to park them on a waiting list and spend the money on something else. However, the SNP had a chance to tell the courts what the Parliament wanted and a chance to protect older people who receive free personal care and those who might enjoy it in the future. Lord Macphail clearly invited the Government to instruct counsel and appear. As others said, he expressed his disappointment that some of the arguments that were made for the Government's non-attendance were trite, and he states that he reached his decision with considerable reluctance.

The only way in which the Parliament and the Government can begin to salvage the situation is to be clear about what the Government expects from local authorities. We should not wait six months for a review—that would mean a further six months of people on waiting lists—but should consider interim measures.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am in my last 15 seconds.

The Government should stamp out the suggestion from one or two local authorities that they will fund free personal care only in their homes and not in private homes. It should examine the funds that are allocated and the funds that are spent, and it should make local authorities live up to their responsibilities.

I cannot help but think that the SNP was always keen to tell us that it would stand up for Scotland, but when it had the opportunity to stand up for Scotland's pensioners, it ran away. "Disappointing", says Lord Macphail. I think that he is overly generous. I think that it is unforgivable.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing's reassurance to the so-called self-funders, of whom there are more than 9,000, but one or two other aspects in her speech were less welcome.

In the last 30 seconds of his speech, the Labour Party's first speaker in the debate said:

"The last question is: where do we go from here?"

We need to turn that on its head, because surely that should be the first and most important question. Free personal care is an important matter and it will grow even more important in time, particularly because of Scotland's demographics and because many councils will be more cash strapped. It is critical that we get things right to ensure that there is fairness and consistency throughout Scotland.

I did not get the chance to make an intervention and ask the cabinet secretary about the time between assessments and the putting in place of care contracts. She said that that time is minimal, but it was not minimal in Mr McLachlan's case—it was four months. Concerns have arisen throughout the country about waiting lists for assessments and care contracts. It is not good enough to say that the time period is minimal. If the cabinet secretary wants to intervene and tell us exactly what the word "minimal" means, that will be welcome.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Gavin Brown for taking an intervention and apologise to him for not taking his intervention earlier.

I said that in most cases the delay was minimal. In most cases, the delay is less than a month. There is a debate to be had about whether that is minimal enough, but in my remarks I accepted that in some cases, such as the Argyll and Bute case, the delay is much longer than that. Sometimes that is deliberate on the part of the local authority, and that is the issue that we must address for the future. We are addressing the issue through discussions with COSLA and, if necessary, we will address it through revisions to the legislation. Lord Sutherland will give us a view on how we can ensure that we support that work financially with adequate resources.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her intervention. However, it is not good enough simply to say that the time is minimal and that, in most cases, she thinks that it is less than a month.

I refer to a parliamentary question that my colleague Nanette Milne asked last year:

"To ask the Scottish Executive what the average time has been between individuals' community care needs assessments and receipt of payments towards personal care in each year since the introduction of free personal care, broken down by local authority area."

The question was answered by the then minister, Lewis Macdonald, who stated:

"This information is not held centrally."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 30 March 2006; S2W-24348.]

We need to know whether that information is now held centrally and whether the cabinet secretary can guarantee that we will have minimal waiting times rather than saying, "It happens in most cases." I return to the point that was made about the Government's non-intervention in the case. A number of members, including Mary Scanlon, quoted the decision. The response that was given by the Government was, "We were not a party to the case." However, we know that. That is why the judge took the fairly unusual step—in a judicial review—of inviting the Government to take part and, further, attached a personal note to the interlocutor to explain how important that was.

It is all well and good for Christine Grahame to say that the Government's attendance would not have made any difference and that the legislation is unambiguous, but Christine Grahame is not a judge. If the legislation is unambiguous and it is obvious that the Government's attendance would not have made any difference, why did Lord Macphail take the unusual step of inviting it into the process? He states:

"I expressed the view that the Court would derive invaluable assistance in arriving at a decision ... from hearing submissions on behalf of the Scottish Ministers."

He also states:

"the Court would have derived much assistance from submissions made in the public interest which in the circumstances of this case the Scottish Ministers were well qualified and entitled to present. I can only record my disappointment that such assistance has not been afforded to the Court."

I reiterate an earlier speaker's point that the fact that the judge used the word "disappointment" shows that the matter is serious and grave.

The most important thing is that we take the matter forward. We heard a reassurance today for the 9,000 or so self-funders, but we need stronger reassurances and we need to close the loophole in the law so that all our senior citizens get the care that the Parliament intended on day one.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

This is the SNP Government's first disgraceful statement of the day—I suspect that I will hear more this afternoon. Unfortunately for the people of Scotland, it is far from being the first disgraceful statement that the SNP has made since it formed its fragile minority Government. The SNP has reneged on its promises on new police officers, student debt and international aid. Since May, it has thrown out more commitments than I care to remember. I have no doubt that if it had not put the sneaky, selfish "Alex Salmond for First Minister" on the regional ballot paper, it would have been unable to gain its precarious one seat—let us not forget, one seat—majority. It would not have been able to let down so many Scots in such a short time. Many of those Scots voted SNP on 3 May on a raft of promises, and now—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it not incumbent on the member to speak to his party's amendment?

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

I have only been going for 58 seconds.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Mr Tolson, wait a minute; it is for the chair to decide whether a member is in order.

At the moment, Mr Tolson is still in order, but I suspect that it has been brought home to him that he should speak in terms of the motion and its amendments.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

Thank you, Presiding Officer—I had intended to do so in less than 30 seconds' time, had someone had the patience to wait.

As I said, many of those Scots voted SNP on 3 May on a raft of promises, and now the raft is mid-sea, the bindings are breaking and the sharks are circling. It would be funny if it was not so serious. The Government's ineptitude is adversely affecting the lives of many people, some of whom no doubt voted SNP in May because they were taken in by all those false promises. Whether it is promising 1,000 more police officers, action on student debt or, as we are debating today, action on free personal care, the Government keeps letting people down again and again.

In the previous session of Parliament, following the Audit Committee's report on free personal care, Shona Robison said:

"The Executive's failure to effectively monitor the provision of free personal care for the elderly is a huge concern for everyone concerned."

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the member give way on that point?

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

I need to finish the point.

Shona Robison went on to say that

"Scotland's elderly citizens deserve the best possible care across the country. By failing to manage the situation properly this Executive are once again failing Scotland's pensioners."

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I absolutely stand by that. Perhaps the member will explain why the previous Executive failed to sort out the confusion over the guidance?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That is a completely different issue.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

It is a different issue—Mike Rumbles is correct. It sounds like the minister is on the ropes, and that is where she should stay on that point.

Scotland's pensioners have been failed by an SNP Government that is unwilling or unable to act in the public interest. How can the Government expect to enjoy public trust and confidence in the future when it will not even back up its SNP councillors? Let us not forget that those SNP councillors, who are in administration in Argyll and Bute Council, started this whole furore. They seem to have been seeking a loophole in the law in order to reduce their free personal care costs. However, they have not only damaged the service to some of their most vulnerable constituents, but opened up the possibility of similar claims for the other 31 councils in Scotland. I sincerely hope that the other councils will not seek to move away from the spirit or the legality of the Lib Dem policy of treating all our frail elderly people equally. The elderly are entitled to free personal care whether they are self-funding or placed by the council.

The SNP—in Argyll and Bute Council or here in Holyrood—is letting down people throughout Scotland. When it shirks its responsibility or governs on false promises, that is no laughing matter. Let us hope that, for the sake of the vulnerable Scottish people, the SNP comes to its senses.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing for her clear explanation of the Government's guidance: that it is at the point of acceptance of the contract that free personal care provision must kick in. That Lord Macphail made a literal judgment is unarguable. However, he stated that it is implied that a local authority—Argyll and Bute, in this case—would provide payments in respect of personal care. That implication will have arisen as a result of the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 that was drafted by the previous Labour-Lib Dem Administration. If Lord Macphail reached a contrary decision regarding the intentions of Parliament, it is the fault of the Parliament in its establishment of the 2002 act, because it failed to draft it properly in the first instance. Let us remember that, as the cabinet secretary stated earlier, we should be trying to make this system of free personal care work better for all our citizens, even as complexities arise that could or could not have been foreseen at the time of the drafting of the original act.

I welcome the rise in the level of payment from next April that has been announced—the first rise since the inception of the system of free personal care. Ministers of any Government must not micromanage court cases and their decisions, but must bring clarity to the legal system here in this Parliament and not in the courts. Let us work together in this Parliament and move forward on free personal care by supporting the Government's commitment to get the waiting lists down, by getting the elderly the financial support that they need, deserve and have paid for through years of tax-paying, and by ending the nit-picking and arguing over points of order and the little battles among ourselves. The elderly—who deserve their free personal care—should be receiving all our attention.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Free personal care was a policy that was embraced across the political spectrum in this Parliament. Mary Scanlon sat on the Health Committee—that was convened by Malcolm Chisholm—with me, and the committee strongly recommended the introduction of that policy. Regrettably, it has not been defended across the political spectrum and we must grasp the opportunity that today's debate presents. I thank the Conservatives for this chance to send a clear message to the old people of Scotland that we in this Parliament care, and that we will carefully guard the policy that we put in place for them. That is about ensuring that the money is available, that there is a statutory right, and that the care is flexible, appropriate and actually delivered. Free personal care was a visionary, courageous and ambitious policy—we must be just as visionary, courageous and ambitious about safeguarding the policy and making it work.

Mr McLachlan's case demonstrates that at the moment too many people are being short-changed in the implementation of the policy. I worry about the use of the term "free personal care"—personal care should be a guarantee of rights of entitlement for elderly people for those who qualify. Mr McLachlan's family pursued his case, but unfortunately even those who are assessed as requiring care too often do not understand what they can expect, and they do not complain about it because they think that, as old people, they are getting something for nothing. In the community, when an elderly person is assigned 30 minutes of personal care for washing, dressing and preparing food, that should mean 30 minutes—too often, it means 15 minutes, because the carer is travelling by public transport with no allowance made by agencies for travel time to the next person. Carers often have schedules from agencies that, quite frankly, Superman would have difficulty keeping up with. They do not want to complain in case they lose their jobs, and the old people do not want to complain in case they lose their care. That needs to be challenged by a Government that will stand up for the rights of old people.

It is a sad fact that the legal rights of elderly people have, without a doubt, been weakened by recent events. We have made progress over the years with hospice provision and palliative care to allow people to die with dignity, but we have not made enough progress to allow people to live with dignity in their twilight years. We need to change our culture to value the frail elderly and respect their rights, and to enable them to live with dignity. That means driving up standards in care homes, vastly improving training and having a Government that will stand up and represent the needs of our elderly people. However, that just has not happened.

Putting in place the policy of free personal care was not the end of a process—we all said that at the time—but the beginning of a process. If ever proof were needed of the truth of that statement, it is in the recent judgment. We must not fall into the trap of complacency; we must not take our eye off the ball even for a second. Too many vulnerable people depend on us to let that happen.

Today, we are discussing the rights of an increasing but silent majority. They are not standing outside the Parliament with placards or protesting at our surgeries; they are quietly sitting at home alone, watching out of their windows or watching their TVs. They depend on us. We are their Parliament and we have a duty—a moral imperative—to stand up for their rights. We, in the Labour Party, will not fail them in that duty. We will hold the Government to account because we are on their side. We hope that others in the Parliament will join us in that campaign.

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

I thank Mary Scanlon for lodging the motion, as we have had a vital debate this morning. The Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 was one of the Parliament's flagship pieces of legislation, which enjoyed widespread support. It was received extremely well out there, among the people of Scotland.

Mary Scanlon aptly summed up the nature of the problem that is before us. She gave us the history of what happened to Mr McLachlan, and she told us about the four-month waiting list and about what Lord Macphail did. That took us swiftly to the nub of the debate: should the Government have given evidence? Many of the speeches that we have heard have been about that.

