Scottish Parliament, 28 February 2008

571 contributions from 89 members. The official report.

Official Report 28 February 2008

Improving Accountability

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1434, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on improving accountability.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

In August 1999, when he published Scotland's first ministerial code covering conduct and procedures, Donald Dewar said:

"this underlines our commitment to open and responsible government which is fully accountable to a modern, representative parliament."

Those words still stand us in good stead. I do not think that anyone in the chamber, irrespective of party, will demur from those sentiments, and I hope that we share an ambition for transparent government that is truly accountable to the people of Scotland.

Although the code's provisions are closely based on the United Kingdom ministerial code, reflecting widely accepted principles of good practice, they emphasise openness and partnership with the Parliament to reflect the principles enshrined in the consultative steering group's report. That is as it should be. The code also incorporates the seven principles of public life outlined in the first report, published in 2005, of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Those very principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership continue to have resonance in modern Scotland. We sign up to those principles and understand the importance of openness and accountability in order to build trust in Government. However, it is simply not enough to rest on our laurels: more is required.

The Scottish National Party Government is reviewing the Scottish ministerial code. I am advised that that is routine and that such reviews generally follow elections and allow the code to be refreshed for incoming ministers. Such an approach is perfectly reasonable and, indeed, desirable. However, I do not recall previous reviews taking such an inordinate length of time. It is now nine months after the election and there has not been a single word from the SNP.

More worrying, in the same period we have had complaint after complaint about breaches of the code. Perhaps I am mistaken but, with the Trump planning application, the Aviemore planning application and the Beauly to Denny power line planning application, a distinct pattern appears to be emerging.

Moreover, what about class sizes? We had statement after statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and her deputy; parliamentary questions were asked and—after a fashion—answered; and there were even promises from the First Minister himself in the chamber. There was no dubiety; everything was perfectly clear; the SNP pledge on class sizes would be delivered in the promised timescale. Or so they all said. Imagine, then, the genuine disappointment of parents throughout Scotland on learning that the clear advice from Government officials to ministers is that the policy is not deliverable. Did ministers know that before they made their statements? Did they inadvertently mislead Parliament? Have they taken the first possible opportunity, as required by the ministerial code, to correct the misinformation given to Parliament? I suspect that, like the long-awaited new ministerial code, it will be some time before we get any answers to those questions.

What about the revelations that emerged only yesterday about the poor Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member agree that, whatever Jim Mather is, he is not poor?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I was, of course, being very careful about the context in which I used the word.

It transpires that the poor minister spoke to the permanent secretary about his £350,000 of shares only on 20 September 2007, after being contacted by a reporter from The Scotsman.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Indeed I will not.

That was more than four months after the election. Contrary to the SNP's spin on the matter, the code clearly states that such matters should be dealt with on appointment, not at some unspecified time later. Also, I seem to recall that the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism said that he would set up a blind trust to deal with the issue. Although such a move would have been entirely appropriate, it appears that that, too, has not been done.

The overall impression is of a Government that ignores the rules, rides roughshod over expected standards of behaviour and, frankly, plays fast and loose with the ministerial code. It is hardly the partnership with Parliament envisaged by the consultative steering group; indeed, it is perhaps much closer to the abrasive style of the First Minister, who presides over the code with breathtaking arrogance.

We must remember that the First Minister decides on breaches of the code in relation not only to other ministers, but to himself. I invite members to pause for a moment and to see whether they can think of any occasion when the First Minister will find himself guilty of breaching the code. Given what we know of his essential character, I think not.

As Patrick Harvie eloquently put it:

"There could feasibly be a situation in the future where a first minister needs to be held to account for a more serious issue and the Scottish Executive does not have processes in place to deal with this."

Mr Harvie said that in 2006, when Jack McConnell met Donald Trump to talk about investing in Scotland. I do not need to remind Bruce Crawford or the rest of the chamber that at that time there was no live planning application on the table. However, almost a year later, we see Alex Salmond travelling in his ministerial car—indeed, falling over himself—to meet the Trump Organization when a live planning application is on the table. Ah, but how can I forget that Mr Salmond was doing that in his role as constituency MSP?

I should also say in passing that I have met the chief planner on a few occasions, but I have never been able to arrange a meeting with him within 24 hours—and certainly not if developers have been involved. In fact, I am confident that no MSP has ever been able to do that. It leads one to conclude that one particular constituency MSP is more important that all the others.

In 2006, the SNP and the Tories shared Patrick Harvie's view. Indeed, Nicola Sturgeon herself said:

"to discuss specific proposals that require planning permission is clearly prejudicial and, on the face of it, would be a breach of the code."

Perhaps she should share that very wise view with her boss.

The First Minister will be aware of the Prime Minister's initiative to ensure, as part of a number of changes to the UK ministerial code, the appointment of a new independent adviser to provide advice on ministers' interests and to investigate alleged breaches of the code. The adviser will then report to the Prime Minister. Moreover, an annual report will be laid before the UK Parliament to ensure proper scrutiny of ministerial conduct and a list of ministerial interests will be published. I hope that the First Minister fully supports such an approach.

A modern and progressive Government should have nothing to fear from ensuring transparency and accountability in all that it does. The SNP now has a chance to change its mind in the interests of good government and partnership with the Parliament. The First Minister has said that he will listen to Parliament; I hope that, today, this Parliament sends out a clear signal about introducing independent oversight and improving accountability in the ministerial code. Will the First Minister stay true to his word and listen to Parliament?

I want to share with the chamber other people's views on this matter. Theresa May, the shadow Leader of the House of Commons has said:

"We need an independent body to oversee the ministerial code".

Her opinion is shared by Sir George Young. Finally, I want to share the following comments:

"Given that the First Minister is responsible for the enforcement of the ministerial code ... who would undertake any investigation into the question whether a breach had occurred?"—[Official Report, 19 May 2004; c 8486.]

Our mystery man went on to say:

"It might be wise to look at another body to independently oversee their actions. Anything that makes ministers more accountable and any more transparent must be a good thing".

Those were the words of Bruce Crawford. I hope that the chamber will reflect on them today.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that government should be open and accountable; affirms its support for the Seven Principles of Public Life established in the first report of the Nolan Committee and for the further principles governing ministerial conduct as set out in the Scottish Ministerial Code; notes that the First Minister is reviewing the code, in line with practice after each Scottish parliamentary election; acknowledges the increasing calls for independent oversight of the code; considers that a modern and progressive government has nothing to fear from ensuring transparency and accountability in all that it does, and therefore calls on the First Minister to include independent oversight of the Scottish Ministerial Code, taking the new UK Ministerial Code as the starting point, and to bring forward a statement to the Parliament on this when the review is concluded.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this morning's debate. I was a bit surprised yesterday when I read Jackie Baillie's motion calling for an independent input into the ministerial code—not that I disagree with the principle, about which I will say more in a moment. I was surprised that this has suddenly become a big issue for the Labour Party.

I listened with great interest to the quotations in Jackie Baillie's speech from luminaries from different parties in Westminster and here, but I cannot recall any time during the first eight years of the Scottish Parliament when Labour members raised concerns about the content or enforcement of the Scottish ministerial code.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Does the member agree that never have so many issues about breaches of the code arisen in such a short time? Such issues have brought discredit on the Government and the Parliament.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That might be an issue of perspective. The perspective has changed as the Labour Party has made the transition from government to opposition.

Labour does not have a good record of expressing concern about the issue. I looked through the Official Report to find out how often in the first eight years of the Parliament Labour members expressed concern about breaches of the code, but of course there were no instances of that happening. The transition from government to opposition has sharpened Labour's appetite for reform. However, I will not be too critical of Labour, because we welcome the general thrust of the party's approach and we are happy to endorse much of the motion.

As Jackie Baillie said, the motion is timely. We learned yesterday from that fine publication, The Scotsman, that the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, Jim Mather, had been in breach of the ministerial code in failing to declare his shareholdings on appointment. The ministerial code is clear on that point: a minister must declare his or her shareholdings "on appointment". Mr Mather did not do so. Indeed, he declared his shareholdings only after being rumbled by a reporter from The Scotsman who asked him about them. However, Labour members should not be too critical of Mr Mather. I dare say that there was no intentional wrongdoing on his part, and on that basis perhaps we should let him off with a mild reprimand.

Here is the anomaly. If there is a serious breach of the code by a minister—let us say, hypothetically, that a minister were to act in relation to a large planning application—the person who enforces the code is the First Minister, who is hardly impartial, so where is the sanction? That is the key issue that must be addressed.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Surely the key issue that must be addressed is that when there is a complaint we must have confidence that it will be independently investigated. Of course it is for the First Minister to decide on matters, but we must be assured that there is independent investigation of the complaint.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I agree with Mr Rumbles that we need an important independent element in the process. If he reads my amendment he will see that we call for an independent authority to oversee the administration of the ministerial code. That would go a long way towards addressing Mr Rumbles's concerns.

I agree with many points that Jackie Baillie made. On the motion, I doubt that anyone disagrees with the seven principles of public life that were set out in the Nolan committee's report or that

"a modern and progressive government has nothing to fear from ensuring transparency and accountability in all that it does",

although I am surprised and impressed that the Labour Party accepts that the SNP Administration is to be described as "modern and progressive".

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I live in hope.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Our amendment acknowledges that we need independent input into policing the code. I do not accept the principle that we should use the UK ministerial code as a starting point, so our amendment would delete that part of the motion. That is simply because the situation at UK level is different from the situation in Holyrood—[ Interruption. ] I am sorry, Presiding Officer, I did not switch off my phone. I am clearly in breach of all sorts of codes this morning.

The obvious difference between Westminster and Holyrood is that the Scottish Parliament is elected by proportional representation and we currently have a minority Government. If a Government minister misbehaves, the votes of only 48 members of the Parliament—or 50 members, if the Greens are loyal—will be needed to remove them. No such sanction exists at Westminster. The situation here is entirely different and requires a different approach.

We accept that an independent authority should be involved, but the wording in our amendment is superior to the wording in the Labour motion. There is legitimate concern about potential conflicts of interest and the involvement of an independent authority to advise ministers and oversee the administration of the code is essential. Like Labour, we call for a statement to the Parliament by the First Minister when the review of the code is concluded.

I hope that the Parliament can unite around our amendment to the Labour motion. This is not an esoteric debate. The public must have confidence in politicians and in Government ministers. The charade of a ministerial code that is enforceable only by the First Minister, with no independent involvement—as was the case during the past eight years, when we had Labour and Liberal Democrat ministers and did not hear a cheep from either party—must be brought to an end.

We can achieve that today, so it is with pleasure that I move amendment S3M-1434.2, to leave out from "oversight of the Scottish Ministerial Code" to end and insert:

"authority to direct ministers in the appropriate arrangements for ensuring that their conduct as ministers is in accordance with the Scottish Ministerial Code to avoid conflict or potential conflict of interest, and to oversee its administration, and to bring forward a statement to the Parliament on this when the review is concluded."

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

On 13 December, at First Minister's question time, I asked Alex Salmond whether he acknowledged that it is essential that someone who is independent of Government should be appointed to investigate complaints of breaches of the Scottish ministerial code. He gave a somewhat non-committal reply. However, if the First Minister is given a choice between playing the ball and playing the man—if I may use a football analogy—he always plays the man. He said that he would have had more respect for me and my question if I had raised the issue in the past. However, I consistently raised the issue during all three sessions of the Parliament, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Jack McConnell can confirm that I did so while he was First Minister.

We are all aware that members of the Scottish Parliament are subject to the code of conduct for MSPs, which is strictly enforced. The independent Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner investigates complaints against MSPs, on the facts. The members' code of conduct does not apply to MSPs when they are carrying out ministerial duties outside the chamber. It applies to all MSPs when they are in the chamber, whether or not they are ministers, but it is the duty of the Presiding Officer and not the standards commissioner to enforce the code in the chamber.

The Scottish ministerial code is an additional code and is enforced by the First Minister. I agree with the Labour Party that that is where the problem lies. The SNP Government has been in office for only nine months, but it has been caught out for repeatedly giving misinformation, leaking privileged information to the press and interfering in significant planning decisions such as the Trump application and the Aviemore application. Sir John Elvidge, the Government's chief civil servant, said after being challenged about incorrect information about the Trump affair that was given to the BBC:

"It is regrettable that the Scottish Government issued a response that was inconsistent with the facts."

That is a classic worthy of "Yes Minister". In other words, the response was not true.

The Government has been revealed to have concealed details about crucial meetings and phone calls regarding the Trump planning application. It is bad enough that the First Minister held a meeting with Mr Trump's representatives at a hotel in Aberdeen during which he telephoned his chief planner and asked him to hold while he passed his phone to the Trump representatives, so that they could set up a meeting for the next day, but to have that civil servant call in the application for it to be decided by the Scottish ministers sends out the wrong messages about the independence of Scotland's planning system. That is the serious point. Annabel Goldie, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, called that a breach of the ministerial code, which states clearly that not even the appearance of a conflict of interest should be given. The First Minister said that there was no conflict of interest, because he was acting as the local MSP and not as First Minister. Alex Salmond is the First Minister of Scotland; he cannot pretend not to be when it suits him.

There is no point complaining about the First Minister's actions under the ministerial code, because he is the only arbiter of what is and is not appropriate behaviour. Five formal complaints have been made to the First Minister about alleged breaches of the code. I ask the Presiding Officer a rhetorical question: how many of those complaints have been acted on? The answer is not one of them, as I am sure that you guessed. In each case the First Minister confirmed that his minister had acted properly.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

How many complaints of breaches of the ministerial code were acted on during the first eight years of the Parliament?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I have no idea. Perhaps the member will check the Official Report —[ Interruption. ] This is not a laughing matter, Mr Crawford.