I welcome Nicola Sturgeon's clear commitment to the provision of free personal care. She has been candid enough to admit that there is a waiting list, which is a problem. I also welcome the fact that Lord Sutherland will chair an independent commission into the funding. That is absolutely correct.

In addressing the question whether the SNP Government should have given evidence, Ross Finnie re-emphasised the fact that Lord Macphail invited that contribution. People such as Lord Macphail do not just glibly throw out such invitations; there was some thought behind it.

Christine Grahame was in danger of being an air-raid shelter, bravely defending the Government. However, one is bound to ask why the Government should not, as a precaution, have given evidence, as the intent was clear. There may be an issue over the guidance—I concede that point—but the intent was clear. I feel that the Government was obliged to make a submission to Lord Macphail. Who knows what would have happened if the Government had given evidence?

Richard Simpson correctly pointed out that, on the third day of the hearing, new grounds were presented, which surely made it imperative for the Administration to give evidence on the matter.

Jackie Baillie made two telling points. First, it is true that Argyll and Bute Council consistently spends below its GAE. That is a bad thing and not at all in keeping with what we are trying to achieve. Secondly, she drew our attention to the grotesque situation of a huge amount of money being slapped out in legal fees here and there. That is a damned disgrace—I choose my language deliberately.

Gavin Brown drew our attention to the demographics of the issue. We have an ageing population, so the issue before us is huge. It is about whether the Government should have given evidence, and it is about taking a workmanlike approach to clearing up the mess. Let us wish our colleagues the best in their endeavours on that front.

The Liberal Democrat amendment is about exerting the will of Parliament. We have a minority Government, and from time to time we can coalesce around something on which we want to give a clear instruction to the Government. In this case, we are asking for a statement to be made in Parliament. We are giving the cabinet secretary a clear steer on this—we are asking her to get the matter sorted out and come back to tell us what is happening.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Will the member give way?

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

I am in my last minute, I am afraid.

I ask members to support our amendment, please.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

It has been an interesting debate, and my notes tell me to thank the Tories. That is not something that often appears in my notes, but I acknowledge that they have brought the issue to Parliament timeously. The debate is important and there are concerns out there that must be addressed. We got a sense of that in the debate.

Irene Oldfather reminded us of the context in which the motion was lodged. I am sure that other members are aware that many older people, at times, tune in to debates in the Scottish Parliament. It is important that we give out a message that the Parliament supports their needs and concerns and that we appreciate the significance of the issue. It is welcome that we are debating it this morning.

The central charge that the Government faces is that there is a degree of confusion abroad in Scotland at the moment, of which, largely, you have been the cause.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Oh!

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I ask members to bear with me.

The cabinet secretary would not have felt obliged to write to all the newspapers when Lord Macphail gave his judgment if that judgment was of absolutely no consequence. The fact that you did not take the opportunity to appear in court is the direct cause of the confusion. Lord Macphail said to you, "Come to the court, clarify the issue and we can settle the matter." You chose not to go, so the matter was not settled.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I ask the member not to use the second person.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I apologise. I will try to train myself, Presiding Officer.

The cabinet secretary did not take that opportunity, which is what has led to the serious concerns.

It is one thing to make a judgment not to appear in court and to face the consequences of that; however, I am disappointed by your response to the legitimate concerns that have been raised about that, not just by your political opponents, but by others. It is not good enough just to dismiss the judgment as unimportant.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

One of my principal obligations is to reassure people when there have been misunderstandings about the ruling. For example, the Liberal Democrat amendment suggests that free care payments for self-funders are ultra vires. That is the opposite of what the judgment says. The judge specifically ruled out that argument. My obligation is to reassure people who have been misled by the misreporting of the implications of the judgment.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

My central charge against you—I believe that it is the Parliament's central charge against you, even if you and the Tories vote together—is that the judge asked you to offer clarification in the court but you made the fundamental misjudgment of not responding to that invitation and you are now facing the consequences.

My other charge is that, if the SNP wants to use the name of Government, it must face up to the responsibilities that go with it. The consequence of the cabinet secretary's misjudgment is a lack of clarification. The SNP should not get into a tit-for-tat game of saying, "You were just as bad as we were", because that is clearly not the case. Such tit for tat is beneath any Government.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I remind members that, in February, the then Scottish Government considered whether we should join the action on the basis of a petition from Argyll and Bute Council. In March, we again considered whether we should join the action on the basis of the responses of the ombudsman. On both occasions, we decided not to do so for the time being, on the basis of the arguments that were being made.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

This is becoming a speech, Mr Macdonald.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does Margaret Curran agree that that is entirely different from the decision by SNP ministers to decline to make submissions when they were invited to do so?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

That clarification is now on the record.

It is vital that we move on. Those who have experience of it appreciate that it is in the nature of government that misjudgments are sometimes made. The Government must have the dignity to acknowledge that and the maturity to respond properly. We are not hearing maturity from the front bench today, but we can always hope for the future.

Jackie Baillie made some serious points in her very committed speech. She talked about local authorities not spending their budgets properly on older people's services. The urgency of the current situation, which was caused by the Government missing its opportunity, is critical. However, we are where we are.

Labour is committed to a constructive approach, but the Government must acknowledge the urgency of the situation. We must reassure older people that adequate services can be provided for them. Service providers outside Scotland must know that standards are required and that they are not allowed to shunt their budgets inappropriately. The Government must be constructive. In a week when the Government was desperate to pick fights with Westminster and others, it should for once take the opportunity to do what it was elected to do, which is to serve the people of Scotland.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Today's debate confirms that the free personal care policy continues to have strong support across Parliament and that there is a shared desire to ensure that the policy operates effectively. Many members have focused on the most important issue of resolving the outstanding problems for the sake of older people in Scotland.

The debate has also emphasised the need for greater clarity and understanding of how the policy was, and is, intended to operate. As the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing noted, we inherited a number of well-documented problems with the policy from the previous Administration, and they now need to be fixed. They are not new—they have cast a shadow over the policy for the past five years.

The issues that need to be addressed are challenging and not simple, but we are not prepared to sit back and do nothing. That is not an option, which is why, even before we formed the Government, the Scottish National Party gave several unequivocal commitments on free personal care. I am pleased to confirm that we are in the process of delivering on those commitments.

We have invited Lord Sutherland to establish an independent review to investigate the level of resources and their distribution to local authorities. He has confirmed that the review is making good progress and we look forward to receiving his full report in March. However, the issues surrounding the implementation of the policy are not just to do with the funding that is available to local authorities. The independent evaluation report identified various, essentially practical, issues that need to be addressed.

We made a commitment to ensuring that the free personal and nursing care policy is implemented properly throughout the country, and we will deliver on that commitment. To ensure that the policy is implemented consistently and equitably, officials are engaging with local authorities to develop joint proposals. We know that we need to add clarification on issues such as food preparation and waiting lists.

We recognise that full resolution of those issues might require legislation, and we have stated that we are willing to explore that option if it is the best way to fix the problems. I am in no doubt that positive engagement with local authorities will lead to the delivery of a more consistent approach to implementation of the policy, resulting in better outcomes for older people, which I believe everyone in the chamber wants.

Local authorities have made it clear that they are keen to work with the Scottish Government to resolve the problem areas. That can be evidenced through our work with COSLA and our constructive engagement with local authority leaders. Officials and ministers have had several meetings with COSLA and the Association of Directors of Social Work. Another meeting will be held tomorrow, and I will meet Pat Watters again next week to take the issues forward.

We have been actively engaged with the matter; in fact, we are in the middle of the resolution of many of the difficult problems that we inherited, which we are determined to resolve.

We need to tackle the key issue of payments to self-funders in care homes for personal and nursing care. Since the introduction of the policy in 2002, those payments have remained static at £145 per week for personal care and £65 per week for nursing care. We have already announced that, from April 2008, we will increase the payments for personal and nursing care in care homes in line with inflation. We believe that that is right, fair and affordable, and that it will help to resolve the issue of resources.

The Scottish Government wants the very best for our older people, who richly deserve it. We want to improve their quality of life and their physical and mental well-being. This is a flagship policy and we should all be proud of it. We will enhance it and will continue to deliver it for many years to come. We want there to be cohesive services, clarity, early interventions and efficient delivery. Taken together, action in those areas will benefit many older people now and in the years to come.

I reassure older people that free personal care is one of our key priorities and that we will do everything necessary to ensure that it will continue on a strong and sustainable footing.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

We all share those very laudable aims, but what action will the minister take to ensure that Argyll and Bute Council meets the expectations of the Government and the Parliament?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Jackie Baillie will be aware that a report on Argyll and Bute Council's performance will be issued tomorrow. I have already arranged a meeting with the council leaders to have discussions. We are very aware of the issues, which is why we are taking speedy action to ensure that, if there are issues to be addressed, we will discuss with the council leaders what they are and how they are to be addressed.

I end on an important point to do with Lord Macphail's ruling. There has been large-scale misinterpretation of what it means. It puts the obligation on the local authority to begin payments not at the point of assessment but when the local authority has a contract with a care provider. That is consistent with the guidance that the previous Administration issued to local authorities in July 2003, and it reflects the operation of the law as it stands. Local authorities must pay attention to that ruling and we and COSLA will make sure that they are aware of it. Of course, we will take opportunities to come back to Parliament as we continue to make progress with our COSLA partners in sorting out the problems that we inherited with the policy.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

It is ironic and regrettable that a policy that has been so frequently proclaimed from all sides of the chamber—as Jamie Stone and Shona Robison reminded us—one of the flagship policies of devolution and evidence of a distinctive approach to the care of older people in Scotland should have been beset with such difficulties because of the interpretation, implementation and funding of the legislation. There has been confusion, obfuscation and foot-dragging in the past on the part of the Scottish Executive, COSLA and a number of individual local authorities. That shames this Parliament, makes a mockery of our intentions and, most important, denies many older people in Scotland the care, and financial support for their care, to which they believed they were entitled. It is a truly lamentable state of affairs, which was highlighted yet again by Lord Macphail's decision in the Argyll and Bute Council case, which has caused widespread concern and alarm.

As Christine Grahame and others pointed out, people were led to believe that they had a statutory right to free personal care at the point of assessment of need. Essentially, that was the view taken by the McLachlan family in the Argyll and Bute Council case and by the ombudsman. However, the judgment makes it clear that there is no such right that can be enforced by individuals, and no consequential obligation on any council. The benefit of free personal care, not the right to free personal care, arises only when the council enters into a legal contract with the independent care home provider to pay the fixed personal care contribution towards the overall cost.

In such a situation, the Government's first priority must be to reassure people who live in independent care homes that the decision will not adversely affect them and that there is no question of contributions that were previously made towards care costs being clawed back, or of current funding being withdrawn. I welcome the assurances that the cabinet secretary and the minister have given in that respect.

With regard to people who may be assessed as qualifying for free personal care in the future, we need an undertaking to close the gap between the date of assessment of need and the date on which the obligation to pay arises. If we do not close that gap, councils such as Argyll and Bute Council will be able to operate a de facto waiting list and ration the provision of care. They will not do so out of malice or indifference; they will claim—with some justification—that the policy is not fully funded and that they simply do not have the resources to implement it fully without additional support from the Scottish Government. Therefore, there are funding issues that must be addressed.

In that context, we look forward to the findings of Lord Sutherland and his independent review group. We shall closely examine the Scottish Government's spending plans for the next three years for funding the policy when they are disclosed and the conclusions that Lord Sutherland's group reaches, as they will be critical to the effective and sustainable delivery of the policy in the long term.

The question that we must ask ourselves in the light of Lord Macphail's judgment is whether we can rely on an assurance from the Scottish Government, acting in concert with our councils, that the gap between the date of assessment and the date of liability to pay will be closed or whether we should amend the legislation to confer on individuals an enforceable statutory right to free personal care and a consequential obligation on councils to pay. If there was such a right, the McLachlans would have been entitled to choose an independent care home provider immediately after a needs assessment had been made, and the council's obligation to pay would have arisen at that point. I am strongly attracted to amending the legislation in that way, as doing so would empower individuals and families to take decisions about the care that they need rather than leave them at the mercy of council bureaucracies and budget manipulations. I congratulate Irene Oldfather on her excellent speech and the support that she seemed to lend to that idea.

We must consider two amendments to the motion, which was lodged by my colleague Mary Scanlon. She was rightly and fairly critical of the SNP Government's approach to the recent court case, as were Gavin Brown and other members. We can be critical on that score, but it is only fair to acknowledge the establishment of Lord Sutherland's independent review group and the commitment to consider implementation and strategic issues, such as food preparation, waiting lists and eligibility criteria. In fairness, that has been done over five months with a view to addressing the problems that have arisen over the previous five years.

In that context, we must consider the amendment that Ross Finnie lodged for the Liberal Democrats, which Richard Simpson supported on behalf of the Labour party. They and their colleagues are no weel. They are afflicted by the condition known as collective amnesia. They have forgotten that, only five months ago, they were in Government. I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing whether her miracle-working Government has discovered a cure for collective amnesia. Can she assure us that the condition is covered by her waiting time guarantee so that members can quickly receive the treatment that they badly need? Labour and the Liberal Democrats may wish to adopt the Pol Pot year-zero approach to politics, but we do not forget so easily.

More seriously, as members have said, the Scottish Conservatives lodged the motion to address genuine public concerns, seek assurances on behalf of many of our older people and demand action to resolve problems that have accrued over a long time. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing's amendment pledges the Government to do what we want. We shall take her and the Government at their word for now, but we shall certainly hold them to it.

Police Numbers

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-677, in the name of Bill Aitken, on police numbers.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The SNP's election manifesto stated:

"There is no doubt we could be doing more to fight crime and make Scotland's communities safer ... It is essential that we have sufficient police on local streets."

Those are not my words—that is a straightforward extract from the SNP's manifesto, which then promised 1,000 more police officers.

In a question session during the election campaign, the SNP stated that it had allocated money to allow for 1,000 more community officers. Again, those are not my words. At that stage, the SNP might have been given credit for being clear. However, the acme of clarity was the First Minister who, at the Scottish Police Federation conference in Peebles on 27 April, stated that policing was top of the public's concerns and that it should be top of the budget priorities. Specifically, he stated:

"the SNP have more money unallocated than any other political party and we will allocate these funds to the priorities of health, education and policing if more funds are required in addition to the thousand extra officers".

He also claimed that £78 million had been set aside in the nationalists' spending commitments to help meet the target of providing 1,000 additional officers. In a speech to the Parliament on 23 May he said:

"The Conservatives focused on law and order, and flagged up the urgent need for police numbers to rise—they will rise. The only difference between the Government and the Conservative party on that policy was how far and how fast it could be managed."—[Official Report, 23 May 2007; c 59.]

I say to Mr Salmond and Kenny MacAskill that we would take that policy much further and that we would certainly have managed it a lot faster. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice will no doubt say that we will see what progress will be made if we await the SNP's budget. That may be an arguable case, but I seriously question whether the commitment that was made with stark clarity in the SNP's election manifesto will be fulfilled. The goalposts appear to be being moved.

On Scottish Television's "Politics Now" programme on 27 September, I challenged Kenny MacAskill over the figures and when the targets were likely to be fulfilled. To describe his response as equivocation would be generous. After much humming and hawing, the normally eloquent and loquacious Kenny MacAskill was struck into comparative silence. He then appeared to give the game away. One thousand new police officers were promised, but I took from his answers that night that the SNP is considering the position of many officers who are due to retire, retaining them and double counting that number against the 1,000 additional officers. That is more or less what is suggested in his amendment.

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

If the Conservatives' manifesto commitment was for 17,734 officers, how many officers did it propose to recruit?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

We proposed to recruit 1,500 officers. Our proposal was budgeted and made clear throughout the election campaign.

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

rose—

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I must make progress.

If Mr MacAskill is saying that there is merit in considering what the police do nowadays and making changes—perhaps systems must change—he might be right. However, let us be clear. One thousand additional officers, not their full-time equivalents, were promised—no ifs, buts or maybes. Indeed, one wonders what Mr MacAskill considers to be a full-time equivalent. Is it a community warden or a cardboard cut-out that is painted in the colours of a police uniform? The tragedy is that, as a result of the SNP's election manifesto and speeches that were made by the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, the people of Scotland were led to believe that an additional 1,000 officers would be provided. There was no question of equivalents—that was the actuality of the promise that was made. What is now being advanced is a fudge and a betrayal of a promise that was accepted in good faith by the public, the police and many of us in this Parliament. It is little short of an unforgivable attempt to con the people of Scotland.

The evidence in support of the need for additional policing is incontrovertible. The Scottish crime and victimisation survey, based on research carried out in June to December of last year, provided stark evidence of the way in which confidence in the policing system is at an all-time low. Perhaps the most worrying feature is the fact that there is now almost public indifference. Most crimes and offences of a non-serious nature are not even reported. What sort of message does that send out?

The bottom line is that the police simply have too much to do. There are, of course, arguments that they are doing things that they need not do and that some of their duties can be hived off. I have no doubt that such arguments will arise during the Justice Committee's investigation into policing. What can be said, however, is that there is considerable public dissatisfaction with the length of time that it takes the police to respond to calls, and considerable frustration among police officers that they are not providing a service to the public.

There is unanimous support for an increase in police numbers. As I said, the Conservative party stated in a carefully budgeted manifesto that we would provide an additional 1,500 officers—a number that we consider would impact measurably and effectively on crime levels. Other parties were not so ambitious, but we are not debating the views of Opposition parties today. For once, the Labour and Liberal parties have no case to answer. The people who have to come up with the answers are the ministers sitting before me today. The commitment was given clearly, both in their manifesto and in speeches, that 1,000 additional officers would be provided. Where are they?

The Parliament needs answers, and the people of Scotland demand them. Thus, early in its existence, this is a pivotal moment for the SNP Government. It is time for it to put up, put its money where its mouth is and keep its clear manifesto promise. Failure to do so will be an appalling breach of trust.

I come back to my initial point. The money is there—those are not my words; they are the SNP's words. Scotland already spends far less per person on policing than is spent by the rest of the United Kingdom—21 per cent less, in fact. The SNP seems determined not just to renege on promises made, but to keep the police as the Cinderella of our public services. It must not be allowed to do so. I urge the Parliament to support the motion in my name in order to make it clear that any withdrawal from that promise would be totally and utterly unacceptable.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with serious concern that, almost six months after its election, the Scottish Government has made no progress towards the SNP's manifesto commitment of 1,000 more police officers; expresses concern also at an apparent dilution of that commitment, and calls on the Scottish Government to keep that election promise by increasing the number of police officers from 16,234 to 17,234 by the end of this parliamentary session.

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

We welcome the debate because this Government is committed to making Scotland safer and stronger and to delivering a more visible police service working in our communities to deter criminals and reassure good citizens. That is what our commitment was; it is what our communities need; it is what we said we would deliver; and it is what we will deliver. We will deliver an increase in capacity of 1,000 officers in our communities, and we will do so after the strategic spending review, just as we said we would.

We welcome the Justice Committee's inquiry into police resources. The committee has already been presented with a great deal of evidence and I have followed the inquiry with interest. Some of the experts called by the committee have provided much food for thought. For example, only on Tuesday, Dr Ken Scott, head of the school of social studies at the University of Paisley, stated:

"Simply looking at the gross increase in police officer numbers underestimates the complexity of the situation."—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 23 October 2007; c 156.]

I will come back to that point, but Dr Scott is to be applauded for hitting the nail on the head. Perhaps the Conservatives should have enlisted his help when drafting the motion for today's debate.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Did the SNP enlist Dr Scott's help when it was drafting its manifesto pledge?

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

We do not expect reasoning or logic from the Conservatives. Whatever criticisms Mr McLetchie had of the SNP manifesto—doubtless, he had many—let us consider what his colleague Jackson Carlaw said on 6 June about his own manifesto:

"the SNP committed to providing 1,000 more police officers, while we committed to an additional 1,500. It would be interesting to know how the SNP arrived at its requirement figure"—

I say to Mr McLetchie that perhaps it did so via Dr Scott. Jackson Carlaw went on to say:

"come to that, it would be interesting to know how we arrived at ours."—[Official Report, 6 June 2007; c 421.]

Perhaps the Conservatives failed to consult Dr Scott on that occasion.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the minister take an intervention?

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

Not at the moment.

Bill Aitken said that the Tory commitment was to recruit 1,500 officers. If you want a police resource figure of 17,734, which is the logic of your argument, you cannot do it by simply recruiting 1,500 officers. As Dr Scott would explain, because of the nature of retirement, he would have to recruit substantially more than that. It is for that reason that this Government has correctly analysed the problem, which involves addressing more than simple numbers. The Conservatives are so obsessed by numbers—

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The question is not whether there is a role for extra police officers, community wardens and other people who are doing a good job in our communities. The bottom line is that you made a clear pledge in your manifesto, whether it was costed or whether the SNP spoke to Ken Scott, Dan Donnelly or anyone else. The SNP had something in its manifesto that it is not delivering—it is breaking a promise.

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

As I said, we are delivering as you will see—not just from this speech, but over time, as matters unfold.

We believe that effective and efficient policing depends on so much more than head counts. Our commitment is not simply focused on numbers, because, like Dr Scott, we agree that that approach, in itself, does not provide the complete solution.

We will recruit. We will make an announcement about that shortly in the light of the spending review, as we promised. However, members can rest assured that that announcement will be broadly and warmly welcomed—although perhaps not by the Conservatives.

As I said in the chamber on 6 June,

"Tackling the fear of crime and deterring criminals requires effective front-line policing."—[Official Report, 6 June 2007; c 406.]

That is what the public wants and expects and that is what we will deliver. Over the past decade, the overall number of police officers in Scotland has increased, yet crime has not fallen, and violent crime is on the increase. In the crime survey that was published earlier this month, nine out of 10 members of the public expressed the view that crime remained a problem.

We all know how fixated the Opposition parties are on numbers. We are not in a numbers game; our commitment is to deliver. This is about a genuine improvement in how policing is delivered. We will deliver that improvement in three ways.

First, we will provide funds for substantial additional recruitment. I make it clear that additional recruitment will take place and that new bobbies will be on the beat. Secondly, I am only too aware that too many experienced and highly skilled officers leave the service at a time when they have much more to offer. Retaining their talents and skills, which cannot be taught in college but which can be learned on the streets, is vital, and we will retain them. Thirdly, we will enable existing officers to maximise their potential by cutting the red tape that has enmeshed them in recent years. We will allow our officers to protect, guard and patrol instead of being desk-bound, processing, logging and filing.

I say to Mr McLetchie that when we have 1,300 officers in Edinburgh's A division but still struggle on occasion to get 50 bobbies out on the beat, there is a significant problem that is not simply about numbers but about how we use and deploy officers.

That is how we will deliver on our commitment to the delivery of genuine, visible, front-line policing in our communities. Our bottom line is that every community in Scotland should have a clear understanding of the standards of policing that they have a right to expect and should know whether those standards are being met and how they can contribute to setting them.

I believe that all members share those same goals. I confirm that we will deliver a visible police presence and provide an additional 1,000 officers for our communities, and that we will do so through recruitment, retention and redeployment to maximise potential, not simply by increasing numbers but by working smarter rather than necessarily harder. We are well served by police officers, but we need to ensure that their time is used productively and that they patrol, guard and serve rather than process, log and file.

I move amendment S3M-677.1, to leave out from "with serious concern" to end and insert:

"that the Scottish Government will set out its plans for a more visible police presence in the context of the Strategic Spending Review 2007 and will deliver an additional 1,000 police officers in our communities through increased recruitment, improved retention and redeployment."