Yesterday we read that a complaint was made that the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism breached the ministerial code by failing to register his shareholding portfolio after several months in office. Sir John Elvidge dismissed that complaint because, as he stressed, the code is, after all, advisory. That is not a satisfactory situation to say the least. There may have been a time when an advisory code was sufficient, but that time is obviously now over. We have a First Minister who believes that all his Government's actions are appropriate when, to an independent observer, the actions that have been highlighted today are at least questionable. [Laughter.]

The SNP back benchers are laughing because they realise—

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

We are not laughing with Mike Rumbles, we are laughing at him.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The SNP back benchers realise that the Parliament cannot hold the First Minister to account in normal circumstances. Times have changed. The time is now well overdue for the ministerial code to be more than simply advisory. The time has come for the Parliament to appoint somebody to police it independently of the First Minister. That role would be about assessing the facts, not making a judgment. That is as it is with the code of conduct for MSPs: the standards commissioner is responsible for assessing the facts of a case and reports to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, but the committee makes the decisions. We want an independent person to investigate the facts of complaints under the ministerial code, report to the First Minister and publish their reports so that we all know the facts. That is why we have lodged our amendment and seek support for it from MSPs from across the chamber.

I move amendment S3M-1434.1, to insert at end:

"and further believes that the best way of ensuring independent oversight is for the Parliament to appoint a person independent of government to investigate alleged breaches of the Scottish Ministerial Code."

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I am delighted to be here this morning to talk about ministerial accountability. As I am the Minister for Parliamentary Business, it is a subject close to my heart.

I welcome the motion—indeed, I agree with much of it. It recognises that Government must be open and accountable, affirms support for the seven principles of public life—to which we are fully signed up—and notes the review of the ministerial code that is under way. However, I also very much welcome the Conservative amendment. Rather than merely mimicking the situation at UK level regardless of the Scottish context, it goes further than the motion by suggesting that an independent authority is needed to direct ministers in the appropriate arrangements for ensuring that their conduct accords with the ministerial code so that they avoid real or potential conflicts of interest and to oversee the code's administration.

This Government prides itself on being open, accessible, effective, accountable and—yes, as Jackie Baillie said—modern and progressive.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

It needs to try to be.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

On the issues that have been raised, the suggestions about Jim Mather are utter nonsense. He did not breach the code. In fact, he has done more than he is required to do. He followed the code and the permanent secretary's advice to the letter, and the permanent secretary has described his actions as fully acceptable.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Will Bruce Crawford give way?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I will make some progress on some of the other accusations. The Labour speaker did not give way to me, did she?

Murdo Fraser adequately addressed the point about the First Minister: he is appointed by the Parliament, which can remove him at any time that it wishes. There have been record numbers of freedom of information requests on the Trump application, and we have answered PQs in record time—and probably record numbers—on the issue. There has also been a committee inquiry into the matter. As far as that is concerned, the First Minister is bomb-proof.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I could not possibly comment on that. Bruce Crawford raised the First Minister's behaviour. The code of conduct requires any minister who does not give accurate and truthful information to the Parliament to tender their resignation to the First Minister. Does Bruce Crawford agree that the First Minister should resign if he does not give truthful and accurate information to the Parliament?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

The First Minister always gives accurate and truthful information to the Parliament.

I will use my own experience as a good example of the types of allegations that have been made under the code of practice. Michael McMahon complained that I had broken the code in regard to the Beauly to Denny transmission line. In fact, not only did I not break it, I could have gone a lot further than I did: I could have attended the public inquiry that was set up on the matter and given evidence.

The day after Stewart Maxwell rightly apologised to the Parliament following the issues that arose on his statement on sportscotland, we got a note from Frank McAveety complaining about it. How spurious does it get? No wonder there is a record number of complaints.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Rather than pontificate on his own innocence, would it not be better for Bruce Crawford if an independent assessment was made of his position in regard to the Beauly to Denny transmission line?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

The finding would have been the same, whether the assessment had been made by an independent person or the First Minister.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

That is outrageous. He is judge and jury.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

As far as the timing of the review is concerned, we are rightly and properly considering the code thoroughly and exploring all the avenues that are open to us. The debate makes me wonder what the priorities of the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats are. With the new Government's priorities, we will, I hope, sweep the graduate tax away today; we have frozen the council tax, reduced business taxation and are getting rid of prescription taxes. Those, not the priorities that the Labour Party demonstrates today, are the priorities of the people of Scotland.

Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that we are having the debate. It is important that we get the chance to consider the matter, and I am confident that, when the review is finished and the Administration publishes the new version of the code, it will be much stronger as a result.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will Bruce Crawford give way?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

He does not have time, I am afraid.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

It came as something of a surprise to me to learn that so many Opposition members have so many concerns about the ministerial code's scope and content. It is the self-same code that was applied by the previous Administrations and we have applied it in the same way as they did. I do not recall such levels of interest prior to last May, and I leave it to others to draw their own conclusions about what that says.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

You should close now.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Yes, Presiding Officer.

We are considering the suggestion of an independent investigator. However, at a time when we are trying to simplify the public sector landscape, considering how best to implement the recommendations of the Crerar review of independent scrutiny bodies and working to ensure that limited public resources are optimally deployed, could the appointment of a new tsar be justified?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Give it to Jim Dyer.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

If Mike Rumbles looks at the evidence that Jim Dyer has given, he will see that he was of the opinion—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

You really must close now.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Okay. I am sorry.

I have no time to finish off that point.

Let us be clear that the code should be strengthened and that we need to put in place the more fundamental mechanisms of accountability that the Parliament and our membership of it represent. We take those mechanisms seriously and should celebrate them.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Sometimes I find it difficult to believe that the SNP has been in power for nearly a year. One would not think it from what one sometimes hears when watching television and listening to the radio.

Flashback: a year ago, Kenny MacAskill appeared on TV when a prisoner had escaped. He said that the poor law-abiding folk were living in fear and someone had to do something about it. Flashforward: last month, a prisoner escaped in Perth and a schoolgirl was raped. Again, Kenny MacAskill was on TV saying that the good, law-abiding folk were living in fear and someone had to do something about it. However, that someone is now him, as he is the minister.

I do not blame Kenny MacAskill for getting away with saying exactly the same as if he was not accountable. I blame the Bernards and Brians, Kirstys and Jamies who should be holding him to account. Where are they? They are certainly not in the press gallery. For once, the ubiquitous and redoubtable John Knox has a companion, but that is highly unusual for such debates. Where are the rest of them? No doubt they are going round the corridors—I think that the expenses and allowances are published today.

There are enough examples for the press to hold the ministers to account. Where is Gordon Brewer—Jeremy Paxman with tartan underpants? He is not holding ministers to account, because "Newsnight Scotland" is too occupied with its get-Wendy agenda. When it runs out of motormouth SNP MSPs, it brings on the journalists—the saintly Douglas and the even more saintly Magnus. It has three journalists talking about that. They should be holding the Government to account. We are doing it here, day after day, week after week and month after month, but journalists are doing very little of it. The Tories are doing it. The Liberal Democrats are even doing it occasionally. I see that the Greens are not here doing it this morning. We are holding the Government to account, but there is no follow-up.

In foreign affairs, we used to have most favoured countries. The SNP has most favoured persons. There are celebratory dinners for SNP donors at Bute house at the taxpayer's expense, although the media do not follow that up. People can speed up their planning applications. It is a case of, "Give us the money, and we'll speed up your planning application."

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I invite the member to withdraw that last remark. Taking advantage of the partial privilege that exists in the chamber to suggest that anybody has taken money for planning applications is unworthy of the member and of any member of the Parliament.

George (Labour, Lothians)

I ask Mr Adam to look and see if there is no correlation between donors to the SNP and some planning applications.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I invite you to consider the remarks that Lord Foulkes has made. He has not taken the opportunity to withdraw them. Is that kind of—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The member knows by now that the content of members' speeches is up to them. However, I ask members to be careful about allegations that they make.

George (Labour, Lothians)

I invite Mr Adam to look on the horizon. There is another issue there, which might give a new perspective to the West Lothian question.

Let us turn to the "bomb-proof" First Minister. Selflessness is not one of the natural qualities that we associate with him. I ask him to reconsider the issues. Integrity is a key part of Nolan's ministerial code. There is the matter of the Aberdeenshire golf course, which Jackie Baillie spoke about earlier. I hope that, when John Swinney considers it—it got an unprecedented fast track to his desk—we will see integrity and objectivity that we did not see when the First Minister dealt with it.

Then there is the hovercraft project, which arose from the south-east of Scotland transport partnership. I fully support a hovercraft service across the Firth of Forth, but is it wrong to demand openness and transparency when £3.3 million of taxpayers' money is handed out to a company that is owned by the SNP's most favoured person and biggest donor? Why are the press hounds not chasing that up? Why are they not challenging the SNP on its broken promises on class sizes and on matching our school building programme brick for brick? Yesterday at the Audit Committee, as Hugh Henry will confirm, serious doubts were thrown on the Scottish futures trust.

I make a plea to Murdo Fraser and Mike Rumbles. They might not agree with every aspect of Jackie Baillie's motion, but surely we can unite on this issue and ensure that the bomb-proof First Minister gets at least a few bombs to prove that he is bomb-proof. We should make sure that issues are dealt with objectively, in the way that Gordon Brown has done. He has appointed Sir Philip Mawer, who is a University of Edinburgh graduate, as an independent adviser on the ministerial code. I am sure that if Philip were approached, he would do the same for Scotland. That would be a first step towards more openness and accountability in this Parliament, too.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

Clarity is required as to whether Mr Foulkes's attack on Scotland's media is official Labour Party policy. That was a disgraceful attack on our independent press.

I welcome Jackie Baillie's kind acknowledgement that the SNP Government is "modern and progressive". That is exactly the view that is held by civic Scotland, as it engages with the most dedicated, dynamic and hard-working team of ministers that Scotland has seen in living history. The most common description of their approach to government, which I often hear from the most unlikely quarters, is that it is a "breath of fresh air".

In recent parliamentary questions, and in today's debate, Jackie Baillie has been calling on the Scottish Government

"to adopt the approach taken by ... Gordon Brown ... to have an independent adviser to investigate breaches of the Scottish Ministerial Code to ensure a culture of openness and transparency in government"—[Official Report, Written Answers, 3 December 2007; S3W-6779.]

Ms Baillie has outlined why, in her opinion, we are in dire need of the apparently much more accountable Westminster system. We must be careful with the presentation of the Westminster system as some kind of gold standard.

Labour has a tendency to exaggerate. Examples include the claim of being 15 minutes away from attack with weapons of mass destruction; the bonfire of the quangos; "Education, education, education"; and "Things can only get better". Today, we have heard more exaggerations from the Labour Party, as its members try to pass off the current Westminster system as open, transparent and independent, whereas it is none of the above.

In 2006, three years after the Committee on Standards in Public Life called for an independent adviser on ministerial interests, and in a last-ditch attempt to appease the public over the cash for honours scandal, Sir John Bourn was appointed to provide confidential advice to ministers and to conduct investigations at the request of the Prime Minister. The independent adviser must be asked by the Prime Minister to investigate the facts of a case. If there has been a breach of the ministerial code, the decision on whether to publish the results of the investigation and on what action should be taken remains solely with Gordon Brown.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Would the member not therefore agree that the best way to deal with the matter is to have an independent person investigate the facts, report the facts to the First Minister and publish them?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

The Conservative amendment provides the best way forward, with the most appropriate system for the Parliament. That amendment is to be commended. I hope that all members can rally round it and that we can all agree on something that clearly firms up the ministerial code.

Back to Westminster. The appointment of the independent adviser is made by the Prime Minister, without whose explicit consent the adviser cannot investigate. When they are allowed to carry out an investigation, they cannot publish their findings without the Prime Minister's say-so. To top it all, the first independent adviser had to stand down after it emerged that, over three years, he had taken his wife on 22 overseas visits, including a week-long stay in the Bahamas—first class all the way—at the taxpayer's expense.

The hypocrisy of the Labour Party has reached new heights today, with former ministers such as Jackie Baillie calling for a change to the ministerial code only after they have been kicked out of office. It was good enough for Labour ministers, so why not ours?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

I will tell Jackie Baillie why it is not good enough for our ministers: it is because our ministers have a higher standard. That is why we are reviewing the code. It is to make the system more transparent and to get away from the opaqueness of the former Administration.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The member has one minute left.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

It is primarily the Labour Party that is responsible for the poor public image that elected members have today. The last three leaders of the Scottish Labour Party have all been accused of breaching parliamentary regulations. One resigned over financial irregularities; one was cleared after the Red Rose dinners scandal in 2002; and let us not forget that the current incumbent admitted breaking the law—but only a little bit, and not enough to face criminal charges.

We must not forget that we recently witnessed a serving Prime Minister being questioned, for the first time ever, by police conducting a criminal investigation.