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I remind members not to address other members in the second person.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

As the speech by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has clearly shown, the SNP is under pressure—rightly so—on its promise to the electorate to create 1,000 more police officers in Scotland. I find it staggering that even after so many debates it is still defending its position on the matter. Successive attempts to twist and turn its words and to wriggle out of one of its key commitments have failed, and this attempt will fail again tonight. We know that Government officials are desperately trying to create ways of getting the Government out of its hole and I look forward to hearing the plan that they will cobble together.

Kenny MacAskill said that the SNP wants to increase the police force's capacity. No one can disagree with that aim, but is he deliberately missing the point that the SNP made a particular commitment on the matter?

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

Will Pauline McNeill remind us how many new bobbies Labour committed to recruit? Was the number, in fact, zero?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

We delivered on our promises. From 1997 to 2007, we increased police capacity by 10 per cent. The cabinet secretary should acknowledge our record.

Let us be clear: Alex Salmond presented a manifesto that, on page 58, says that

"It is essential that we have sufficient police on local streets. That's why we will set out ... in our ... Budget for Scotland ... 1000 more police"

officers—"more" being the important word in that quotation.

Not only has the SNP breached the 100-day time limit that it trumpeted for meeting this key commitment but—more serious—the First Minister has attempted to mislead Parliament by stating on 4 October that the SNP had promised "the equivalent of 1,000" police officers. The First Minister specifically referred to page 58 of the SNP manifesto and blatantly and cynically added extra words so that those who were watching him would wonder what all the fuss was about. Did the First Minister really think that the electorate that had been bombarded with expensive leaflets setting out his party's priorities would not notice that the SNP said that there would be "more" police officers, not "the equivalent of" those officers or increased capacity? An SNP promise is not worth the leaflet that it is written on. We do not know who wrote the SNP's manifesto commitment, but we should not forget that Alex Salmond signed off on it, so he has no excuse for not delivering on it. He should come to the chamber and apologise for that. We on this side of the chamber and members of other parties will not tolerate such manipulation of the parliamentary process or misleading of members.

We support the Conservative motion and agree with Annabel Goldie that the SNP's approach demonstrates a lack of respect for voters. This issue will haunt the SNP Administration, because if it does not come clean and at least admit that it got it wrong and that it made the commitment just to capture the popular vote, it will not be forgiven. It might just, however, be forgiven if it admits its mistake.

Labour believes that we face serious challenges in tackling crime and antisocial behaviour in our communities. As I have said already, we stand by our record. We support a continued increase in police numbers and believe that our work on modernising systems will free up officers to take on front-line duties and tackle antisocial behaviour in our communities. We also believe that there is a role for others in working alongside police officers—community wardens will be important in that respect.

We will not let the SNP take the credit for the work that we carried out to free up police officers and to modernise the system by, for example, preparing for hand-held computers to issue notices on the street. However, we will work with it if it is prepared to be honest, to come clean and to say that it got it wrong and that it cannot deliver on its promise. If you do that, we can certainly work with you.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I welcome this debate—and, unlike Kenny MacAskill, I actually mean that. The debate represents an opportunity to highlight the SNP's broken promise on police numbers—I know that many members share my disappointment and my feeling of having been misled. We are not alone: the hundreds of officers who attended the Scottish Police Federation's annual conference earlier this year, the SNP voters who trusted the SNP's manifesto and the communities throughout Scotland who live in the shadow of crime and who believed what they heard in news stories and leaflets must also feel that they have been hoodwinked by Alex Salmond and his Government.

However much the SNP hides behind the comprehensive spending review, whatever inventive word play or fantastical maths it continues to use, and however expertly it avoids the questions, the simple fact is that we were all promised 1,000 more police. It now seems that we are not going to get them. The SNP manifesto clearly and unequivocally stated:

"we will set out plans in our first Budget for Scotland for 1000 more police and will encourage Chief Constables to focus these new resources on community policing."

The SNP is now trying to rewrite that pledge.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats also made a manifesto commitment to put 1,000 additional police on our streets. We stand by that: we would have provided at least two additional community police officers in every ward in every council area in the country. The SNP talks about increasing capacity, about police equivalents and about refocusing resources, but the truth is that to reduce crime and the fear of crime we need more new police officers visible in our communities.

From comments that have been made in recent weeks by Mr Salmond and Mr MacAskill, it seems that we will simply get a reshuffling, rebranding or rebadging of existing forces. I suggest that it is not our police forces that need to be reshuffled. Mr MacAskill says that we are not in a numbers game. Oh, yes we are—whether he likes it or not. He has made it a numbers game, in the same way that Mr Aitken and his party and my party made it a numbers game in our manifestos.

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

Given that Margaret Smith has said that this is a numbers game and that she will apparently support Mr Aitken's motion, which states that there should be "17,234" police officers

"by the end of this Parliamentary session",

how many more police officers do the Lib Dems believe should be recruited and how much will it cost?

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I say with the greatest respect to the minister that we have been hearing for the past few months about all the things that we did or did not do when in Government. You are the Government. You made a manifesto commitment. You are breaking it. It is your job to deliver what you said you would deliver.

As the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and others have highlighted, more and more police officers are soon to retire. We will have to face that difficulty for a decade, so it is crucial that officer recruitment keeps up with the increasing number of departures from the force. We must also ensure that outgoing officers' valuable knowledge and expertise are not lost to forces and that existing officers are retained.

Mr MacAskill talked about redeployment, greater civilianisation of police forces and freeing up police officers from other duties. Each of those ideas is worthy in its own right and they are certainly not incompatible, but the cabinet secretary misses the main point, which is that the SNP promised 1,000 more police.

I do not wish to question the value of community wardens. In fact, only this week, the Justice Committee heard about their valuable work; we would welcome the Government's ongoing support for them.

Bill Aitken rightly raised the problem of underreporting and problems in service provision that result in many calls going unanswered and many people in our communities feeling let down.

The fact is that we need more police because they have specialised training and additional powers that others do not have, and because they are a recognisable symbol for the people of Scotland. They represent a visible law enforcement presence on our streets that deters potential offenders and reassures law-abiding citizens. In that respect, the Scottish Liberal Democrats can be proud of their legacy of strengthening police forces when in Government. On our watch, numbers increased by 31 per cent to their highest ever levels. In 1999, there were 14,810 police officers in Scotland; now there are 16,261.

We will support the Tory motion. After all, it is the Opposition's job to scrutinise and hold the Government to account and we have no intention of doing anything other than that on this crucial issue. It is time for Mr Salmond and the SNP to stop this once and for all and to deliver on their manifesto commitment to give people the 1,000 new officers that they were promised. To do otherwise would be a quite unacceptable breach of the people's trust.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

As a member of the Justice Committee, I am glad that our committee is holding an inquiry into police numbers. That is enormously useful in the context of today's debate and I know that my committee colleagues will enjoy the process of learning a great deal more about what the police do and what we could do with them in the future.

I will register what I think are the crucial points for the next four years. At the moment, we have approximately 16,000 police officers—the detail does not matter at this stage. I gather that about 3,000 of those good folk will retire over the next three years, which means that we face a time of unprecedented turnover and change that we will have to manage anyway.

The cabinet secretary has said that he sees the numbers increasing through recruitment, improved retention and redeployment. I would like us to accept that we want police officers to become a greater part of the fabric of our communities, so I would be grateful for front-bench confirmation of that in the winding-up speech because it will be a crucial part of what needs to go on. It is already happening, but it will need to happen to a greater extent and, for that to be the case, police officers will have to spend more time in communities, which means that they will have to have longer assignments in communities. That requires some serious thinking about how police officers will be deployed.

We must be careful about the concept of visibility. The point has been made that police officers are at their most visible when they are walking around, but unless incidents to which they must respond happen in front of them—sometimes they will—they will find it difficult to respond to the call. If they are walking about, they need to be very near transport, by which I mean their own cars. There is a difficult balance to strike between police officers being visible on the hoof and their being near the transport that enables them to get to the next call.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I do not disagree with anything that Nigel Don has said. He makes a reasoned and reasonable case about what policing in Scotland should be like. However, does he agree that the thrust of this morning's debate, rather than being about what the police should be doing, is about whether, prior to the election, a commitment was made on delivery of 1,000 extra police officers? Does he agree that it is incumbent on the present Administration to deliver on that highly specific promise?

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I readily agree that it is incumbent on the Government to deliver on the promise in the manifesto. I am a member of the Scottish National Party and I fought on that manifesto.

Regardless of numbers, it is also important that our police are able to respond to calls. It is emerging from the Justice Committee's work that an important part of policing is the need for the police to have a greater ability to respond more effectively to the general public when they ring up and the call has been answered. It is only when those crucial parts of policing are as good as they can be that the number of police officers that we have will be able to provide the best response and deliver the best service to our community.

I turn briefly to the role of police boards, whose scrutiny of how local police services work has been heard at the Justice Committee. There is a strong case to be made for examining that scrutiny because it is not clear that the boards are performing that function effectively because it seems that it might be incompatible for a police board to be both a provider of funds and a scrutinising body. I hope that that issue will be also be examined.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. The motion deals with two important areas: the continuing concerns throughout Scotland about crime and antisocial behaviour and the SNP's political response to those concerns, in particular the backtracking on its commitment on police numbers that has gone on since May.

Crime and antisocial behaviour are big issues that continue to come up in my constituency work. Antisocial behaviour is a particular problem, with unruly mobs frightening pensioners, and the actions of antisocial neighbours resulting in home owners having to stay in their homes and live miserable existences. The fact that the issue dominated the agenda at a recent meeting of Rutherglen community council that I attended shows how concerned people are throughout Rutherglen, Cambuslang, Toryglen and King's Park. People in those communities and throughout Scotland are crying out for help and it is the job of Administrations and Governments to answer such calls.

The previous Executive stepped up to the mark by providing 1,200 more policemen and 500 more community wardens, by introducing additional powers to combat antisocial behaviour, by creating the powers to impose antisocial behaviour orders, by introducing acceptable behaviour contracts and by strengthening dispersal powers. Local authorities had their powers bolstered, too. South Lanarkshire Council has a highly effective antisocial behaviour unit that has come to the service of my constituents on many occasions. There is no doubt that tackling antisocial behaviour is a complex matter that requires the passing of laws and the provision of resources such as more community wardens. Aspects of social policy, such as social inclusion and how to tackle alcohol abuse—which Parliament will discuss this afternoon—must also be examined.

However, the Administration's credibility with the public has been seriously undermined by the issue of the SNP's commitment to provide 1,000 extra police, on which it has begun to backtrack. It now talks about equivalents. The cabinet secretary said that it is not a numbers game—I am glad that he is not in charge of the budget.

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

The member refers to what I said about our not being in a numbers game but, as well as saying that the previous Executive increased police numbers to record levels, he said that the main source of complaints in Rutherglen is crime and antisocial behaviour. Does that not show that simply increasing police numbers does not by itself reduce crime and that we require to tackle the root causes of crime and ensure that the officers that we have are best utilised?

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

As I said, antisocial behaviour is a complex problem that requires to be tackled through laws, resources and social policy—in a number of ways. The SNP said to the electorate that a specific number of extra police would be provided. Its members stood for election on that basis. Now it is trying to say that the numbers do not really matter.

I want, because it concerns a serious matter, to reiterate a point that has already been made. On 4 October, Alex Salmond gave his interpretation of page 58 of his party's election manifesto. He said that the SNP would consider providing

"the equivalent of 1,000 extra officers".—[Official Report, 4 October 2007; c 2468.]

That is not what page 58 of the manifesto says. It is not as if he was misquoting the Sporting Life; he was misquoting the manifesto that he went to the country on. That is a very serious and his conduct was unbecoming of a First Minister. It is not good enough. Now is not a time for grandstanding or posturing; it is a time to stand up and be counted for Scotland's communities.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

In those halcyon days back in May when there was much rosy talk of a new mood in Parliament, I made a light-hearted and self-deprecating comment in my first speech. Believe me, I have learned my lesson. Since then, much has been made of what I said by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and even by the First Minister, and it has been mentioned again today.

I reflected on the shared objective, as expressed in our respective manifestos, to increase police numbers—in the case of the SNP by 1,000 and in the case of the Scottish Conservatives by 1,500. I then mused that

"It would be interesting to know how the SNP arrived at its requirement figure; come to that, it would be interesting to know how we arrived at ours."

However, I immediately went on to say that

"The answer, of course, is through consultation—but no matter. We are agreed on the need and look forward to supporting initiatives to give it effect at the earliest opportunity."—[Official Report, 6 June 2007; c 421-422.]

My abiding memory of that debate is of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice nodding vigorously in agreement. Why should he not have done so? He, the First Minister and their party had just fought an election during which they had made an unequivocal commitment in print and in speeches that they would recruit an additional 1,000 police officers—they had been almost foaming at the mouth with indignation and resolve. The money had been set aside; all that was required was an SNP victory and the deal would be done.

However, the saliva had hardly had time to drip off the end of the ministerial ties when the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the First Minister began their ignominious retreat, which is breathtaking for the scale of the climbdown and for the complete lack of credible explanation for its rationale.

What has motivated the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to turn tail? Surely it is not evidence that has been received since the election. The review by the guru of the Labour Party, Professor Arthur Midwinter, confirmed what the SNP and the Conservatives had said, which was that spending increases on police per head in Scotland had fallen way behind those in other constituent parts of the UK. In that context there should be little surprise that recently published reconviction rate figures show that almost half of offenders are back in trouble within two years. This week's gun crime statistics show a 25 per cent increase in injuries resulting from firearms offences during the past year. Politicians are directly to blame, but although the Cabinet Secretary for Justice was happy to fight an election on the side of the angels, he now descends into the abyss.

Scottish Conservatives continue to believe that there should be a real increase in police numbers. Let us be clear: we are talking about providing 1,500 additional police officers after we have redeployed equivalents to the front line and managed retirement capacity. If the Government honoured its explicit and solemn promise to recruit the lesser figure of 1,000 additional police officers, it would make a genuine impact. If Strathclyde Police, which serves the region for which I am a member, were given its pro rata share of the additional recruits, it would gain some 480 officers. That amounts to 50 more officers in the Glasgow central and west division, 41 more in Glasgow north and East Dunbartonshire, 52 more in both Glasgow east and Renfrewshire and Inverclyde, 63 more in Glasgow south and East Renfrewshire, 43 more in Argyll, Bute and West Dunbartonshire, 59 more in North Lanarkshire, 51 more in South Lanarkshire, and 69 more in Ayrshire. A round number such as 1,000 sounds all very well, but individual divisions throughout Scotland were promised additional resource. Those divisions and the communities that they protect are right to feel betrayed by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

Will the Cabinet Secretary for Justice come clean? On 4 October he said:

"Jackson Carlaw has a commitment: we will recruit new officers."—[Official Report, 4 October 2007; c 2457.]

How many new officers will be recruited? Does the number change from day to day?

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

Will the member give way?

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am in the final seconds of my speech.

We remain committed to our pledge to provide 1,500 additional police officers. We fought the election on that promise, which was honestly made and properly costed. A key practical test lies ahead, by which Scotland can judge the integrity of its minority Government. The Government has the votes to implement its pledge; can it be trusted? Is the cabinet secretary all tree but no timber? Scotland needs a Cabinet Secretary for Justice who is made of hardwood, not the soft stuff.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The debate has relevance to me and I am interested in what the Cabinet Secretary for Justice said, because I am a member of the Justice Committee, which has decided to make effective use of police resources the subject of its first inquiry. Our consideration will be influenced by this debate and by the evidence that we take.

Much has been made of Dr Ken Scott's comments at the Justice Committee's meeting on Tuesday, but less has been made of what Dr Daniel Donnelly said. Dr Donnelly described a scenario in which an incident that would normally be reportable to the police could go through the entire system without hitting a police officer's desk. A civilian at the desk in the police station could deal with the initial report; a civilian could issue a crime number; and a civilian could deal with the matter when it went to court. No police officer would be involved.

People want to be confident that a police officer will deal with their case if they need to report a crime. We must be careful about what we say about police numbers. It is fine for Conservatives to say that they want 1,500 additional police officers or for Labour members to say that they have delivered on Labour's 1997 promise, but did Labour deliver a reduction in crime? Did it deliver a reduction in firearms crime, which Jackson Carlaw mentioned?

George (Labour, Lothians)

I am interested in what the member said. Does he go along with his colleague Mr Don, who stands by the pledge on which he was elected, to deliver 1,000 extra police officers? Does the member still stand by that pledge?

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I stand by our pledge to the public that we will build confidence in the police force in Scotland.

A number of police forces have introduced community police officers, who are readily identifiable in communities and work with community organisations such as tenants associations, neighbourhood watch groups and community councils. People welcome that move, which gives them access to police officers at community meetings.

Evidence has been presented on the number of police officers who are reaching retirement. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland said in its 2006-07 annual report:

"As the bulge in the retirement profile continues towards the end of the decade, recruitment and the maintenance of expertise within the service remains a key component of the People Strategy."

There are issues to do with retirement and to do with the number of officers who resign. We must consider the causes of resignations.

As I said, the Justice Committee acknowledges the importance of the effective use of police resources and has made that the subject of its first inquiry. We must build public confidence in the police service and get the message across that the nature of policing in Scotland in the 21st century has changed dramatically. Parliament must strike the right balance so that people feel that they can call on the services of a police officer when they most need one.

Police forces throughout Scotland are implementing initiatives to ensure better use of resources, so that officers are available when they are required. On a Friday night recently, I took the opportunity to go out on patrol with police in Coatbridge. I witnessed a number of initiatives in which police engage with young people. For example, young people who would normally hang about drinking on the street are taken to a local private golf club, which has committed to giving them a year's membership. The golf coach told me that some young people, who are playing golf for the first time, are showing great potential. Young people in Scotland should not miss out on such opportunities.

I also saw how police officers on bicycles were able to respond to incidents. Such officers have high visibility on estates and can get access through passageways that police cars cannot use.

Parliament must work to build public confidence and reassure the public that we are working to realise the full potential of police forces in Scotland.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Police numbers concern people throughout my region. Grampian Police, which serves a large area in the region—with a city, towns, and a highly dispersed population—faces particular pressures, because historically it received a proportion of police funding that was lower than the Scottish average.

The previous Administration acknowledged the problem and started a levelling-up process in 2004, gradually increasing the percentage of funding that went to Grampian Police. The force responded well and ensured that the funding went to front-line service provision. However, that round of levelling up comes to an end in the next financial year. The £4.5 million that is earmarked remains unallocated by the new Government, which has responded to queries by saying that the funding is subject to the spending review.

There has been no support from the new Government to look at continuing the levelling-up process, despite the fact that the SNP called for greater funding while it was in opposition. It is essential that the manifesto commitments that were made on extra police numbers are delivered, but the extra numbers must be distributed fairly across Scotland. The SNP must see the levelling-up process through to its conclusion, thereby ending the traditionally higher proportion of funding that is channelled to forces in the central belt. Currently, Strathclyde Police and Lothian and Borders Police have proportionately more officers than Grampian Police has. It has been estimated that, on a per capita basis, Grampian Police would need 200 extra officers to reach Strathclyde levels.

I turn to some of the unique local pressures and issues that face Grampian Police. Those include the huge drug supply and misuse problem in Aberdeen and North Aberdeenshire and the fact that drug suppliers from England are heavily targeting the region. Another issue is the shocking level of road traffic accidents and road deaths. Additionally, we are now seeing longer periods of royal court residence that require more frequent staff abstractions, as no additional resources are being made available for royal protection. The area also has lower levels of block community safety funding, much of which is currently being used to pay for police officers.

The SNP is not only backtracking on its commitment, but threatening the legacy of the previous Administration, which was a steady increase in police numbers. The offer from the SNP now seems to be a more visible police presence and additional officers through redeployment, but that is manifestly not the same as 1,000 extra police officers. Yesterday, Joe Grant, the chief executive of the Scottish Police Federation, said that the incoming nationalist Administration had made a clear promise on the issue.

People across Scotland are looking to the SNP to honour the promise of 1,000 new police officers. The people of Grampian expect to receive a fair share of those new police officers—but, hey, broken promises are already the hallmark of the new Administration. Perhaps we should not hold our breath.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

We have a saying in Scotland: facts are chiels that winna ding. The subject of the debate is a fact that was broadcast the length of the land in every newspaper and television broadcast. The SNP said, unequivocally and with no ambiguity, that there would be 1,000 new police officers. Just as the Scottish Parliament mace says, "There shall be a Scottish Parliament", the SNP said, "There shall be 1,000 new police officers." That was the SNP promise and yet the new SNP Government is not delivering on it. That is a total betrayal and a total lie to the people of Scotland. The cabinet secretary has to answer that in the debate.

I can just image the scene—members will be able to, too—when Kenny MacAskill arrived at his desk. His new colleagues—ministerial advisers and civil servants—asked him, "Minister, do you know what this is going to cost?" It does not take a boffin to work it out. Someone needs only to trawl United Kingdom websites and do a few Google searches here and there to come up with a figure that is not short of £50 million, and that is only for the 1,000 new officers, before we even start to look at replacing officers who are about to retire.

At that point, Kenny MacAskill probably said—and as I am a lady, I will not use his language—"Oh, frank!" Members can imagine the scene. From that moment on, Kenny MacAskill was frantically back-pedalling. He would then have gone to Alex Salmond and said, "We must back-pedal on this with all our might. If not, before we know where we are, with the costs for recruitment and retention and the replacement costs for retired officers, we will hit £100 million." The SNP has not stopped at that commitment. No member has mentioned another SNP commitment in the debate thus far, but I have been reading websites like mad for the past few days and have found that the SNP plans to set up a serious crime task force. Although that is not in SNP budgets, the commitment has been made. We do not yet know the size of the task force. The Labour Party welcomes it, albeit that it sounds as though it could be huge—not medium or small in size, but huge. I can just see the apoplexy on the faces of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the First Minister when they realised the extent of the pledges to which some boffin in their back room committed the SNP in the run up to the Scottish Parliament elections.

This did not start at the last election, however. We need to look at what was said by not only Alex Salmond, but Roseanna Cunningham. As shadow Justice Minister, she said that the SNP would increase the number of police officers on Scotland's streets by 1,000. She did so in a keynote speech in November 2004 to an audience of justice professionals, when she also said that the single officer patrols that were at that point in operation in Tayside Police and Lothian and Borders Police areas were

"no substitute for more police officers on the streets."

She also said clearly:

"We need more police and a more visible police presence on our streets but that presence must be a real one and not a presentational invention".

Is the SNP's use of the word "equivalent" a "presentational invention", as is its use of the phrase "extra capacity"? We need to know the truth, which is that the SNP is not going to give us 1,000 officers.

Roseanna Cunningham continued her speech by saying:

"The SNP believes that we must make a real difference to the fight against crime and therefore as the Justice Minister in an SNP Executive I pledge to increase by one thousand the number of police officers on Scotland's streets."

We have heard the SNP make that commitment from 2004 right up to and throughout the election campaign. No one in the SNP is unequivocal about it, but now that the party is in the driving seat, it is not going to deliver.

I had an interesting bit of pillow talk with my husband this week. He happens to be a councillor on Fife Council, which has an SNP-led coalition. The committee with the remit for policing agreed this week that no police officers are engaged unnecessarily in red tape or pen pushing. The committee also agreed that it is simply wishful thinking on the part of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the First Minister to think that they can magic 1,000 police officers on to the front line to create an equivalent of 1,000 new police officers. The committee further said that 1,000 new police officers across Scotland would result in only 62 new police officers in Fife, which would mean—given the five-shift pattern of working and divisional command structure—only 1.5 new officers on the front line at any one time. That would scarcely make a dent. A clear need for new officers has been identified.