In its short time in office, the SNP has shown itself to be open and accountable, in stark contrast to the previous Administration. We will take no lessons from the sleaze-ridden Labour Party, and we are committed not to adopting the flawed Westminster style of government that Jackie Baillie is calling for but to improving the current ministerial code to ensure the highest standards in our Government and to protect the public in the increasingly unlikely event of the Labour Party ever returning to office.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given that you are responsible for overseeing members' behaviour in the chamber and their accountability to the Parliament, will you invite the member who has just spoken to reflect on his comments, given that they are wholly inaccurate and inappropriate? I think that he owes the Parliament an apology.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That is entirely up to the member concerned. I am sure that he has heard your non-point of order.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Today we are discussing an issue that might not register highly in the public's mind, but it throws up fundamental challenges for the Parliament. It questions to some extent whether the Parliament is fit for purpose and whether it can, as it is expected to do, hold the Administration to account on behalf of the people of Scotland. I have concerns about how we are doing that, and I have concerns that the present Administration is playing fast and loose with the rules and the basis on which the Parliament was created.

Paragraph 1.1(b) of the Scottish ministerial code says:

"Ministers have a duty to the Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions taken within their field of responsibility".

So far, so good. Paragraph 1.1(d) says:

"Ministers should be as open as possible with the Parliament and the public ... They should refuse to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest."

In the chamber on 20 December 2007, when debating class sizes in primary 1 to 3, I asked John Swinney:

"Will the cabinet secretary confirm that, in August this year, ahead of the budget, ministers collectively knew that the target could not be met by 2011?"

Mr Swinney did not answer that question. He was then asked by Ken Macintosh whether he would write to me with the information requested. He replied:

"I do not intend to write to Mr Henry, because there are no issues that I need to follow up from the answer that I have just given him."—[Official Report, 20 December 2007; c 4724.]

I wrote to John Swinney the same day to ask the same question. He replied 40 days later, saying that he considered that he did not need to follow up any of the issues and that he had nothing to add to the answer. It was a simple question, but there was a refusal to answer, despite the fact that the ministerial code says that ministers should not refuse to answer such questions.

On 12 February 2008, following a freedom of information request, I received a copy of a minute of a meeting last year between Donald Henderson, then head of the Government schools division, and Universities Scotland, which stated that

"the advice that had been offered to ministers"

is that

"the scale of the commitment does not allow it to be delivered in the life of a parliament ... With the scale of the plans to reduce class sizes in P1 to P3 ... the commitments will take 8 to 10 years to achieve."

We can see why John Swinney was reluctant to give an answer but, in refusing to do so, he clearly breached the ministerial code. Has action been taken by the First Minister? Clearly not, but there is also an issue for the Parliament.

As you know, Presiding Officer, I have written to you on the issue. You said that Parliament can hold ministers to account by oral and written parliamentary questions. You also said, on 9 January, that the Parliament's standing orders

"do not make any provision for answers"

and therefore you have no powers under the rules to challenge what is said. We have a ministerial code that is being ignored and a Parliament that has no power to act.

Paragraph 1.1(c) of the ministerial code says:

"It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to the Parliament".

Bruce Crawford said to me that the First Minister always gives accurate information to the Parliament, but I beg to differ. On 5 September, I asked the First Minister whether he could confirm that his promise to reduce class sizes in primary 1 to 3

"will be delivered in the lifetime of this parliamentary session".

He replied:

"Yes, I can".—[Official Report, 5 September; c 1378.]

That was clear: it will be delivered by 2011.

As the FOI answer that I referred to earlier indicated, ministers had been advised before July that the commitment would not be met by 2011 and, indeed, that it might not even be met by 2015. Ministers knew that the promise would and could not be met at least three months before the First Minister confirmed to Parliament that it would be.

I argue that the First Minister has misled Parliament. Nothing has been done and there has been no attempt to retract. As you know from exchanges of correspondence, Presiding Officer, I am concerned that the Parliament has no power to do anything about it. A First Minister can ignore the ministerial code. No action can be taken and very little can be done to hold ministers to account.

The challenge is not just for the Administration but for the Parliament. Are we prepared to do something about the situation and to give people in this country the confidence that their politicians will tell the truth and be held to account when they do not?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I first make it clear that I am giving my own views and not speaking as convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee or on behalf of the committee.

I am interested in why the Labour Party has chosen this debate. What has changed in less than a year since the Lib Dems and Labour Party were in office and apparently subscribed to a code that they now find unfit? Perhaps it is because, in Labour's view, there has been such a mass outbreak of venality among ministers that there is a radical and pressing need for others to be held to a different standard from Labour and the Lib Dems.

There is a term for someone who holds others to a standard that they do not want to be held to themselves. I cannot bring to mind the exact nature of it, but when Jackie Baillie mentioned the seven Nolan principles it struck me that one of the principles is integrity. There can be no integrity in someone holding others to a standard that they are not willing to be held to themselves.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

No.

There are also terms to describe saying one thing and doing another.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I said no.

It is not long since we had a very good debate on the Crerar report, in which all parties agreed that we should desist from establishing new quangos or tsars every time there is a crisis of events leading to a public clamour for action. We have not even had a crisis of events or a public clamour for action. In fact, as you know, Presiding Officer, those were the words of Tavish Scott at the Conveners Group less than a week ago. The idea was that we should not always rush to create new bodies every time it suits our own interests.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Surely, as convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, the member would appreciate more than anyone that it is important to have the facts of any accusation independently investigated. It happens in the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, so why can we not have the same system for the First Minister? The facts would be independently investigated and reported to the First Minister and published. Surely that is the right thing to do.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

That does not relate to the point that I was making, which was that Tavish Scott and other Lib Dems have said that there should not be a clamour to create new bodies or tsars. I have made it clear that I am not speaking in my capacity as convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. However, I am looking forward to a long and fruitful career in the media as the ex-convener willing to throw around allegations on a regular basis.

It may be advancing years and a touch of deafness on my part, but I have heard no clamour from the public. I have had no representations at any of my surgeries, and the public galleries are virtually empty. Even John Knox has gone home because of what he has heard so far. In raising this issue, the Lib Dems and the Labour Party have shown strange priorities.

The other element of hypocrisy is in comparing what we have here to Westminster or even Wales. We have heard that it is essential that we have independence and openness. There was no independence in the person appointed by Gordon Brown—he made that appointment and it was not scrutinised by Parliament. The independent person can take action only when they are asked to do so by the Prime Minister, and if they are asked to look at something, it goes further only if the Prime Minister agrees that it should. There is no independence in that procedure, so it is hypocritical to ask for the same system here. Only the Prime Minister decides whether something happens.

It is interesting that Gordon Brown omitted from the Westminster code any mention of or guidance on the question of blind trusts. There is hypocrisy on that as well. As Joe FitzPatrick has said, the Labour Party perhaps feels under particular pressure—arising from cash for honours and other controversies—to be seen to do something. That can be the only explanation for what it has done.

Mike Rumbles was factually incorrect earlier. It is inconsistent with the facts to say that the code of conduct for MSPs does not apply to MSPs outwith the chamber. Of course it does and it always has done.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I never said that.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

That is exactly what he said—he can check the Official Report .

We heard an anti-media rant from George Foulkes. He seems to have no trouble in getting himself into a television studio. His problem is that, when he does so, the SNP cheers and his Labour back-bench colleagues groan.

When George Foulkes has been on TV, he has made a virtue of saying that it is wrong for politicians to make spurious and ill-founded allegations against one another, because that demeans us all. That is exactly what he has done this morning, so I invite him to intervene and take the opportunity to apologise for what he said. It would do us all some good if he did that, but I see from his shaking his head that he does not want to. There is an element of hypocrisy in people who are willing to make allegations without foundation or fact going into TV studios and saying that it is wrong when other people do that. We have all seen that of late.

The Conservative amendment has something to commend it. I disagree with the idea that the situation is different now because we have a minority Government in the Parliament. Even in my lifetime, we have had minority government in Westminster, so I do not see that as a defining reason for having a different code of conduct. Having said that, I am pleased that the Government is considering the matter and I am sure that it will come forward with proposals around which we can all unite.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We now move to the winding-up speeches.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

This is an important debate because it goes to the heart of our individual and collective responsibilities as members of the Scottish Parliament and as representatives of the people of Scotland. It is about the integrity of Parliament and Government. Perhaps even more important, it is about the personal integrity of every one of us as we carry out our privileged roles as MSPs.

Over the years, the reputation of politicians has so diminished in the public's mind that, sometimes, it seems like admitting to being a drug dealer would be better received by some sections of society than owning up to being a politician.

Of course, we have not only a moral obligation to be open, transparent and accountable but, in relation to some parts of our code of conduct, a legal obligation. Unfortunately, recent and historical events clearly show that that is not enough to prevent a liberal interpretation of some of the rules, which are not always legally binding either in content or in timeframe. However, if the public's faith in politicians and the system of government and democracy that we represent is to be somewhat restored, it is not good enough to play semantic games with rules and codes—ministerial or otherwise—just to escape the sometimes-justified criticism of errors of omission or commission.

I accept that public disaffection is caused by the need of some sections of the media to fill a blank page every day with some tittle-tattle or other. However, we have to recognise that we are accountable, and not just every four years when the elections come round. Every time we stand up in the chamber and hold forth on some topic or other, regardless of whether we know much about the topic or are reciting a mantra prepared by a civil servant or party worker, we have a duty to the people of Scotland to be transparent and honest, even if that means that we—ministers and back benchers—have to admit to ignorance, stupidity or both, and even allowing for the cut and thrust of debate, the pressure to wing it and the sedentary comments that we are all subjected to when caught out on some point or other. Where we have the protection of privilege, we have to take personal responsibility for the things that we say and the way that we act. Obfuscation, economies with the truth, smoothing, terminological inexactitudes or Government spin will not carry the day, nor should they. Regardless of political party, if the Government is to be held to account by the Parliament, it cannot be right that the ultimate decision on such matters is left in the hands of the Government and the First Minister of the day.

We are probably the most transparent Parliament in Europe; certainly, we are a thousand times better than Brussels. However, that is no justification for not recognising or acting to remedy shortcomings in our system. Codes—ministerial or otherwise—will go only so far if we cannot rely on our own integrity to deal with these matters. It is clear—currently and, to some extent, historically—that we do not do that well.

The way in which the ministerial code is managed has long been a concern, contrary to comments that have been made from a sedentary position and in speeches today. The Parliament must address that issue as a matter of urgency—despite the continued sedentary comments from the Minister for Parliamentary Business.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I was actually making complimentary comments to my colleague about the points that the member is making.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

In our view, despite the merits of the Labour motion and the Conservatives' amendment—although we are a little unclear about what that amendment is proposing—the best way in which to address the issue is to accept the proposals in the Liberal Democrat amendment, which I urge everyone to support.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

It is a pleasure to wind up this important debate on behalf of what is self-evidently the most modern and progressive party in this Parliament.

Hugh O'Donnell touched on the important issue of the broader reputation of politics and politicians. Most of us would accept that politics can be rough. In Britain, and certainly in Scotland, it is often very rough indeed. However, even the most critical of people would hesitate to suggest that there is anything corrupt in Scottish politics or that our politics is anything other than clean; we might disagree with each other about various issues, but only the most unreasonable would argue otherwise.

We can all agree that the ministerial code should be obeyed and that, when ministers do not obey the code or act inappropriately, they damage not only the reputation of the Government but the reputation of all of us in the Parliament—because, even today, many people struggle to understand the dividing line between the actions of Parliament and the actions of Government.

Just as inappropriate actions of ministers can be damaging, so can inappropriate allegations. When making allegations, we must be extremely careful that we do not give in to the temptation to throw enough mud to ensure that some of it sticks. When politics descends to that level, all of us are damaged. Perhaps that is why we get too caught up in the letter of the codes rather than the broader principles that ought to guide us.

Much has been said about the broad principle of independence in respect of the ministerial code. George Foulkes seems to take the view that ministers are, currently, guilty until proven innocent, which is not the appropriate way of looking at things. There must be someone in the process who is independent, has no vested interest and can assess matters without the burden of their previous experiences or current role clouding their judgment. It strikes me that the only people in this Parliament who have no axe to grind as a result of having been or currently being a minister are those of us on the Conservative benches, so I will make a constructive suggestion: if anyone wishes to refer complaints relating to the ministerial code to the Conservative party, we will be happy to assess and opine on them. I am sure that we would be much more effective than the independent Electoral Commission.

Members have mentioned the Nolan principles. I will mention some other principles that we all ought to be able to agree on. We should not slavishly follow what is happening at Westminster—to be fair to the Labour Party, I do not think that that is what its motion proposes—and, in that regard, I believe that some reasonable points have been made about just how far Gordon Brown's announcements go.

The ministerial code should be seen as fair by all parties, whether there is a minority Government, a majority Government or a coalition. We should be able to agree the ministerial code so that it does not change every time the Government changes. The principles by which ministers operate should be ones on which we can all agree and, to some extent, should be unchanging.

We need to ensure that we discourage spurious complaints. The ministerial code should be reserved for serious issues and not used for party-political point scoring, which we are all able to do well enough in this chamber.

A final principle that must be taken into account concerns the balance between the ministerial code and political accountability, which is key. As Murdo Fraser said, it is possible for us to remove ministers on a vote of the Parliament if we feel that they are acting inappropriately.

Jackie Baillie made the valid point that the revision of the ministerial code has had a long gestation period of nine months. There is an existing ministerial code in place and, given the number of complaints about SNP ministers that we have heard today, it would be reasonable to assume that the substance of the ministerial code should not change much. The issue seems to be about enforcement, interpretation and investigation.

George Foulkes spent a lot of his time attacking the media, and I am sure that he will receive his due reward tomorrow. He also made a very odd point, in seeming to suggest that the opportunity to dine with Alex Salmond at Bute house would be an inducement to give money to the SNP. Frankly, I would be happy to pay to avoid the prospect of dining with Alex Salmond, whether at Bute house or anywhere else.

The Conservative amendment seeks to strengthen the Labour motion and to draw us to where we need to be on the matter—towards consensus, as the Conservative party, in its modern and progressive way, always advocates in the Parliament.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I have listened to the debate with interest, but the first time that I started to pay serious attention was when Hugh O'Donnell made his contribution, for he, at least, made an attempt to contribute in a mature fashion. Derek Brownlee summed up very well, and when he commented on mud slinging it was interesting to watch the body language of members on the Labour benches, and of Jackie Baillie in particular. She was nodding, yet she and her colleagues today get the prize for the mud slinging of all mud slinging. That is what the debate was all about. The member talked about distinctive patterns, but the only distinctive pattern that we have seen today is that of spurious allegations, pathetic mud slinging and misguided innuendo, to put it as kindly as I can.

In participating in that, members damage the body politic and cause more damage to the reputation of this place. Joe FitzPatrick made a reasonable point in his response to your mud slinging. There are many broken panes of glass in your house, and you should be careful as far as that is concerned.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

It is important to clarify some of the comments that have been made by Joe FitzPatrick and his colleague Keith Brown—and, indeed, that last comment. Is the minister suggesting that somehow my integrity is in question?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

No, I am suggesting—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Thank you—no is the answer.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I am suggesting that the way in which you have gone about contributing to the debate—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The member should clarify who "you" is, otherwise he is addressing me.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I apologise.

The debate has been nothing more than a cynical attempt to continue a smear campaign against the most successful Government and First Minister that Scotland has ever seen. Contribution after contribution, in particular from Labour, has contained a series of recycled misrepresentations that continue the failing attempts to undermine the Government. One would think that, following the fiasco of the handling of the Scottish Parliament elections and the Gould report and all that surrounded that, Labour members would have learned.

Is it any wonder that the turnout in the Scottish Government elections and local government elections is falling, when such contributions are made to politics in Scotland? It is time for members to raise their game. Speaking of raising your game—

George (Labour, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I will, in a moment. As far as George Foulkes's allegations about the hovercraft project are concerned, I hope that he is aware that the money for that project did not come from this Government but came from the previous Scottish Executive. Will he now take the opportunity to withdraw his scurrilous remarks?

George (Labour, Lothians)

Will the minister—if he is accountable to the Parliament—take the opportunity to answer one question? Jim Mather said that he would divest himself of his shares into a blind trust to remove

"even a scintilla of doubt"

of any conflict of interest. Has he done that?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

George Foulkes has entirely avoided the question that I put to him. He could at least have had the grace to accept that the point that he made was an entirely erroneous and misdirected attack on the Government. He should hang his head in shame. Jim Mather acted entirely within the permanent secretary's advice.

I turn to the serious points that Mike Rumbles made in the debate. Much has been made of the idea of an independent adviser on the code, and we have considered that as part of our review. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that any changes that we make are considered and add genuine value in the Scottish context, which, as I have said before, is not directly comparable with what happens at Westminster.

For example, we already have a register of interests here in Scotland, which was put in place by the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006. That makes us different from Westminster. The Government in Scotland is smaller than the UK Government and, indeed, smaller than previous Scottish Administrations. We must develop relationships and arrangements that are proportionate and appropriate to our circumstances.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Our point is short and clear: when an allegation is made against a minister, there should be an independent person to investigate the facts, report to the First Minister and publish the results, so we get away from any false accusations. Will the minister accept that?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I am concerned that such a post could quite easily be seen as protecting ministers' interests. Depending on the role of any such adviser, such an appointment might be seen as diminishing the democratic accountability of this institution and replacing members' elected authority with that of an appointee. That is another issue that needs to be carefully considered. Assuring integrity in such a way might come at a great price. Some members might say that it would be worth it, and I might agree with them, but if the appointment did not add significantly to the value of existing arrangements, the price would be high. Would the post offer value for money? What would the workload be, week in and week out? The Government is not in the business of expensive window dressing.

I thank members who made positive contributions to the debate, but it did not quite go in the direction that I had hoped, and the mud slinging has brought shame on this place.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

In every parliamentary democracy, there is a healthy tension between the Executive and Parliament. This morning's debate aims to prevent the relationship between this place and the current Administration from unnecessarily becoming more strained than it already is. Any incoming Government is entitled to try to fulfil its manifesto commitments, but it cannot ignore Parliament in its attempts to do so. A weak sense of responsibility to this place does not weaken the fact of such responsibility.

We expected today to hear—as we have heard—criticisms aimed at Labour and claims that we are taking a different view from the one we took when we were in office. That is simply not the case, no matter how much Murdo Fraser and Keith Brown might try to make it so. Mike Rumbles was correct—he is a good example of a member who, like others, raised issues over the ministerial code in the previous Administration. Such questions are more effective when they come from one's own back benches.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Will Michael McMahon tell me in what way the current code, as agreed by the former partnership Government, turned out as it did as a result of successful challenges by individuals?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

The code was changed and reviewed periodically.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

When was the last time?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

It was changed, which is the important aspect. Derek Brownlee was right when he said that the issue is as much about how the code is applied and tested as it is about what it contains—that was a very important point.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

There has been a change in the way that the code is operated. In the past, when ministers inadvertently made a statement to Parliament that was wrong, they were willing to come back and record that they had made an error. Over the past nine months, it has been clear that that is not happening. Does the member agree with me on that? Back benchers in Parliament are being misled by ministers on a weekly basis.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

There is much accuracy in what my colleague says. We are asking Parliament to strive continually for the highest standards of accountability. Democracy is dynamic, and we make no apologies for asking the new Administration to do what was expected of us when we were in Government—that is, to look at the Scottish ministerial code and seek ways in which to improve it.

In response to the questions that have been raised in the debate, I recall at least one occasion on which the First Minister at the time asked a Labour minister to come back to Parliament to apologise for misleading Parliament—in a matter of a culinary nature—without any intervention from Parliament itself.

Rather than accusing us of having double standards, the SNP should accept that changes in the Administration mean that the relationship between the Executive and the Parliament must be considered anew. Murdo Fraser was right to make that point.

The convention of ministerial responsibility predates the modern party system. As democracy and society have developed in Britain, so too has the requirement continually to enhance ministerial accountability. We believe that the convention of ministerial responsibility is a mechanism through which the Parliament can control ministers. Responsibility must focus on the minister, with a clear line of accountability to the Parliament. In today's debate, we seek to ensure that we in the Parliament adhere to that ideal. As Jackie Baillie said, if the SNP wants to be seen as a modern and progressive party—not that it is—that should be its perspective.

Counter to that ideal is another historical perspective that favours executive control. Its main proponent was Sir Robert Peel, who wanted ministers to be supported by a loyal party that tried to prevent Parliament from interfering in the workings of Government. In that context, the executive inverts ministerial responsibility and seeks to diminish the role of the Parliament. Based on the arguments that we heard this morning, it could easily be said that that is the attitude that the SNP Government and its slavishly devoted back benchers have adopted. I give Joe FitzPatrick and Keith Brown as perfect examples. In particular, Joe FitzPatrick did his impersonation of a political lava lamp—he used an awful lot of energy but did not shed much light on anything.

We have to accept that, as society evolves, new challenges and responsibilities are placed at the doors of ministers. However, one thing remains constant. Parliament matters, and in the balance of power between the Executive and the Parliament, the Parliament must remain the primary institution.

Errors are inevitable in Government, and George Foulkes and Hugh Henry quite eloquently pointed out where errors have been made. The mark of a good Government is not simply to be found in how it overcomes the problems that errors create; the real test is whether it acknowledges and takes responsibility for them. Good government is certainly not to be found in refusing to recognise them, as the First Minister has done again and again.

The First Minister is the guardian of the Scottish ministerial code, by which ministerial responsibility is tested. We in the Labour Party believe that the record so far shows that Alex Salmond cannot be trusted to apply the code. As a result, we must re-establish the authority of Parliament over ministers. If, as we suspect, the Government regards itself as the primary institution in the political framework in Scotland, ministers are deluding themselves, and they must and will be held to account by the Parliament.

It is clear that the First Minister, in his actions, is not applying the code effectively. Surely he would prefer transparency over ambiguity and accountability over accusation. We merely ask him what he has to fear from giving us the results of the review that he told us he was going to have. Bruce Crawford said that the First Minister is bomb-proof. I conclude by asking him to come out of the bunker and face independent oversight. That is what our motion calls for.

Protecting Scotland's Children

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1432, in the name of Paul Martin, on protecting Scotland's children.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

In speaking to the motion on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party, I will refer to three main themes.

On 15 December 2006, the Justice 2 Sub-Committee published 33 recommendations. They were reached after a comprehensive assessment of the arrangements that were in place for managing sex offenders before that date. Many of us welcomed the input from and commitment of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, who was involved in the sub-committee; our Labour member, Jackie Baillie; and others, including the Presiding Officer, Alex Fergusson.

We are disappointed that some 14 months later, 17 of the 33 recommendations are outstanding. I ask the cabinet secretary to take this as a constructive point: the Government needs to be clear about which issues are outstanding, what resources will be provided and when we can expect to hear about further progress.

There is consensus on many of the issues that surround the management of registered sex offenders. We have had many debates in the chamber on the matter. However, the Government needs to be reminded that the recommendations of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee are our priority. They are of paramount importance to the safety of our communities and our children throughout Scotland.

All too often, we react to tragic events and we console and empathise with families who have suffered the loss of loved ones. We on the Labour benches call on the Parliament to ensure that we have at least taken the issue forward and created opportunities to minimise the risk that many of our communities face. I have made the point in the chamber several times that when we refer to registered sex offenders, we refer to a minority of people in our communities. In our communities, adults and children interact in a positive and constructive manner. It is important to recognise that the motion refers to a minority.

A key aspect of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee's recommendations is the need to place greater responsibility on the authorities that manage registered sex offenders, be they housing authorities, prison authorities, social services authorities or local government authorities. They all have a responsibility to deliver on the management of registered sex offenders.

The Parliament's role is to show leadership and direction by legislating to improve the current arrangements and by providing policy direction. However, we need to ensure that the authorities play their part. We on the Labour benches—and I think we should all be united—want to inject some sheer doggedness and ensure that the authorities deliver on the recommendations and the other policy objectives on the issue.

Our motion also mentions the importance of retaining DNA samples in both the detection and prevention of crimes of a sexual nature. The cabinet secretary has often acknowledged that, in developing policy, it is important to listen to our police authorities throughout Scotland. I say to him that the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and almost every police authority support the retention of DNA samples and the position in England and Wales. I challenge him to acknowledge and accept that and take it forward.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

In a moment.

Our manifesto made it clear that we support the position in England and Wales. We should retain the DNA and fingerprints of all crime suspects to help to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent. Whether or not members agree with them, we have made proposals that we believe will make our communities safer. I ask the Scottish National Party to do likewise. We are willing to take tough and controversial decisions rather than simply sit on the sidelines. I am less than clear about the SNP's position. It claims to want a debate on the matter, but it has given the inquiry that it launched a narrow remit. If the SNP wants to have a genuine debate, we are happy to participate in one.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I do not think that anybody here does not agree with the proposal to retain DNA samples of criminals, particularly sex offenders—we are united on that front. However, I think that the retention of DNA samples of innocent people is a step too far.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

There have been many well-publicised and tragic cases in England, and I will make the figures clear to Gil Paterson. The DNA database has produced matches that have allowed us to prosecute 452 homicides, 644 rapes, 222 other sex offences and 18 other violent offences. All those prosecutions came about as a result of the law in England and Wales. For me, that is sufficient evidence that we should do likewise in Scotland.

Many members will want to debate the proposal for a compulsory DNA database. The Scottish Labour Party is not entirely persuaded by the argument for a compulsory database. We believe that much more evidence would be required before such a database could be set up. If I were asked whether I saw it as my civic duty to provide a DNA sample—as many others have done in past cases—I would say yes and I would do so. Nevertheless, I recognise that some serious arguments would have to be made in favour of the proposal.

Four community disclosure pilot schemes have been launched in England and Wales. Last week, I asked the First Minister to produce similar proposals and to accept that we should at least consider best practice in England and Wales. There is evidence to suggest that such pilot schemes should be introduced in Scotland.

I have met Margaret Ann Cummings, who tragically lost her son as a result of the actions of a sex offender, Stuart Leggate. I want to look Margaret Ann Cummings in the eye after we implement the sub-committee's 33 recommendations and tell her that I—along with the Scottish Labour Party and, I hope, other parties—did everything possible to minimise the risk to children and adults from registered sex offenders in Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the importance of making further progress on the 33 recommendations published by the Justice 2 Sub-committee on 15 December 2006 in connection with the management of registered sex offenders; believes that ensuring public safety is paramount in the management of registered sex offenders; further recognises the crucial role that the retention of DNA samples and fingerprints of all crime suspects has played in England and Wales in detecting sex offenders; acknowledges the value of the pilot schemes in England and Wales that will allow parents to ask police authorities whether a named individual such as a carer or a new partner has previously been placed on the sex offenders register, and calls on the Scottish Government to bring a statement to the Parliament on the implementation of the Justice 2 Sub-committee's report J2SC/S2/06/R1.