At decision time, along with my colleagues, I will vote for the Conservative motion.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We move to wind-up speeches.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

The subject that the Tories have chosen for the debate is an interesting one. Police numbers almost always seem to appear in political manifestos. Indeed, all the major parties, apart from Labour—I could not find a figure in the Labour manifesto—put numbers on their proposals for extra police. That is not only a bit of a hostage to fortune, but begs the question of what it means to the voter. What do my constituents in Edinburgh South want from a police service? The answer is that they want to feel secure in their homes and in their local community. Nigel Don made a good point when he said that communities want to see police officers in the fabric of the community.

Since 1999, police numbers have risen from 14,810 to 16,261 across Scotland, which is an increase of 1,451. Does that lead me to believe that the people whom I represent feel more secure? All the evidence suggests that that is not the case. What are we, as politicians, to do about that? Time after time, my constituents tell me that they want the police to be more visible. The cabinet secretary referred to that in his speech. I agree. People want to be able to contact the police more easily, be given a response, and know what is happening as a result of their inquiry. In our manifesto, the Liberal Democrats proposed to have at least two additional police officers in every one of the new council wards. I believe that that will go some way to answer the needs of my constituents and to provide the extra visible presence that they want.

All too often, people tell me that they do not bother to phone the police any more to report a crime or their suspicions about a crime because they do not think that it is worth it. We have to improve the links between communities and their new community officers. The Liberal Democrat commitment for more officers on the ground in the new council wards is the right way forward. We have also proposed that the dedicated mobile phone number of the local community police officer should be circulated. For local communities to be able to contact their local policeman directly would help to achieve the aim of improving links between communities and the police.

Policing has moved on a great deal in the past two years. Chief constables are looking at new ways of policing and of making the best use of their policemen. In Edinburgh South, the police now have off-road motorbikes on which to chase delinquents on bikes who used to be able to escape up the glens and streams. Members may well ask whether there are glens and streams in Edinburgh South: the answer is yes. There was no lack of volunteers when police officers were asked to apply for that new service.

Edinburgh South was the first part of Edinburgh to have a youth action team dedicated to tackling youth crime and disturbance. That initiative has now been rolled out across the city. Last week, the work of that youth action team, led by Sergeant Bob Walker in association with other agencies, resulted in 350 litres of alcohol being confiscated in the Morningside, Bruntsfield and Meadows areas of Edinburgh South. That is the sort of policing that my voters want. I hope that some of those things can be taken up by the cabinet secretary and considered for other parts of Scotland.

I make one final plea, which has often been made before. I am delighted that Edinburgh is now represented by a minister, and I hope that the minister will listen this time. Would he please consider Edinburgh as a special case when it comes to extra funding? London gets extra funding because it is the capital of England—as I would say. Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland. It is our capital city, and it has special needs that the rest of Scotland does not have.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Go on, then—although I have only 15 seconds left.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Does the member agree that, as so many SNP MSPs are taking up residence outside the gates of Faslane, additional funding for policing in Strathclyde would also be welcome?

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I do not think that I need to answer that.

Edinburgh is our capital city, and it has special needs that the rest of Scotland does not. We need more police to maintain Edinburgh as an attractive, safe place for its citizens and visitors. I hope that the cabinet secretary will address that.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

It is clear from the debate that the Scottish National Party has failed to give clear assurances that it will deliver on its manifesto and provide an extra 1,000 police officers. Over the past couple of days, we have heard from a number of politicians who have admitted that they got it wrong. They have shown humility in confessing that they got their sums wrong. The present Government, however, has failed to do the same. I appreciate how humiliating it would be for the minister to admit that he got it wrong, but we will accept that admission by letter, by telephone call, or even by text message, if the minister wishes to exchange mobile phone numbers. The minister has to show the same humility, because that is good government—it is accepting that he got the sums wrong and moving the debate on from there.

Instead of showing that humility, the Government seeks to condition our thinking. Perhaps we got it wrong. Perhaps we misread page 58 of the SNP manifesto, which, apparently, mentions the equivalent of 1,000 police officers. I think not. In fact, the manifesto was clear. It said that the SNP would place those extra police officers "on our streets".

I do not often quote Julius Caesar in the chamber, but this is an interesting one:

"Men are nearly always willing to believe what they wish."

In this case, the minister can convince himself that the statement in his party's manifesto means the equivalent of 1,000 police officers. He is experiencing difficulties convincing some of his loyal back benchers, however, particularly Nigel Don. Credit is due to Nigel Don, who is willing to interrogate his Government's manifesto and has given a commitment to deliver on it. Well done to Nigel Don. He is a credit to his party and, indeed, to the Justice Committee.

Some members have asked about police numbers when Labour was in Government. What did Labour deliver? Jackson Carlaw has talked about this on a number of occasions. I can provide some interesting statistics. When in Government, Labour provided, on average over 10 years, 144 police officers per year. When the Tories were in Government, they provided 95 police officers per year, so I will take no lectures from them, although I support the Tory motion, which ensures that we hold the Government to account.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

rose—

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I am sorry, but I do not have time. I will also take no lectures from any of the then opposition members who opposed the legal remedies that we delivered under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 to ensure that police officers are not only out there on the streets, but can actually fulfil their role as local police officers. The opposition that members raised to dispersal orders, for example, was a disgrace. I hope that the present Government will deliver on the 2004 act as well as giving a commitment to ensure that community wardens can play their important role. I have yet to hear the minister confirm that he will continue the previous Executive's support to community wardens, who play a crucial role in communities throughout Scotland.

There was a great slogan during the election campaign: "It's time." I do not know how many times we heard it. It is time now for the minister to tell us how many police officers there will be in 2011. It is time for the minister to answer. How many police officers will retire in 2009? We believe the figure to be 500. Will some officers be refused retirement? The minister must answer yes or no. We would welcome answers from the Government on these issues, once and for all. It is time that it delivered on its manifesto.

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

On 12 September, I was pleased to attend Port Glasgow town hall to launch the police public reassurance strategy. Just yesterday, I was pleased to attend the Scottish business crime centre in Stirling to launch the new crime prevention strategy. Those are the sorts of measures that the Government is supporting fully, as we fully support the excellent work that the police do throughout Scotland.

Nigel Don got to the heart of the matter in his remarks about what the public expect from the police. They expect a visible police presence; they expect to see police on the beat; they expect to see police on the street; they expect to see police in the community. The Government is determined not to get involved in the knockabout stuff that has taken place today, but rather to deliver what the public want—what Nigel Don so rightly argued for in his speech.

I want to get straight to the heart of the issue, because I do not have much time. As members will recall from my days in opposition—sadly, they were far too long—I was not prone to making specific spending commitments. The Conservative motion makes not just an unequivocal spending commitment, but a spending commitment that follows the fiscal school of Jackson Carlaw—it is completely open ended.

Let me explain why I say that. Over the rest of this parliamentary session—over the next three years—more than 2,000 police officers will be eligible to retire. It is absurd to suggest, as Paul Martin has done, that Government ministers can somehow bar police officers from retiring. What an absolutely absurd suggestion. Police officers have their rights, under their contracts of employment. It is therefore up to the police officers—2,000 of them—whether or not they retire. By definition, it is not possible for any Government to know exactly how many officers will retire. Ergo, as David McLetchie will shortly argue that there should be 17,234 officers by the end of the session—and as Conservative members have been arguing already, with support from some unexpected quarters during the debate, most surprisingly from the new Tory convert, Helen Eadie—the other parties are clearly making a spending commitment.

It will be interesting to hear where they would find the money. To get that number, they have to know how many police are going to retire—but they cannot know that. Therefore, the other parties are signing a blank cheque and asking their friend Mr Carlaw to revisit his car-selling days to fill in the numbers and write out the blank cheque, to be signed on the taxpayers' account.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Was it Gordonstoun or Loretto that the minister was at? What did "additional" mean when he was at school? Did it mean extra, or not?

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

The school's motto is Spartam nactus est—I think that we puruse that prudent approach to public spending.

Let me make some more serious points about the matter. As the cabinet secretary said, we will deliver 1,000 more police, but we shall deliver what the public want—the police will be in the community, on the beat and on the street. As Mr Don argued, that may be on patrol in vehicles, or it may be on foot. We will deliver what the public want and expect, by introducing efficiencies. Helen Eadie is simply wrong that it is not possible to make efficiencies. The cabinet secretary knows that she is wrong, from his discussions with Fife Constabulary.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Will the minister take an intervention on that point?

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

I am in my last minute.

As the cabinet secretary said, we will consider ways in which to introduce efficiencies through the adoption of technology, the centralised arrangement of some back-office functions, the efficient operation of the summary justice system and the effective operation of the Scottish Police Services Authority. We will deliver the pledge in the most effective way, not by signing a blank cheque, which is the new approach of the Conservative party, supported by its new fan, Helen Eadie. We will not pursue that approach; we will be prudent, not profligate; we will be effective, not negligent; and we will deliver for Scotland the 1,000 extra police to which the public are entitled, on the beat, where they are needed by the public, as we promised.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I thank members for participating in this Conservative party debate. It must be rare to have a debate in which so many of the speeches are so one-sided and so condemning of Government policy.

In the May 2007 elections, the SNP recognised the dwindling number of police officers in Scotland, which has resulted in a lack of community trust in the justice system, and pledged to spend extra money to secure 1,000 more police officers on the streets and to encourage police constables to use new resources for community policing. The SNP prioritised its budget to allocate money to education, health and policing, with £78 million being allocated specifically to achieving the goal of increased police numbers. Fergus Ewing says that he is not prepared to write a blank cheque to fund that, but the reality is that it is the SNP's cheque, the SNP's commitment and the SNP's promise.

In the First Minister's speech to Parliament on 23 May, he said:

"The Conservatives focused on law and order, and flagged up the urgent need for police numbers to rise—they will rise. The only difference between the Government and the Conservative party on that policy was how far and how fast it could be managed."—[Official Report, 23 May 2007; c 59.]

It is clear now that the Government will go nowhere fast unless it gets out of neutral gear. It has been almost six months since the election, but no progress has been made on the promise of 1,000 new police officers, although there has been skirting round the issue and shirking of responsibility by the SNP Administration.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Does the member agree with the Labour Party that an SNP promise is simply not worth the paper that it is written on?

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I could not agree more. What is the point of voting SNP if, six months later, the pledges are all in the bin?

A further issue with the police force is the loss of officers to retirement, which Nigel Don mentioned. ACPOS reports a continued rise in officers retiring and a significant loss of talent and expertise. It has also highlighted the importance of recruiting and maintaining officers, which it states is essential to achieving justice in local communities and the continuing presence of local officers. Once officers are recruited, it takes 18 to 20 weeks until they are out on the streets. The process is time consuming and should begin immediately if we are to solve the urgent and pressing problem.

A report prepared for the Scottish Police Federation by Professor Arthur Midwinter compares police spending in Scotland with that in the rest of the United Kingdom and with spending on other major public services in Scotland. The report reveals that police expenditure per capita is significantly lower in Scotland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom—the expenditure is 20 per cent higher in England and 12 per cent higher in Wales. With other major public spending, Scottish spending levels are much higher than the UK spending average, which reflects Scotland's higher levels of social need, as shown in the measures of poverty, deprivation and poor health. The report shows that the need factors drive police expenditure, which begs the question why Scotland has such a low level of funding for its police forces. In addition, the report notes that funding is not dependent on the comprehensive spending review or the budget. Professor Midwinter concludes that that is a direct result of the Government's decisions. Police funding in local budgets has grown in line with other services, but the rate of growth is below the average, because of the Scottish Government's political priorities.

As we heard from Bill Aitken, in the SNP election campaign in April, at the Scottish Police Federation conference, Alex Salmond promised to allocate an SNP Government's funds to health, education and policing and said that, if need be, more funds would be allocated to achieve the commitment to increase police numbers. He went further by adding that £78 million would be allocated specifically for the addition of the promised 1,000 police officers. In May 2007, Alex Salmond again promised the additional officers and compared the SNP's approach favourably with Conservative party strategy.