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

I thank Mr Martin for the manner in which he has presented his comments. Clearly, they pertain to matters on which we are unified in the chamber, as the protection of our children is paramount to any civilised society. There are, doubtless, matters on which we disagree; nevertheless, I welcome the fact that more unites us than divides us on the issue. We should focus on that, and I welcome the opportunity to restate the Government's commitment to public protection and tackling those who present a danger to our children.

Last June, Parliament debated the Government's approach to the protection of the public from sex offending, and there was clear consensus in the chamber around the robust approach that we set out at that time. As members know, sex offending is one of the most difficult and sensitive issues that Governments anywhere must tackle. Paul Martin referred to the work of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee, and I can confirm that I will write shortly to the convener of the Justice Committee to report on the substantial progress that has been made. Our current assessment is that a significant number of the 33 recommendations have either been delivered in full or are very near to being implemented. Mr Martin and the rest of the chamber can be assured that we are committed to full delivery.

We are benefiting greatly from the sub-committee's in-depth research and the wide-ranging discussions that it had with all parts of the criminal justice system and beyond—it took evidence from other jurisdictions—which informed its final report. The recommendations are far reaching and can be closely linked to earlier reviews such as the reports by Lady Cosgrove, Lord MacLean and Professor Irving. Taken together, they have enabled us to develop a comprehensive sex offender strategy that is unique to Scotland.

However, we are not complacent. Society changes and the way in which people who are sexual predators operate also varies; therefore, the Scottish Government is determined to build on that strong foundation and to react swiftly if circumstances change. For example, we will further tighten the sex offenders register to require more household and social data to be collected from registered sex offenders, including e-mail addresses—because of the world in which we live—and whether they live in the same household as a child.

We are implementing the sub-committee's recommendation on a public information strategy, which will include information on disclosure and set out the measures that are in place to keep our communities safe from sex offenders. We have made it clear that those who seek to shirk their responsibilities as registered sex offenders will not be allowed to hide themselves with impunity, but will be sought, exposed and detained if need be.

Paul Martin has raised the issue of community disclosure today and previously. Community disclosure was carefully considered by all the expert groups that have helped to build the robust public protection framework that we now have in place. Indeed, Jackie Baillie, who was the convener of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee, will be well aware that the committee welcomed the approach that we and ACPOS are now taking—namely, the development of a robust system of warnings to be used by the police when sex offenders fail to comply with their notification requirements or with the reasonable directions of the police or other supervising authorities in relation to their behaviour or activities. The new warning system has been developed with the police and forms part of a comprehensive standard operating procedures manual that was approved by ACPOS on 20 April 2007. That both strengthens protection for the public and places the onus—correctly—on sex offenders to abide by the law and any police warnings about their activities or to face losing their anonymity.

I note Paul Martin's support for the community disclosure pilot schemes that the Home Office will progress in four English police areas. We will follow with interest the results of those pilot schemes and their subsequent evaluations. We are particularly interested in the impact of the pilot schemes on offenders' compliance with their notification requirements and, to be fair, any incidences of vigilantism. It is vital that the arrangements mesh with other elements of the management of sex offenders and

"balance 'the very real fear of parents and the wider communities for their children' against concerns that have been raised, including the possibility that such a move could drive dangerous offenders underground."

So said Cathy Jamieson, my predecessor, in November 2006.

The implementation of the pilot schemes will be challenging. To ensure that every issue is fully explored, the Home Office has established a steering group, chaired by Vernon Coaker, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Crime Reduction, to assist with the setting up, running and evaluation of the pilot schemes. Scottish Government officials are part of the steering group and are keeping me in close touch with developments.

While that work is on-going, it is important that there is no suggestion that the Scottish approach to public protection is in any way less robust. We are committed to implementing the Justice 2 Sub-Committee's recommendations. We also have in place the strengthened multi-agency public protection arrangements, which were introduced in September 2006 and have been operating in all areas of Scotland since April 2007. The First Minister has made it clear that we will monitor closely how the new, strengthened Scottish system beds in and that we will always look to address any gaps that become apparent.

Paul Martin referred to the retention of DNA samples. In the detection and prosecution of child sex offenders, forensic material can provide an important tool. Advances in forensic science, particularly in DNA analysis, are enabling it to make an ever-more powerful contribution. We expect the Scottish Police Services Authority, as the core provider of forensic services for our police forces, to continue to provide quick and accurate analysis of samples that are taken from victims and crime scenes and to identify whether they match the profiles of known individuals who are on the database.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the cabinet secretary address the point about the retention of DNA samples? As he is aware, I have supported that measure. I listened to him on the wireless earlier this week, responding to a request from people in the football sector to allow the sale of alcohol at football grounds. He said, rightly, that he would listen to the advice of senior police officers. Why does he not take the advice of senior police officers with regard to DNA sample retention?

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

I listen to a lot of people, and I will shortly say who I am listening to. I regularly meet senior police officers, and we believe that we have to strike a balance. I am struck by the comment that, in Scotland, we currently have "a sensible balance"—that comment came not from chief police officers, but from Cathy Jamieson, my predecessor and the deputy leader of the Scottish Labour Party. She believed that in January 2007 and I believe that now. That is the balance that the Government has struck.

We do not believe that it would be right to copy the regime that is now in place in England. As a matter of principle, we do not believe that a person's DNA should be retained indefinitely by the police if they have never been convicted of an offence, unless there is a good reason. That is not just our view; it is also the view of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Having said that, the Scottish Government is keen to see what more can be done. I have met Paul Martin and Margaret Curran, and we have sought a review through Professor Fraser. We will be happy to look at Professor Fraser's recommendations, because we have to get the balance right.

I hope that all I have said is helpful and that it reassures Parliament that the Scottish Government remains committed to protecting our children from sex offenders.

I move amendment S3M-1432.1, to leave out from "the crucial role" to end and insert:

"that appropriate utilisation of DNA samples and fingerprints can play an important role in identifying offenders but that it is vital to strike the right balance between prosecuting criminals and protecting the innocent and notes the review that the Scottish Government has commissioned from Professor James Fraser; recognises the extensive powers already available to the police in monitoring sex offenders and ensuring public safety, and notes the Scottish Government's liaison with the Home Office as disclosure pilots progress in four English police areas and the Scottish Government's proposal to monitor the outcomes of these pilots to determine what lessons there might be for Scotland, and welcomes the Scottish Government's proposal to write to the Convener of the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee to report progress on each of the 33 recommendations made by the Justice 2 Sub-committee report J2SC/S2/06/R1."

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I remind back benchers that their speeches will be five minutes long and not six.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

As has been said this morning, not a lot separates the parties in such an important debate. To state the obvious, every one of us finds this sort of offence abhorrent and repellent. We have to move on from there to consider the nature of the offender.

Sex offenders, particularly those who prey on children, are devious, cunning and predatory. We know that. We also know that they have the capacity to reoffend. Indeed, the nature of some of the crimes is such that the offenders should not present a problem in our society for the simple reason that they should not and, in many cases, cannot, be released. However, we must recognise that many sex offenders are released into the community, and it is our clear duty to minimise the risks.

I listened carefully to Paul Martin, who has shown great interest in this issue; given the tragic case in his constituency, that is understandable. I pay tribute to his work in the area, and I agree with much of what he said.

First, we must look at the way in which sex offenders are monitored and we must ensure that the various agencies that get involved with such prisoners on their release—housing, social work, the police and so on—take a much more joined-up approach. I have yet to be convinced that we have got that right; more work should be done on that.

Secondly, we must ensure that the existing sex offenders registration legislation works. Last year, there was a case—I cannot name it, because of outstanding matters—in which the legislation clearly did not work. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government, following discussion, moved in the right direction by naming and shaming those who had disappeared from the registration system so that those who might be living near them would be able to identify them by means of a website and report them to the appropriate authorities. That is progress.

However, we should use some of the technology with which we are all familiar to a greater extent than we do. Global positioning system tracking and lie detector equipment should be used when such people have disappeared. If they go off the radar for a while, we want to know where they have been and what they have been doing. I know that the Home Office has carried out some projects and tests in that area; we await the results and hope to see them in early course. If such technology is successful, we should not hesitate to implement it.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Bill Aitken and I are alike in the sense that neither of us is particularly well acquainted with technology, so I will speak carefully. Does he accept that satellite tracking appears to have some limits and that the systems that are in place at the moment would probably not be able to cope to the extent that he might like?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The technophobe in me recognises that there are difficulties, but things move on. We should wait and see the results of improved technology. I accept that there are difficulties, but we ought to wait and see how things pan out in the longer term.

One of Mr Martin's other proposals relates to the use and retention of DNA samples, about which I have serious reservations. One side might argue that any method that will enable people to be caught and dealt with is a good thing. The other side is the privacy issue. Although I am open to listening to the arguments, I cannot be convinced that the loss of privacy and all the dangers that that would entail could result in the greater benefit.

Implementation of the so-called Megan's law and Sarah's law would cause another difficulty. Again, I understand the arguments, but I cannot accept that such legislation would not present a real danger that sex offenders would go underground. That is why I lodged my amendment.

I move amendment S3M-1432.1.2, to insert after "Scotland":

"believes that the monitoring of sex offenders could be made more effective by means of satellite tracking and the use of lie detector tests where an offender has breached the terms of their registration requirement and has effectively been out of contact for a period".

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

It is not yet a year since we last debated this emotive issue in the chamber. However, as disturbing figures that were released during the past few days detailing widespread rises in sex-related offences in Scotland have shown, we are clearly not making the required progress in tackling the issue. More can be done to protect the public, particularly children and vulnerable others, from sexual exploitation and sexually predatory behaviour. That was acknowledged, at least partially, by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in The Scotsman earlier this week.

As the Labour motion points out, in December 2006 the Justice 2 Sub-Committee made 33 recommendations for the management of convicted sex offenders. Those guidelines are thorough and persuasive, and they represent an excellent starting point for any future bill. The recommendations address the frailties in the supervision process for registered sex offenders by advocating a formal warning system to trigger increased supervision and control of an offender should they behave inappropriately, as well as placing stricter legal conditions on offenders in the community. Another highlight was the recommendation that more resources should be made available for the development and delivery of intervention programmes to reduce the potential risk that sex offenders pose. I would welcome any statement from the Government on the implementation of those recommendations.

Several other measures deserve due consideration. I will examine the circles of accountability scheme in more detail later, but for the moment I will focus on current deficiencies in the law. The police have no power to apply for the extension of a period of registration for a sex offender, so as the law stands, an offender could still be considered a risk but might no longer be monitored by the authorities. That must be addressed. Likewise, if warning and intervention schemes are to be successful, far swifter procedures for the securing of police warrants must be implemented. However, any such reforms must be tempered by due consideration for civil liberties. It would be a great yet terrible irony if, in attempting to protect the people of Scotland by law, the legislature effectively criminalised innocent members of the community. The key, as ever, is balance.

Some in the chamber might want to see the introduction of the so-called Megan's law, to which Bill Aitken referred. The concept of Megan's law is a step too far. The indiscriminate public naming of offenders could drive them underground and open the door to possible vigilante action. That is not to mention the problematic relationship that any such legislation would have in encountering the current law. Important questions would have to be asked about the risks of double jeopardy, because if offenders were named they would, in effect, be punished twice for the same crime.

I urge caution over the issue of DNA retention. Any proposal for the indiscriminate retention of the DNA of all criminal suspects is a step too far. If someone commits a criminal offence, it is right that they should be punished thoroughly and, depending on the nature of the crime, supervised to ensure that they do not reoffend. However, it is ridiculous to propose that the innocent, or someone who has been only accused of or implicated in a crime, should be supervised to the same extent, as would happen under Labour's proposals for DNA retention. The individual's rights against the state form one of the core principles on which Scottish society is built and the Parliament cannot allow them to be compromised.

I have spoken in the Parliament previously about the circles of support programme, which was first developed in Canada and which would address some of Bill Aitken's concerns about sex offenders. A circle of support—sometimes called a circle of friends—is a group of people who meet regularly to help somebody to encompass their personal goals in life. Members of the circle, who are usually unpaid, might include family members, friends and other community members. A properly facilitated circle is empowering to all the individuals involved and, unlike many service systems, does not reinforce dependency. Circles of support and accountability work with sex offenders to attempt to help them to avoid further offending.

As I have said, the idea began in Canada in 1994. In the United Kingdom, it has been championed by the Quaker community and its crime and community justice committee. Last year it was highlighted by the Justice 2 Sub-Committee, which was set up to investigate and report on the issues surrounding sex offending, including circles of support. The scheme has been on-going in Hampshire and Thames valley for the past four years. In the first three years—2002 to 2005—the Thames valley group worked with 20 high-risk sex offenders. So far, expected rates of recidivism among that group of offenders have been reduced; only three men, none of whom had committed a further sexual offence, were recalled. That figure is similar to those of the Canadian circles, evaluated over a 10-year period. Does the cabinet secretary have any new information on circles of support? Is the Government willing to have a trial of the scheme in Scotland?

This is an important debate. I am glad that the Labour Party has given us a second opportunity to discuss the issue. We will support the SNP amendment, as well as our amendment in the name of Margaret Smith.

I move amendment S3M-1432.1.1, to insert after "Professor James Fraser;":

"; rejects the blanket retention of DNA samples and fingerprints;".

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I am grateful to have the chance to contribute to this important debate. Sex offences are sickening and horrific crimes. First and foremost, those who are convicted of such serious crimes deserve punishment in prison for a very long time. Over the past few years, there has been much more recognition than ever before of the fact that dangerous sex offenders need supervision beyond the sentences that they serve following their criminal wrongdoing, after they have been found out and convicted of sex offences.