The Conservative party is the only party that has any credibility on the issue. The Scottish Conservatives have campaigned consistently for 1,500 extra police officers in Scotland, and for them to be out on the streets, not stuck in their offices doing desk work. The Scottish Conservatives believe that an increased number of police officers—1,500 on the street—would be a visible deterrent to crime and would build trust in the local community, while reducing the fear of crime in neighbourhoods.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

No, he will not, I am afraid.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am in my last minute—sorry.

The Scottish Conservatives have devised a strategy for achieving that goal, which consists of retaining serving officers, ensuring that time is used more productively and providing enough funding for the extra 1,500 officers. We have campaigned consistently for 1,500 additional police officers in Scotland and created a strategy with which to achieve that attainable goal. The SNP has promised an increase of 1,000 police officers but, in nearly six months since the election, it has provided nothing to achieve that—the strategy has been shirked and ignored. The Government must act now to deliver its election promise and make Scotland's streets safer. It is time for the Government to produce the extra police officers.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

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

To ask the Scottish Executive what its priorities are for young people. (S3O-923)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Improving the health and education of our young people lies at the heart of our priorities. Our young people should have every opportunity to learn from their early years onwards and to develop skills to help them to fulfil their ambitions and potential as citizens of Scotland. Early intervention will be a hallmark policy of the Government, particularly when young people may be vulnerable or at risk.

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

When will the £10 million additional support fund to improve services for children with additional support needs be in place? How much of the fund will go directly to families and carers and how much will be used to support the transition from childhood to adulthood?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I think that the member asks about additional support for learning funding. I have concerns about that, because it is important that the funds are released and reach front-line services. I raised concerns with the previous Administration about whether the £10 million of funding was for delivering the administration of the additional support for learning legislation. That is a concern, so I am more than happy to investigate how we can ensure that more resources reach the front line for classroom assistants and teachers who support young pupils who have additional support needs, rather than just backing up the administration of the legislation, which was the funding requirement of the previous Government.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it plans to ensure that Orkney Islands Council is able to maintain Orkney's internal public transport services. (S3O-961)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Orkney Islands Council has asked the Scottish Government for substantial additional financial support towards the capital costs of a long-term programme to improve its interisland transport services. We are considering that request as part of our current spending review and we will be in touch with the council in due course.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The minister has referred to the Scottish transport appraisal guidance appraisal—STAG appraisal—of Orkney's internal transport needs, which is likely to lead to major expenditure of more than £100 million on new ferries and infrastructure. However, until that work is completed and the funding is secured, the problem remains of funding the current internal ferry and air services, which have experienced large cost increases as the result of factors that are beyond the council's control. Will the minister therefore urgently consider Orkney Islands Council's request for a continuation of the special transport grant of about £1 million, which previous transport ministers provided to keep those vital lifeline services running? Will he give the council the reply that it seeks and needs?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The First Minister, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and I have all visited Orkney in recent months and we have discussed the issue with the council, so we are clearly aware of the difficulties that it faces. I regret to say that until the comprehensive spending review is complete, I cannot make new commitments, but I assure the member that we are aware of the council's position.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to provide Barra with a purpose-built airport runway. (S3O-920)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I expect advice before the end of the year on the future of air services to Barra, including the potential for a hard runway.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

When the minister considers Barra airport's future, I urge him to ensure that air services continue. They are incredibly important to the people of Barra for social reasons. People who are going to hospital in Glasgow need to access those services, which are also important for the island's economic growth. I urge the minister to ensure that air services continue by providing a purpose-built runway with a cross-runway on which aircraft can land.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Could we have a question, please?

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister assure me that he will fight for that important service in that small community?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I assure the member that I am absolutely aware of the need to continue the air service to Barra. However, the basis for providing a hard runway, rather than continuing to use the three runways that are available at Tràigh Mhòr, is not yet clear and I await further advice. A hard runway would be aligned in one fixed direction, so it is likely that there would be more diversions from Barra than there are with the current provision of three runways on the beach.

Another issue is that the aircraft that operate the service are reaching the end of their lives, but the good news is that that aircraft type is entering remanufacture. An alternative option may be to acquire two further aircraft.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

In the light of what the minister has said, will he give a long-term commitment to supporting air transport in Barra, no matter what type of runway—whether man-made or natural? On the other option that he outlined of acquiring new aircraft, what stage has consultation with the community and other interests reached?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The community's opinions and views are important in reaching a decision. Serious concerns are felt about the environmental impact of building a hard runway on the environmentally vulnerable machair that is adjacent to the present runway. That is one factor that will be considered, in addition to the fact that a hard runway would be likely to be substantially more expensive than purchasing two additional aircraft to operate the service from the beach at Tràigh Mhòr.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I call Tavish Scott. He should bear it in mind that the question is about the runway at Barra.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Of course, Presiding Officer. The minister will be well aware of today's news, which affects Barra, that the franchise arrangement between Loganair and British Airways will end in October next year. When he considers that announcement, which does indeed affect Barra and many other parts of the Highlands and Islands, will he take it into account that Loganair's statement says that the change will have no impact on the air discount scheme, which of course assists Barra, and that the scheme should continue? Will he give an assurance that the scheme will continue for the rest of the parliamentary session?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That was a lesson in opportunism.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Today's announcement from British Airways and Loganair in no way affects the air discount scheme's operation. The member will know that we are considering where to take that scheme.

I have met Loganair in the past fortnight, and one issue that we discussed was the future of the franchise arrangement. Loganair is confident that, under the code-share arrangement that is in place, people will continue to be able to book flights with the BA prefix through the British Airways booking system, so customers will experience little change, although the relationship between Loganair and British Airways is about to change. That will affect the member's constituency as well as Barra.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the latest position is on the handling by the Crown Office of the anthrax outbreak in the Scottish Borders which led to the death of Pascal Norris. (S3O-983)

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I ask whoever has a mobile phone on to turn it off.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I do not need introductory music.

I thank the Solicitor General for his answer, which provided much more clarity than I have had in correspondence from the Crown Office. It is difficult to see how a prosecution can be made when most of the available information shows that—unfortunately and tragically—Mr Norris came into contact with contaminated badger pelt.

Why were the samples that were taken from Mr Norris sent to England for analysis, which caused a six-week delay? I have received information from a senior veterinary level that those samples could have been tested equally well in Scotland, which would have reduced the timeframe for confirmation and the potential risk to other individuals.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take through the planning system to protect parkland and other green space in Glasgow. (S3O-971)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

National planning policy on open space is set out in national planning policy guideline 11, which is on sport, physical recreation and open space. That is under review and will shortly be replaced by Scottish planning policy 11, on open space and physical activity.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I welcome the review of the national planning policy guideline. The minister will be aware of the furore over the plans for a nightclub in Glasgow's botanic gardens, which have—rightly—caused outrage throughout the city, not least because of the lack of consultation or even public information before Glasgow City Council agreed a lease. Is he also aware of the local campaign against the loss of green space at Broomhill Avenue and at Turtle park and Stepping Stones park in Pollokshields? My good friend the Deputy First Minister supports the campaign on the latter.

Will the minister consider earlier implementation of the changes in the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 to strengthen community consultation and provide ministerial scrutiny when councils have a conflict of interest? Will he also examine whether changes to public consultation on the lease and sale of public land could play a part in supporting local communities and in preventing outrages such as the botanic gardens proposals from happening again?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am very much aware of the botanic gardens and Broomhill Avenue issues to which the member refers. I note the concerns that he and local people have expressed about the Broomhill Avenue proposal. I am aware of no planning application at this stage. As the council owns the land, the matter may come to the Scottish ministers for determination, so I will not be specific.

SPP 11, which we will publish shortly, will require all Scottish local authorities to undertake an open space audit and prepare an open space strategy. The member raised other issues in relation to planning and open spaces. He can expect those matters to be addressed fully in a number of statutory instruments that will shortly come forward for consultation. If they are not, I expect that I will receive a response from the member.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The minister will be aware that the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 placed great emphasis on public consultation. Is he aware that the proposal for sale of land in the Broomhill area has never been put out to public consultation and that the local councillor was never consulted on it? Does he agree with local people, a local councillor and me that the land should not go on sale until proper consultation has been carried out?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I will make no specific reference to the merits of the proposal, which is at an early stage. However, I agree with the member that an important part of a council's responsibility in considering developments of that kind is that there should be full and frank consultation with the local community and all interested parties. I support all efforts to achieve that.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met VisitScotland and what issues were discussed. (S3O-972)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government meets VisitScotland regularly. Among the issues discussed are the promotion of Scotland as a successful tourist destination and how we can support the industry in our shared ambition to grow tourism revenue by 50 per cent in the decade to 2015.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

The minister will be aware that in his statement of 26 September Mr Swinney announced that he intends to cut the number of VisitScotland hubs to just six, renewing concerns about a loss of local control. Can the minister use this opportunity to spell out in more detail exactly what his plans for the restructuring of the network are?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I can. On 27 August, we met the tourism community in plenary session; 70 people contributed to that debate. We will meet the community again on 19 November. We have created a situation in which local groups and area tourism partnerships will flower in Scotland. They will operate within the framework that has been delivered and will create the vibrancy that we seek, to achieve the revenues that we want and to ensure that the year of homecoming takes Scottish tourism to a totally new level.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Following John Swinney's announcement of the further centralisation of VisitScotland in the statement to which Gavin Brown referred, I asked the minister what consultation he had conducted with the tourism industry in Fife and what consultation he intended to hold on the proposed changes. The answer was none. What assessment has the minister made of the impact of the changes on tourism in different parts of Scotland? Why does he treat with contempt tourism businesses such as guest houses, hotels, shops, museums, visitor attractions and water activity centres, many of which are based in my constituency and are the backbone of the tourism industry in Scotland? He appears not to want to seek the views of those businesses or to listen to them.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I would like to thank the member for that question, but it was such a negative perversion of reality that I cannot do so. The session of 27 August included representatives of the types of businesses that he mentioned. Those who put themselves forward to me were invited to that event. There will be a second meeting on 19 November. If the member and others, including his constituents, want to come along, they should do so and be involved. The industry is being listened to as never before and the Government will deliver a future for it as never before.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Does the minister realise that tourism in Edinburgh generates £1.6 billion annually and sustains more than 30,000 jobs? Recently, it has been promoted successfully by VisitScotland Edinburgh and the Lothians, which was set up only two years ago. Did the minister notice the comment that the director of city development in Edinburgh made this week on the proposed reorganisation? He said:

"We have a real concern that the strength of Edinburgh's tourism promotion may be diluted by this new wider approach."

Will the minister enter into discussions with the City of Edinburgh Council, so that he may understand its concerns about the reorganisation and reflect further on whether it is necessary, after only two years?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will certainly ensure that the council is invited to our session on 19 November. We are conscious of the central role that Edinburgh plays in generating tourism and tourism revenues in Scotland. We are throwing no babies out with the bath water; rather, we are energising the babies in the Scottish tourism bath. We are putting tourism at the centre of our economic policy. VisitScotland will sit in the strategic forum. It will be the focus of the drive forward, not just to boost revenues from tourism but to use tourism as the hook that gives people a greater awareness of Scotland and of the potential within Scotland.

First Minister's Question Time

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-211)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

With the Presiding Officer's permission, I welcome the presence of Aung Moe Zaw to the chamber. He is a senior colleague of the jailed Burmese democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. I am sure that the entire chamber will want to welcome the chairperson of the Democratic Party for a New Society. [ Applause. ]

Later today, I will have a number of meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland, including one to consider the potentially serious implications for the Parliament of the House of Lords' Somerville judgment.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I echo the warm welcome that the First Minister has just given to our visitors.

The previous time the First Minister and I met at First Minister's question time, he was asked about his promise to recruit an additional 1,000 police officers. In his answer, he claimed to be quoting directly from the Scottish National Party manifesto when he said:

"We will fulfil our commitment to putting the equivalent of 1,000 extra officers in the communities of Scotland."—[Official Report, 4 October 2007; c 2468.]