We have done much that is aimed at focusing supervision to reduce the serious potential harm that such individuals can cause later in their lives, as after their conviction they may go on to commit further offences. Under Labour, Scotland had a raft of new police powers, more stringent conditions for offenders and further investment to enable the police to share intelligence on sexual and violent offenders throughout the UK. A formal police warning system for sex offenders was introduced.

I will focus on the use of 21st century technology. I disagree with both Gil Paterson and the amendment in Margaret Smith's name on the issue of DNA retention. The use of forensic DNA to solve crimes is proving to be revolutionary for law enforcement. Forensic DNA work is an extraordinary tool for investigators, because it presents a myriad of possibilities in the investigation of cases. It works in a way that helps to convict the guilty and to exonerate the innocent. It can link the same suspect to multiple crime scenes or rule him out. It can help police to determine whether one or more suspects were involved in a crime. It can be used to solve very old cases and can be stored and consulted in a way that permits the rapid linking of cases and identification of suspects. At national level, random checks can lead to so-called cold hits, linking a person to a crime when he was not even under investigation.

It is no wonder that more and more police forces are using DNA at national level to help them to solve crimes. More than 50 countries already maintain national DNA databases. The number will continue to increase, until one day all countries will use DNA as part of their standard operating procedure in the investigation of crimes. However, the Labour Party is sensitive to legitimate policy concerns about what kind of DNA information should be shared internationally, in what context and under what conditions. We are intensely interested in the court case that is currently taking place in Brussels.

Like Bill Aitken, I believe that new technology, especially for information sharing, is helping us. The ability to share information is important. Criminal justice agencies appreciate the significance of compiling and—even more important—sharing information about violent and sex offenders. The Bichard inquiry into the handling of Ian Huntley in the Soham murders case gave added impetus to the need for criminal justice agencies, especially the police, to be able to share information.

The media have helped the public to become aware of the threats to children. "Panorama", Channel 5 and the Daily Mirror have identified many examples that give every family in the land major cause for concern. A crime correspondent discovered an area of "Second Life" called Wonderland, in which child-like characters sold sex for Linden dollars, the currency that is used in the game. The name of the environment is a sick reference to the Wonderland gang, a notorious group of child abusers. There were virtual children of all ages, who were exposed to many sordid sexual acts. We need to keep a close eye on information technology, including the gaming side of it. I hope that the cabinet secretary will address that issue when he winds up.

I am interested in the Tory amendment. All MSPs have been lobbied by the charity Barnardo's, which is calling on the Government to use lie detector tests and satellite tracking to monitor sex offenders. We will observe developments in that area with interest.

Speaking in the House of Commons at the end of last year, my colleague Jimmy Hood raised a number of serious and interesting issues. He suggested that, if the controls for sex offenders in Scotland are not the same as those in the rest of the UK, Scotland could become a refuge and hiding place for sex offenders fleeing tougher controls in England and Wales. The last thing that we should do is make Scotland a soft option for paedophiles. I understand that Scotland plans to include violent and dangerous offenders in multi-agency public protection arrangements only in about 18 months' time. I hope that that is not the case and that the cabinet secretary will address the issue with real urgency. If paedophiles think that it is more likely that an eye will be kept on them in England than in Scotland, there may be some temptation for them to move north of the border, for all the wrong reasons.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to today's debate. My professional background is in social work. Although it has been some time since I was involved in an active case, I retain a strong interest in the area.

I have taken some time to consider the report that is mentioned in the motion and what the SNP Government has done so far. It is only fair that I make clear that the issues of DNA retention and fingerprinting that are referred to in the motion were not addressed in the Justice 2 Sub-Committee's report. The report made some reference to police officers' powers to require DNA samples and to the improved requirement for convicted persons to provide a DNA sample. I am sure that no member opposes the proper and appropriate use of those powers. However, we must be clear about the fact that the report contained no recommendations on the retention of DNA samples and no reference at all to fingerprinting. Nor should it have—such considerations were not within the sub-committee's remit.

I understand that Paul Martin has worked hard with the family of Mark Cummings and that he wants to see a result for his constituent. His concerns have been demonstrated clearly on a number of occasions, and I hope that he will take my comments constructively. In an emotive debate such as the wider one of which this parliamentary debate is part, it is important that the subject matter is observed carefully and that at least some attempt is made to engage with it dispassionately, although I understand that that is difficult.

On 7 June last year, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice indicated that he intended to build on the good work and recommendations of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee. As he pointed out at the time—he has done so again this morning—the problem lies with a small group of offenders. It is those offenders who should be targeted to improve the safety of children in Scotland.

I cannot agree that the maintenance of a database that includes many who are innocent would offer any protection to Scottish children. Four out of every five cases of sexual abuse of children that come to light occur within the family unit, with abuse perpetrated by either family members or family friends. Finding the appropriate means of protecting those children is rather more complicated than maintaining a database. The issue is more likely to fall on the shoulders of social work than on those of the police. Such protection cases slot into the child protection system and should focus on what is best for the children concerned. It is important that the focus should be on child protection.

For all Scotland's children, it is important that we seek to ensure that, so far as is possible, predatory individuals cannot prey upon them. However, as the cabinet secretary said and as Cathy Jamieson rightly pointed out when she was Minister for Justice, there is a balance to be struck. We must ensure child protection, but also maintain its reasonableness in the eyes of the people of Scotland.

In addition, we must take into consideration the fact that events elsewhere may overtake our debate. Yesterday, the civil liberties point that is at stake in this debate was tested in the European Court of Human Rights. Two gentlemen from Sheffield challenged the right of the state to hold their fingerprints and DNA after they had been acquitted, in one case, and their case discontinued, in the other. They contend that, as people without convictions who are no longer suspected criminals, they should be treated in exactly the same way as the rest of the population. The judgment in the case of S and Michael Marper v the United Kingdom may make this a moot debate.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Will the member give way?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am about to finish.

I urge Paul Martin and the rest of the Labour Party to come back on board the cross-party consensus on sex crimes and to work with the Government to deliver a safer Scotland. I appreciate that much has been done since 1999. Much remains to be done, but Scotland will be better served if we take forward the issue on a consensual and cross-party basis. I would like to think that we can find an appropriate and effective way of ensuring the protection of Scotland's children, without losing the support of the people of this country.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Sex offences against children are among the worst crimes in our society. There is agreement in Parliament that we must do all that we can do to prevent such crimes in a reasonable and measured way.

At the same time, we must avoid feeding the fears of parents. We must recognise that, thankfully, sex offences against children are rare, although the new technologies that Helen Eadie mentioned present us with new challenges. Equally, we must remember that 80 per cent of reported sex crimes against children are perpetrated by friends and family members. Stranger danger exists, but by no means is it the source of the majority of such crimes against children. We need to keep in perspective where the risk to children lies and do what we can to reduce that risk. In focusing on sex offenders in the community, we must not forget the violence and abuse that are experienced by some children in the home.

The previous Scottish Executive took many steps forward in protection of children. The Justice 2 Sub-Committee report came at an opportune time for reviewing progress and looking to the future. Of the report's 33 recommendations, we know that 16 have been implemented and that the Scottish Government is working to implement the remainder. I share the concerns that Paul Martin mentioned in his opening speech, but I welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement—which I believe is prompted by today's debate—that the Government will report to the Justice Committee. I am confident that the cabinet secretary will not only provide information on what recommendations have been implemented, but will detail what plans exist for taking forward the remaining recommendations.

Over the past 10 years or so, we have had a series of changes to the legislative framework to protect children from sex offenders. We all recognise that it is impossible to reduce the risk of such offending to zero but, while acknowledging the significant progress that has been made on issues such as information sharing, the sub-committee's report also identified weaknesses in the system. I seek an assurance that we will continue to address those issues, particularly those on which we could provide greater reassurance to parents.

It is crucial that the approaches that are taken to management of sex offenders, including notification arrangements, are co-ordinated across United Kingdom jurisdictions. The ability to move around the UK is exploited by sex offenders, in particular by those who have not been identified and are not on the register but are committing offences. There can be no weak links in the protection systems that we have in the UK. It would be helpful to consider whether we can learn from the decisions that have been taken in England and Wales to improve management of sex offenders.

The media's focus in the debate has been on DNA retention. DNA can help to identify offenders quickly and, crucially, it can help to identify those who are guilty of offences before they go on to reoffend in what might be a more serious manner. We know that many of the sex offenders who have perpetrated some of the most serious crimes in the UK exhibited earlier behaviour that could have been used as a pointer to their future crimes. DNA retention is a huge breakthrough that we must utilise as far as possible. Clearly, we must do that without violating rights to privacy and without discriminating against particular sections of society. On collection of DNA, I know that there are arguments in both directions, but I believe that it is our duty to reflect on whether, in the light of the DNA collection regime in England and Wales, we have the best system in Scotland for meeting the challenges that we face.

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

Is the member aware that 40 per cent of young black men south of the border are on the DNA register? Given what she has said, does that give her cause for concern?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am aware of those figures. As I said, we need to be careful. We need to analyse the figures. If particular sections of society are being targeted, we must take that into consideration. However, my argument is that Scotland should also reflect on the positive aspects of the system that is currently in operation in England and Wales. We need to consider whether we are on the right place in the spectrum in comparing where we are with the position in England and Wales.

A key issue for the public and parents—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

You have one minute.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will need to skip that bit, so I will move on.

Management of sex offenders in the community presents the issue of disclosure. The cabinet secretary has stated that he is willing to learn from the pilots in England and Wales which, in very limited cases, extend third-party disclosure to parents who request information about a partner's or carer's status on the sex offenders register. That may be a way of further managing the risks that some children face in their own homes when new members join the family unit—an issue that I mentioned at the start of my speech. The cabinet secretary seems to be keen to wait until the pilots finish—which I understand may not be for two or three years—before judging whether such a move would be appropriate for Scotland. There is an argument that we should try to learn from the pilots before then.

The recommendation on resources must be addressed. Monitoring of offenders should be intensive and sustained. There are strong arguments for the extension of agency involvement in terms of timescales. Parents and communities must be assured that the system is robust and rigorous and that Parliament will work with and support others to do everything possible to protect children.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Protection of children is a top priority for my party, as is evidenced by our willingness to work with other parties on the issue. However, we must not let that determination lead to policies and actions that are not firmly evidence based. Emotionally upsetting—indeed, revolting—though it may be to all right-thinking people to contemplate sexual advances towards innocent children, we owe it to those children and to children who may be at risk in the future to make the right decisions with a clear head as well as with an angry heart.

Although we like to think of the paedophilic sex offender as a stranger—the proverbial man in the dirty mac who hangs around children's playgrounds—the reality is very different. As Christina McKelvie and Claire Baker said, it is estimated that 80 per cent of known sex offences against children are committed by members of their own families or friends of their families. Indeed, although we tell children not to talk to strangers, the sad fact is that a stranger is far less likely to be a threat than is a father, uncle or brother or the neighbour who baby-sits. Paradoxically, we might be better to advise children to confide in strangers if we acknowledge what the statistics tell us. As Claire Baker said, domestic abuse rightly deserves more attention.

In considering the motion against that background, an imbalance immediately presents itself. If it is true, as it is, that the vast amount of sex abuse of children is perpetrated by people in their immediate circle of relatives and friends, the infringement of civil liberties that is involved in retaining DNA material from a wide range of individuals—most of whom have not the remotest connection with sex offences—would be grossly disproportionate. I point out that at least two members of Parliament have been suspected of a criminal offence in the recent past. Should their data therefore be included on a sex offenders database? That is why I cannot support the motion in the name of Paul Martin.

Is my attitude open to the charge that I am being soft on sex offenders? Definitely not. Of course we must retain the DNA of convicted sex offenders for a long time—perhaps for ever.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

On infringement of civil liberties, does the member accept that the law lords ruling, on a four-to-one majority, acknowledged that no such infringement was involved?

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am afraid that I do not agree with every ruling of the law lords. In this country, far too many of our civil liberties have been taken away and we have not done enough to protest about that.

Special attention must be paid to known sex offenders whose behaviour causes concern. For example, if they are seen hanging around schools or swimming pools where children congregate, key organisations in the area could be warned about the nature of the concern. I support the key recommendations in Professor George Irving's report of 2005, such as giving the police powers to enter sex offenders' homes to monitor their activities, and extending the range of information that registered offenders are required to provide about themselves.

I also support the fact that Scotland's eight police forces introduced into their standing procedures last year a new warning system for sex offenders who enter their area. I welcome their new ability to track sex offenders online by publishing photographs of high-risk child sex offenders on the Crimestoppers most-wanted list.

There is even a case for introducing a version of Megan's law—a provision that was signed into US law by President Clinton in 1997—whereby we would require compulsory community notification of sex offenders who move to a new district. However, the evidence for the law's effectiveness is mixed. Further study is needed before such a radical measure is introduced here.

Some will say that any measure is worthwhile if it saves one child from abuse or even death. However, we could easily save thousands of children from injury and death if we gave up the motor car, but no one seriously suggests such a measure. Every decision in life is subject to proportionality; the motion in the name of Paul Martin would overstep the limit slightly. For that reason, I ask members to support the amendment in the name of Kenny MacAskill.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Nigel Don—two minutes only.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

My speech will have to be very short. I hope that what I say is entirely accurate, because I have no desire to mislead Parliament, bearing in mind what was said earlier.