However, as Robert Brown has highlighted, the word "equivalent" does not appear in that section of the manifesto, so I will now give the First Minister the opportunity to clarify his earlier statement to the chamber and to confirm that he will meet his actual manifesto promise to deliver an extra 1,000 police officers.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The point I was making was that we said on page 58 of our manifesto that we would set out our plans in our first budget for Scotland. Our first budget for Scotland will be on 14 November. When we set it out, including our plans for recruiting additional police officers, we will realise the commitment of the SNP against the commitment of the Labour Party, which I remind Wendy Alexander was for zero police officer recruitment in Scotland.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I think that we have all now learned that the First Minister's house style is an attack over an answer—every time. Has he read the comments this morning from Les Gray, the chairman of the Scottish Police Federation? The First Minister will recall that, earlier this year, during the election campaign, he attended the police federation's annual conference. While there, he explicitly said that the SNP was setting money aside to pay for the extra 1,000 police officers—and that that was new money and extra officers and not a play on words. I ask the First Minister again whether he intends to keep that promise to recruit an extra 1,000 police officers—yes or no.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

A glance at the Business Bulletin will tell Wendy Alexander exactly what the Scottish National Party will do. We

"will deliver an additional 1,000 police officers in our communities through increased recruitment, improved retention and redeployment."

As soon as we recruit the first police officer, that will be one more than the Labour Party promised in the election campaign.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The First Minister appears to be refusing to honour the promise of 1,000 extra police officers. There is another promise that he seems to be backing away from. In September, he told the chamber that he would deliver class sizes of 18 in primaries 1, 2 and 3 by 2011. This afternoon, his cabinet secretary, John Swinney, is meeting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I presume that he will ask councils to deliver on that promise.

Will the First Minister assure us that he will at least honour the pledge of reducing class sizes to 18 by 2011 and meet the full costs of doing so? Yes or no.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The outcome agreements that we are seeking with local government are precisely designed to allow the Government to meet the commitments in our manifesto. That is exactly what we are doing.

Let me point out as gently as I possibly can to Wendy Alexander that, as opposed to police numbers, where the announcements in our budget on 14 November will contrast our recruitment against the Labour Party's non-recruitment, we do not have to wait for the budget for teachers: 250 more teachers have been recruited in Scotland than would have been if the Labour and Liberal parties had remained in office.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I think that we have to take that as a no, or at least as just another broken promise. Police numbers, student debt, school buildings, first-time buyers: all broken promises. Let me offer the First Minister one final chance to answer the question. Does his class-size pledge, made in this chamber in September to the pupils and parents of Scotland, still hold, and will John Swinney provide councils with the full funding required? Yes or no.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

rose

—

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Let me say in conclusion that the First Minister is boasting to his conference delegates this weekend about a can-do attitude in Scotland because the SNP is in government. Of course, the real truth is that what the SNP can do is make promises; what it cannot do is keep them.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Wendy Alexander's questions are longer than my answers. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

It is traditional when someone asks for a yes or no answer to stop at that point, not to go on to a longer ramble.

That is exactly what John Swinney will do when he meets COSLA to discuss the outcome agreements. When I speak to delegates at the first SNP conference in history to celebrate an SNP Government in office, I will talk about 160 days of achievement: allowing councils to employ additional teachers already in Scotland; abolishing the Labour-Liberal student fees in the graduate endowment; removing tolls on the Tay and Forth bridges; reversing Labour's plans to close accident and emergency units at Monklands and Ayr hospitals; and, finally, already investing in the prison estate so that we do not leave ourselves vulnerable to judgments such as Somerville, which will cost the Scottish public dear in the next few years.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I point out to members that they always listen to questions reasonably courteously; I ask them to reflect on how they listen to answers.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-212)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no immediate plans to do so. I last spoke to the secretary of state on the matter of the comprehensive spending review. I look forward to discussing other subjects with him, including the full implementation of the Gould report in terms of the running of future Scottish elections.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Presiding Officer,

"education, health and policing are top three priorities ... hugely important ... top of the public's concerns."

Those were the First Minister's words at the Scottish Police Federation conference in April. I should know—I was there and, yes, I agreed. So how do the deeds of Alex Salmond compare with the words of Alex Salmond?

Last week we saw a crisis in the care of the elderly, and then there was the continuing fiasco about the broken police pledge, but what were the First Minister's top priorities? He was planning an emergency statement on his holidays in America. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Not content with that, he was busy writing to dictators in Iran and Zimbabwe on issues that have nothing to do with his devolved Government. I remind the First Minister that his political duty to Scotland begins at home.

Will the First Minister finally admit that the cast-iron promise on policing that he made in the SNP manifesto has been broken and that when he pledged 1,000 more officers and described them as new, that was simply not true? Will he admit that when he said at the Scottish Police Federation conference in Peebles that he will

"allocate funds to policing if more funds are needed in addition to the thousand extra officers",

he was just spinning a line?

Will the First Minister come clean and admit that the SNP cannot be trusted and that he has betrayed the public and our police?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

What I was doing in America was working to bring jobs and investment to Scotland. I hope that Annabel Goldie will have the grace to acknowledge that if the plans come to fruition. What I did not do in America was meet David Cameron, who was on the west coast meeting the governor of California. I do not know whether he was on holiday, but I do not think that he was working to bring jobs and investment to Scotland.

We will deliver an additional 1,000 police officers in our communities through increased recruitment, improved retention and redeployment. We will set out our plans, as we always intended to do, in our budget on 14 November.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

David Cameron was doing something important in America. He was preparing to do something that the First Minister will never have to do—to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

I have to say that the First Minister's response to my question was a distasteful display of wriggling, squirming and writhing. The First Minister does not fool me and he does not fool the police, but I will offer him one last chance of redemption. He promised 1,000 extra police. Scotland currently has 16,261 officers. When will we have 17,261? Is the truth that, under the SNP, the answer is never? Let the First Minister come clean, tell the truth, own up, and apologise.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I exclusively reveal to Annabel Goldie that I have no plans or ambitions to be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

On 14 November, Annabel Goldie will see our plans to have an additional 1,000 police officers in our communities through increased recruitment, improved retention and redeployment. Once upon a time, the Tories were in favour of the three Rs. Annabel Goldie should back our plans for recruitment, retention and redeployment of officers to make the streets of Scotland safer.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-213)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

During the recess, we were told that the First Minister had written to the states that are party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to ask for their help to get him observer status at their meetings. Did a shiver run up his spine as he signed letters to the Governments of some of the most despotic, repressive, undemocratic, villainous regimes in the world: Iran, Burma and Zimbabwe?

The First Minister often talks about an arc of prosperity, but he has just written letters to countries in an arc of repression. The situation in Zimbabwe gets worse and worse. Just as the whole world is moving to cast out President Mugabe as a pariah, Scotland's First Minister invites him back in. Dear Robert, he writes,

"I would hope we would be able to count on your government's support ... Please do not hesitate to contact me if you or your government wish to discuss these issues further."

Best wishes, Alex.

Is the First Minister so obsessed with getting a seat in the ante-room at the United Nations? Did he write to Iran, Zimbabwe and Burma? Is there any regime, dictatorship or one-party state to which he will not beg to help the cause of Scottish independence?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Nicol Stephen has just destroyed any pretension of the Liberal party to moderation. The many people throughout Scottish society, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the churches who oppose Trident and its replacement will look at Nicol Stephen's question and wonder whether the Liberal party's commitment remains or whether it has joined the Trident bandwagon. [ Interruption. ] Finally, yes: I wrote to all countries in the non-proliferation agreement. I remind Nicol Stephen that it is held under the auspices of the United Nations. Is he seriously suggesting that that is not a legitimate organisation to write to?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The First Minister rightly complained in June that the United Kingdom Government had broken the concordat as it had failed to consult him on its discussions with Colonel Gaddafi involving the Lockerbie bomber. Now, without consultation, he has sent a letter to more than 100 Governments. His letter opens up discussions with some of the most vilified and dangerous regimes in the world. It is a clear breach of the agreement. Constantly picking fights with London is bad enough, but this goes way beyond that.

Not just British interests are being put at risk: the European Union is conducting delicate negotiations with many of those countries. The whole world is moving to cast out President Mugabe and to condemn General Than Shwe in Burma, yet Scotland's First Minister asks for their support. I again ask the First Minister whether there is any regime, however wicked, that he will not call on to help the cause of Scottish independence?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The letter was looking for support from Governments and organisations, under the auspices of the United Nations, to help what I think is a majority opinion in Scotland to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I will make two points to Nicol Stephen. First, at the highly successful anti-Trident conference, a wide range of opinion, delegates and representative organisations in Scottish society applauded our initiative in looking to end the evil of nuclear weapons on Scottish soil and in Scottish waters. Secondly, that should not have come as a major surprise to anyone, given that it was one of the key commitments in the Scottish National Party manifesto—a manifesto that I intend to honour.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I have some brief constituency questions.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The First Minister will no doubt be aware that P & O and Stena Line have cancelled their joint project to develop the port of Cairnryan. Given the potentially negative effect that that will have on the project to develop the waterfront at Stranraer—which is a vital project for the economy of the west of Wigtownshire—will the First Minister ask the appropriate cabinet secretary to liaise with Stena as a matter of urgency to see what alternative proposals can be brought forward for the development?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I share the member's concern about that development and the implications it has for the planned developments in Stranraer. I undertake to ask the appropriate minister to contact the companies concerned to see how the best interests of the south-west of Scotland can be protected.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the First Minister agree with me and with the local community that, in light of the fatal road accident that occurred two weeks ago at the Blackford junction of the A9, urgent action must be taken to upgrade the dangerous junctions? Will he now instruct his transport minister to bring forward the strategic transport projects review to implement major safety improvements at junctions on the A9?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

They are dangerous junctions, and it is a matter of serious concern. The member will be aware that safety improvements are currently taking place on the A9. The cabinet secretary will write to her about her specific concern.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Is the First Minister aware of the anger of my constituents in Plains, who have been betrayed by his Government? Does he agree with the decision of his transport minister, who has overturned the previous Government's commitment to provide an additional station at Plains as part of the Airdrie to Bathgate rail link?

The additional station at Plains was the recommendation of a committee of the Parliament, which responded to the economic and social case that was made by the local community. Is it not a nonsense that my constituents will suffer all the inconvenience that comes with a major construction project but, at the end of it, will be able only to wave at the trains, not to step on board? Will he act today to reconsider the matter? Will he listen to my constituents? Will he—as the previous Parliament and Government did—overturn this ridiculous decision to deny the people of Plains a station?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I remind the member that the previous Administration's commitment was to have a study undertaken, not to go ahead with the project. The study has been completed and—unfortunately for the member—has not demonstrated the economic benefit of the proposal. I am happy to make the study available to the member and to have further discussions with her, but she should remember that the previous commitment was to the study and that the implications and findings of that study must be addressed.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's view is on the ruling by the House of Lords on 17 October 2007 removing the right to compensation for victims of a certain asbestos-related condition. (S3F-215)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government is acutely aware of the concerns that the judgment will have raised among those with pleural plaques and it is urgently examining the position in the light of the judgment to consider what implications it has for people in Scotland.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank the First Minister for his sympathetic reply, but I ask him to go a little further today. He may be aware that the scandalous and unjust ruling by the House of Lords regarding pleural plaques has left 214 people whose cases are in court and 420 others whose cases have still to be heard in a judicial no man's land. They are our fellow citizens who spent their working lives in the shipbuilding, construction and fishing industries, yet their right to have their cases heard in respect of compensation for their condition has been removed.

Given the fact that the previous Executive found space in its legislative programme to pass the Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) Scotland Act 2007—which, rightly, attracted the unanimous support of Parliament—will the First Minster pledge today to find time in his Government's programme to adopt the bill that has been prepared on behalf of Clydeside Action on Asbestos, which was sent to Mr MacAskill on 17 October, so that this wrong can be righted as quickly as possible? Asbestos victims and their families simply want the First Minister to answer, "Yes" today.