I will consider briefly how DNA is tested and what that tells us, which is the important bit. We all recognise that it is something to do with biochemistry, and one does not have to be a technophobe to want to run away from that. As far as I can see, our DNA sequence is a very, very long number, 90-something per cent of which is exactly the same for us—because we are human—and for the apes, which share the same origins.

As I understand it, the test looks at five areas in that sequence where we know that the changes between us show up. The clever bit—the reason why the test works—is that it looks at those areas of the sequence where little bits of code repeat: in other words, where the same telephone number appears over and over. That is what enables DNA analysis to distinguish between people.

My understanding is that if one has a good sample A and a good sample B and one gets a match, the chance of sample B coming from another member of the population is about one in a thousand million. That is probably enough to distinguish most of us clearly and to provide convincing evidence. However, members will appreciate that if the sample is not complete, that statistic rapidly declines.

The fact that the person who is most likely to have the same DNA match as me is my brother causes a problem, given what we know about who sex offenders are most likely to be. If that person happens to be an identical twin, they should have the same DNA and if there is any incestuous tendency further back in the population, it is apparent that the possibility of identifying someone disappears. In other words, DNA has limited applicability, although it does provide a pointer.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We move to winding-up speeches.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

For the most part, the debate has been consensual and interesting. The management of sex offenders is a difficult and complex issue. As parents and as human beings, we have an overwhelming sense of horror at the depravity of paedophiles who prey on children. However, as Bill Aitken and Ian McKee said, as legislators, we must go beyond that and accept that a balance must be struck between the protection of children and the delivery of a system that deals with those offenders in a way that encourages them to address their behaviour, to work with agencies, to remain visible to the authorities and to respond, when possible, to rehabilitation efforts.

We must ensure that the processes that we have in place for registering, monitoring and housing sex offenders are as effective as possible. Many speakers, including Christina McKelvie and Claire Baker, rightly said that the majority of children who are subjected to sexual abuse suffer it at the hands of family members or other people they should be able to trust. We must never lose sight of the fact that it is in their own homes that children are most at risk. Although stranger danger cannot be ignored, it must be set in context. In an enthralling speech, in which even he found some of the subject matter challenging, Nigel Don hinted at some of the difficulties that arise when one relies on DNA evidence in cases involving family relationships.

That is one reason why I think, as many members who spoke do, that we must be wary of the Megan's law approach, which involves the wholesale naming and shaming of sex offenders. Such an approach runs the risk not only of driving offenders underground, where they are surely more, rather than less, likely to reoffend, but of lulling people into a false sense of security. Sadly, it is not the case that just because parents know where a few known paedophiles live, that will provide enough protection for their children.

Many members have rightly acknowledged the work that the present Government, the previous Executive and the Parliament have done in this important area: we have made a great deal of progress in the past few years. The cabinet secretary was right to say that we have built on the Cosgrove, MacLean and Irving reports. We have tightened the granting of bail for sex offenders and abolished automatic early release for sex offenders who are sentenced to between six months and four years in prison. We now allow chief constables to apply to the sheriff for a risk of sexual harm order to restrict the activities of people who are believed to pose a risk of causing sexual harm to children, even if they have not been convicted. We have also created an offence of grooming children.

It is right that we have spent a considerable amount of time supporting efforts to protect our children, and the Liberal Democrats remain ready to consider any further legislative or non-legislative changes that would help to provide greater protection for them. As Mike Pringle said, we suggested that the police should be given the power to extend a sex offender's registration period.

Such matters must be kept under constant review, but important measures such as the national accommodation strategy for sex offenders and the MAPPAs, which came into effect only last year, probably need time to bed in. It is essential that we constantly evaluate what is working and what is not working, and that the necessary resources are in place. We are not talking about a cheap option—protection of our children must be properly resourced.

The motion rightly refers to the 33 recommendations of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee's report on sex offenders, all but one of which were unanimous. We welcome the progress that has been made so far. The recommendations covered a large number of issues. I welcome the cabinet secretary's willingness to write to the Justice Committee to detail the progress that has been made but, as a member of that committee, I also hope that he will come before us to discuss the matter.

The motion refers to the pilot schemes in England and Wales that will allow parents to ask the police whether a named individual has previously been placed on the sex offenders register. We welcome liaison between the Scottish Government and Westminster on that issue and will be happy to examine the results of those schemes. Disparity in the approaches that are adopted in different parts of the UK is not necessarily a good thing because, as Claire Baker said, paedophiles will exploit it.

In line with Professor Irving's recommendation, we strengthened the operation of the notification scheme in Scotland. Decisions about disclosure are considered in relation to risk. The police have the power to notify a community if an offender absconds, and they make use of it. That power has an important deterrent effect because offenders knows that if they abscond, they will be named and shamed. It is worth comparing the number of sex offenders in Scotland who we know have gone underground with the equivalent figures for states in the United States in which a Megan's law operates.

My amendment deals with the retention of DNA, the arguments on which have been well rehearsed.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member must conclude.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The Omagh bombing case shows that DNA does not always provide the answer.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

All the speeches in the debate have made it abundantly clear that Parliament recognises that the first duty of any society is to protect its public, most especially its vulnerable groups, which include young children.

Sex offenders present a very real danger to children for the obvious reasons that many members have spelled out. The recent high-profile cases serve only to fuel the fear. When sex offenders are released from prison or from hospital and are, quite rightly, carefully monitored and supervised, that process must be as effective as possible in order to secure public trust in the system, and the safety of the community. If the public is to have that trust, it is crucial that, collectively, Parliament demonstrates the same strength in campaigning that Paul Martin has demonstrated.

As Helen Eadie and Bill Aitken made clear, we must not be afraid to embrace the technology that helps us to protect the most vulnerable groups in our communities, although we must pay heed to some of the constraints that Margaret Smith mentioned. All eight of Scotland's police forces are now able to publish photographs of high-risk child sex offenders on the internationally-recognised Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre's most-wanted website. Co-operation is crucial if we are to make progress. The formal contract, which involves agreement between the Crown Office, ACPOS, the CEOPC and Crimestoppers, makes it clear that, in certain situations, the photographs of certain offenders, including high-risk child sex offenders who have failed to comply with the requirements of the sex offenders register, can be published, once there has been careful consideration of the legal implications and, in particular, of the potential prejudice to any future criminal proceedings.

It is interesting that Labour has inserted into its motion reference to the retention of the DNA samples "of all crime suspects", even when those suspects might not have been charged or found guilty. That is interesting because of the appeal that is going through the European Court of Human Rights, which might mean that the UK Parliament will have to change the Police and Justice Act 2006, which in turn will mean the destruction of tens of thousands of DNA samples. The Conservatives are not comfortable with the idea of innocent people having their DNA held by the state.

We were concerned last year, when the Westminster Government was toying with the idea of introducing much wider powers of disclosure in relation to sex offenders, which would have amounted to the adoption of an American-style Megan's law. We are happier now that the plans seem to be more limited.

This month, the Home Office has announced plans for pilot schemes that will allow parents or guardians to check whether someone with whom they have a personal relationship has any previous convictions for child sex offences. However, we continue to harbour concerns about whether the introduction of the Sarah's law pilot projects might push sex offenders underground, thereby putting children more at risk instead of making them safer.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Whether the member is for or against disclosure, the point at issue is that the judicial process is a public one. When a sex offender is placed on the register, they are identified. The process is public, even prior to any disclosure.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I absolutely accept that, but safeguards have to be put in place to ensure public confidence in the system.

We believe that the names and photographs of sex offenders who have broken their registration requirements should be published when it is believed that doing so is in the best interests of public safety. We want technology to be used, particularly global positioning system tracking so that all those whom the court or Risk Management Authority deems to be a flight risk can be tracked. Once caught, the offender should be required to undergo mandatory polygraph testing and the extended use of GPS tracking should then track and monitor their movements.

The Conservatives welcome the U-turn on the idea of a United States style Megan's law. We also welcome the Government's commitment to allow Parliament to examine in great detail the new proposals. We need to ensure that answers are given to the serious questions in respect of how to put in place the necessary safeguards. On this issue, public confidence is absolutely paramount. We support the motion.

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

The debate has been useful. It has shown that there is more that unites than divides us. Obviously, there are clear areas on which there is no agreement. The Government is happy to review points that were raised by members such as were made by Claire Baker and Margaret Smith, including the request for me to go before the Justice Committee. I am happy to do that, if the convener wants me to do so. The subject of the debate is one that we constantly monitor because it is an area that changes both in terms of technology and circumstances, so we have to adapt.

The Government comes to the issue from the perspective of proportionality. Ian McKee mentioned that, as did Claire Baker and Christina McKelvie. In our society, we have to get the balance right. If we go too far one way, we run the risk of imploding the relationship between adults and youngsters in good organisations such as the Boys Brigade and of people fearing that any interaction with children could result in their possible classification as a paedophile. We have to make it clear that that is not where we wish to go as a society.

Equally, we have to recognise that, although—as Margaret Smith pointed out—there is stranger danger, the tragic fact is that a child is still more likely to be molested by their ma's boyfriend than by anyone else. We have to be constant and vigilant, without disturbing the relationships that are good and beneficial to the child and society. The issue is one of proportionality and of keeping matters under review.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary spoke of the risk that is posed by new family members. Will he look at the earliest possibility at the England and Wales pilot, in which people can ask the question whether someone with whom they are involved is, or has been, on the sex offenders register?

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

The whole purpose of a pilot is that it is a pilot. There is a pilot scheme in England and Wales—we should wait and see how it works out. Before the UK Government decides whether to roll out the pilot, it will have to see whether it works out. Our position is that we will examine whether the pilot works out and whether the measure would be appropriate and proportionate. I undertake to look at the pilot, but I do not confirm that we will introduce the measure in Scotland. We believe that matters should be dealt with in that way.

I turn to Helen Eadie's contribution. The Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency has expanded its e-crime unit in order to pursue a greater number of web-based paedophile cases. Mike Pringle raised the issue of circles of support. The Scottish Government has commissioned the Scottish centre for crime and justice research to prepare a report on such circles of support. We expect to receive the report in April.

I turn to technology, which Elizabeth Smith and Bill Aitken spoke about. We recognise that there is a role for technology—although, like the Justice Committee convener, I am not noted for my technical abilities—but Government also recognises the restrictions on technology. Clearly, home detention curfew is a good measure. Using electronic monitoring, it allows us to track people, but there are limits to what the technology allows. Recently, I heard on a radio report that Network Rail has reported a significant increase in disruption on railway lines because greater numbers of people are using GPS. People buy a TomTom or other system for their car, and get the benefits of using it, but they can also end up on railway lines because the system cannot tell the difference between road and rail.

Although GPS can be used to tell us where someone is, it cannot in every instance tell us where they are going or what they are doing. Although we cannot support the Conservative amendment, I give this undertaking: we recognise the benefits of technology and we will consider and analyse them.

I turn to DNA. Our view is that we cannot support blanket retention of DNA, so for that reason we will support the Liberal Democrat amendment. Our policing culture in Scotland rests on consent. People must support the police and consent to what they ask them to do. Anything that we do that would make people afraid of or wary of the police, or of state intrusion, would be counterproductive.

Some time ago, a dreadful rape occurred not far from where I stay. The police asked people who lived in the locality to come forward and give their DNA in order to expedite matters and allow them to pursue their investigation. People did so. They came forward not only because it would help the police to catch the perpetrator, but because giving a DNA sample would not impinge on them, as there was no risk of the sample's being used again at a future date.

People say that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Of course, if we are talking about criminal convictions, good people have nothing to fear. However, we also need to be clear that, for a variety of reasons, people do not want the state to know what they are doing—often, they do not wish the boss or the wife to know. I am always minded by the country and western song, "Long Black Veil", by Lefty Frizzell:

"The judge said son, what is your alibi If you were somewhere else, then you won't have to die I spoke not a word, though it meant my life For I'd been in the arms of my best friend's wife"

There are instances of sexual indiscretions, homosexual dalliances—

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

rose—

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

I am sorry, but I think that I am in my last minute.

There are instances when people are at the pub and not at work and they do not want the boss to know. People may simply want to protect their privacy.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

One minute.

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

We have to ensure that we have the information on people who are dangerous, those who have committed offences, and those who we believe present a risk. That is why we are commissioning Professor Fraser's review. Clearly, if a person has a propensity to commit sexual or violent offences at 14, there is clear reason to believe that that propensity will remain at 34, 64 or 84. The review is therefore appropriate. That said, people who have committed no offence—those who have not been convicted of any offence other than doing something they do not want others to find out about—should run no risk of the state intruding unnecessarily into their lives.

I return to the point that Claire Baker made and accepted, which is that there should be proportionality. There is clear concern south of the border about the fact that 40 per cent of young black men are on the register. We cannot afford to further divide our society. As I said, someone may have a reason to hang their head in shame, perhaps because they were in the arms of their best friend's wife or in the pub and not at work, but such matters are not criminal offences, nor are they responsibility of the state. People themselves should account for them.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I call Pauline McNeill to wind up the debate. She should sit down at 11.40.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

There is no higher duty than to protect children from harm. We need the right systems, practices, laws and attitudes to deal with the sex offenders and dangerous and violent criminals who put our children and communities at risk. Since 1997, at Westminster and at Holyrood, Labour has reformed, renewed and tightened the law to protect children. It has placed a focus on dealing with sex offenders and violent offenders. A key element of that reform was learning from the past.

In good speeches, Christina McKelvie and Claire Baker pointed to the nature and profile of sex offenders. We should not forget that profile.

The multi-agency public protection arrangements are a key weapon in the fight to protect communities. Their remit will be broadened beyond dealing with sex offenders to include dealing with violent offenders and restricted patients, but the essence of MAPPA is having a much more sophisticated risk assessment information-sharing trigger point that determines the information that should be released in a measured way to protect communities from harm.

The statutory duties that are now in place for the police, health workers and social workers enable them to use information to act in a measured way. That changes our approach to dealing with sex offenders, and rightly so. The Tory amendment raises interesting points about the use of lie detectors and electronic monitoring that should not be dismissed.

The former Justice 2 Committee's excellent report was produced by a committee on which Paul Martin and Kenny MacAskill sat. In some ways, it is a definitive report in terms of the work that the Parliament has undertaken. That is why the Labour Party choose the subject for debate today. We are pleased that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has said that he will act on all the report's recommendations.

The SNP Government is in the driving seat and it needs to reflect on some of the key issues that we have raised. The tone of the cabinet secretary's comments on the role of the DNA database will not help if he thinks that the comparison of someone being in the arms of their best friend's wife relates to the debate that we want to have. Not once has the cabinet secretary challenged the figures that Paul Martin presented to him on the real point of the debate—the clear-up rate. We have presented real information about the clear-up rate from retaining DNA.

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

Is the member aware that many of the crimes that have been referred to could have been cleared up by other methods? The suggestion that DNA retention is all-singing, all-dancing is not true; other policing methods could have achieved the results. In some instances, using DNA is beneficial, and that is appropriate, but it is untrue to say that it has had all the results that have been described.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

That is interesting. You had seven minutes to challenge the figures—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order. I ask the member to depersonalise her remarks.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The cabinet secretary had seven minutes to challenge the figures that we presented. The police would disagree with what he said, because the clear-up rates for serious and violent crime are hard statistics that provide compelling evidence to prompt any Government at least to consider the role of retaining DNA.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Will the member give way?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I will return to the subject, if the member wants to intervene later.

The Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 is important because it criminalised those who seek to groom children and because it tries to prevent crime. The Parliament did good work in passing that act.

How far we should go on third-party notification of a sex offender's presence in an area is an important question for the Parliament. I would like the cabinet secretary to respond a bit more forcefully to the four pilots in England and Wales, because they will produce seriously important information for whether we should adopt something. I would like the cabinet secretary to show a stronger interest in those pilots.

Every parent rightly wants to know exactly what the dangers are for their child. Parents will demand information about people who live and work in their communities and who could pose a danger to their children. Mike Pringle talked about circles of accountability, but knowing where sex offenders are is an important aspect of the strategy because a missing sex offender is a risk.

If we are the guardians of the information that will be provided about offenders and we restrict to whom and when that information will be provided, we must win the trust of communities that those who are entrusted with that knowledge and information on the state's behalf will act in the place of a concerned parent or individual in a measured way. Balancing public and child safety with the safety of keeping information is the key to determining how far we should go on third-party notification.

The law lords have ruled that retaining DNA to help the fight against violent crime is a proportionate aspect of our system. This week, the Prime Minister highlighted that retaining DNA on our database was critical to producing a result in the Wright case. For the record, 452 homicides, 644 rapes and 1,800 violent crimes have been solved because of the retention of DNA.

I do not make the argument lightly. Claire Baker talked about public concerns about holding an innocent person's DNA information, but we went down that road to a degree and the SNP supported us. We retain the DNA information of people who are arrested as suspects when a violent or sexual crime has been committed. We have gone down that road a bit. The question is whether we should go further.

If the Government dismisses the important role of retaining DNA, it must come up with hard evidence to challenge the figures, which are compelling in the argument about what is proportionate. Even Liberty's policy director says that what is fair and proportionate should guide us in the debate.

What we suggest is a proportionate response and the Government would be wrong to dismiss it. I hope that the Government will consider what Labour members have said this morning.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it is encouraging partnership working with the voluntary sector to deliver key services to vulnerable people. (S3O-2397)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The Scottish Government recognises the valuable role that social enterprises and voluntary organisations play in the delivery of public services and their potential to contribute to the attainment of best value. The Scottish Government has considered in particular the potential for added value through public-social partnerships, given that social enterprises and voluntary organisations have a proven ability to innovate and vast experience in working with particular client groups, including vulnerable people. By bringing the public, private and social enterprise sectors together as equal partners, we can ensure that the people of Scotland benefit.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

How can effective partnership working or added value be achieved in Aberdeen when council funding for voluntary sector groups is being slashed as part of £27 million of budget cuts? What action will the Scottish Government take to alleviate the effect of Aberdeen City Council's decision—highlighted in today's Evening Express —to threaten with closure the Glencraft factory, which has for decades enabled people with disabilities to have meaningful jobs?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Another day, another bout of scaremongering by a Labour member. I remind the member that the Government has given local authorities record funding for the next three years. In addition, the Government has relaxed ring fencing to allow local authorities to meet their communities' needs flexibly. I stress again for the member's benefit the Government's commitment to the voluntary sector. Every day of my working life I have the privilege of seeing examples of how the voluntary sector and social enterprises add value to the work of the national health service and other parts of the statutory sector. The Government is keen to support that. In the next three years, we will invest £93 million in the third sector. The people of Scotland will look on that commitment very favourably.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Realise Community Project in Maryhill, which is a voluntary sector organisation in my region, provides education and employability support for adults who are recovering drug and alcohol addicts. As a small local voluntary sector organisation, it is finding it difficult to work in partnership with the Glasgow community planning partnership and Glasgow works because of their criteria for funding and how they tender for providers of key employability services.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

A question, please.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the minister meet me to discuss the plight of the Realise Community Project, which might soon have to close because of those issues, and to discuss what advice and support the Scottish Government can give it?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I am more than happy to discuss that with the member and to look into any projects that members raise with me, wherever they might be. I will make one or two points that relate to the generality of the question. The member will know that the fairer Scotland fund—£435 million of investment—will benefit people throughout Scotland. Glasgow will receive more than a third of that fund. It is for community planning partnerships to decide how best to invest that money, because they know better than anyone else their communities' needs. I know that there are discussions in Glasgow and elsewhere about how that money can be best spent to cater for the needs of Glasgow and other areas. As always, I am more than happy to look into specific examples that are cited to me and to follow up the issue with the member.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Vulnerable people in the Highlands have received support from Highland Community Care Forum and Age Concern Highland—voluntary organisations that Highland Council previously funded. Unfortunately, when the SNP took over that council, that funding was withdrawn. Rather than accuse me of scaremongering, what will the minister do to provide that service to vulnerable people in the Highlands and protect those organisations?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I would never accuse the member of scaremongering. She asked a question reasonably and constructively and, as I said to Bob Doris, I am happy to look into the circumstances that members raise.

I will state an important principle. The Scottish Government provides funding to local authorities and NHS boards, but it is for local agencies to determine their areas' needs. The Labour Party adhered to that principle when it was in office and it would do its credibility more good than harm to stick to that principle in opposition.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Executive what provision it is making in the 2008-09 budget to support blind and partially sighted people. (S3O-2415)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The Scottish Government is providing £2.6 million over two years to national health service boards to develop eye care services. More than 50 per cent of that money has been issued in the current financial year and the remainder will be issued in 2008-09.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that glaucoma can lead to eyesight deterioration if it is not treated early enough. I have written to her this week on concerns raised by a constituent of mine that the glaucoma clinic at Gartnavel hospital has not been operating since last September. Does the cabinet secretary share my concern about that? Will she agree to look into the issue as a matter of urgency?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

James Kelly's question is on an important matter that I agree to look into. As he has already written to me, a full response will be issued in due course.

In December 2006, under the previous Administration, £2 million was made available as pump-prime funding to allow health boards and the partners they work with to make proposals for developing eye care services. At the Scottish optometric conference in December last year, the Minister for Public Health announced details of the successful bidders and that £2.6 million would be made available. As I said in my original answer, more than 50 per cent of that funding has been allocated to successful bidders and the remainder will be allocated in the next financial year. I hope that the member takes that as a sign of the importance that this Government attaches to eye care services generally. On the particular issue the member has raised—about glaucoma services—I will look into it and get back to him.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it remains committed to the sure start programme to bring together early education, child care, health and family support for disadvantaged families. (S3O-2399)

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Government is committed to supporting vulnerable and disadvantaged families. That is clearly highlighted in the national outcomes in the concordat agreement with local authorities, which, in tandem with recent guidance on single outcome agreements, makes it clear that we expect local authorities and community planning partners to work together to improve outcomes for such families.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Is the minister aware that, months ago, even before the recent council budget decisions in Edinburgh, sure start projects were identified for cuts of nearly £1 million? That is not scaremongering—the figures are the council's. Will the minister acknowledge the importance of sure start to the poorest children in our society and investigate how the outcomes she mentioned will be met? It was put to me that for every parent who benefits from sure start, an average of two children, as well as other members of the family, benefit. The cuts are described as devastating by local project leaders. The minister's aspirations will clearly not be met, so will she investigate what is happening on the ground?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I can certainly meet the member to see what is happening on the ground. I assure her that all the £59.9 million that was flagged as SS money remains available to local authorities to support vulnerable and disadvantaged families. As has been the case since the inception of the programme in 1999, local authorities have the discretion to deploy those resources in a way that they think best meets identified local need. Local authorities have always had control over the distribution of resources under sure start. Nothing has changed in that regard. We believe that local authorities are best placed to identify local need.

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

I had the pleasure of meeting Penicuik stepping forward and sure start Midlothian staff and parents in the Parliament last night. They explained to me the real benefit that individuals receive and called for greater sustainability in their funding, as well as potential flexibility in the provision of the service. The service is not just for parents of early years children. When the minister is taking forward the development of sure start, as has been called for by other members, will she bear those aspects in mind, as well as the serious concerns about the sustainability of funding?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The member has identified an important point. That is precisely why ring fencing is being taken away—to achieve flexibility so that local authorities, working with all their partners and agencies, can develop the best way forward to support vulnerable families.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the Scottish Executive what estimate it has made of the uptake by passengers of the national concessionary travel scheme in 2008-09 and what the difference is between the capped figure in the 2008-09 budget for reimbursement for concessionary travel and the projected claims for reimbursement if the current estimate for uptake is accurate. (S3O-2427)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Transport Scotland is in discussions with the bus industry body, the Confederation of Passenger Transport, over an agreed cost escalator for 2008-09 that would set the payments limit to bus operators. Therefore, issues relating to the usage and possible cost of the scheme in 2008-09 are commercially sensitive at this stage.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

We could translate that as, "I don't know." It is interesting that the minister does not know, because the budget has been set. With the budget set, that rather restricts what he can now do. Over the past 10 years, there has been substantial bus patronage growth and stability in fares, but the minister has failed to increase the bus service operators grant in line with what happens south of the border. The price of the council tax freeze is a sharp, above-inflation rise in bus fares. Does the minister recognise that if fares go up, the cost to the Treasury of concessionary fares will go up and we will end up in a financial mess?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member may care to note that the structure, eligibility and funding process for the scheme has remained entirely unchanged. When and if he chooses to criticise the scheme, he criticises the previous Administration.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Like me, the minister is a member of the national concessionary travel scheme, so he will realise that many pensioners do not want just to curl up at night with a cup of cocoa. Does he have any plans to extend the scheme to include travel on night buses?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I acknowledge my interest in the scheme. I have already used the eligibility card more than 60 times on ministerial business. We will review the scheme for 2008-09, and we will of course take account of the experience of the scheme and its success to date.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that the designated place at Albyn house in Aberdeen provides a good model of how to deal with people who are drunk and incapable that can be copied by other alcohol support services to avoid inappropriate admission to hospital and detention in police cells. (S3O-2422)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Albyn house provides one model of service for dealing with people who are drunk and incapable. We will continue to work with partner agencies to identify the most suitable and effective alternatives to inappropriate admissions and detention.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am sure that the health secretary agrees with Kenny MacAskill, who praised the work of Albyn house when he visited it at the end of last year. Is she aware that Albyn house delivers big savings to health and social work budgets? It is funded by NHS Grampian and Aberdeen City Council and it is in the middle of reviews that they have commissioned. Does she share my surprise that Aberdeen City Council has chosen to cut its funding while it is in the middle of that review? Will she join me in calling on the city council to continue its funding of the designated place, in partnership with the NHS, at least until the reports that have been commissioned are made available?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I am sure that Albyn house provides a service in the area it serves. It is not for me to tell individual local authorities how to spend their budget. That may have happened in the old days, under the old regime, but we have a much more grown up and mature relationship with local authorities now, which most Labour councillors seem to warmly welcome.

I strongly agree that providing services to deal with people who are drunk and incapable is increasingly important. It is essential that we have services to reduce inappropriate admissions to hospital—that is part of a wider priority for the Scottish Government—and to minimise inappropriate detention in police cells. My officials have been engaged in discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland about the issue and will continue to do so.

A limited number of projects, of which Albyn house is one, provide these services. It is important that we consider them carefully. We have perhaps not done enough to evaluate their success and the services they provide, which is why the Scottish Government is working with partner agencies to ensure that we have robust evaluation in place.

I remind the member that the Government is committed to tackling alcohol misuse, which is why we will invest an additional £85 million—the biggest ever investment—over the next three years to deal with this serious problem.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action is being taken to reduce energy consumption in the domestic housing sector. (S3O-2391)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The Scottish Government is taking a wide range of action to encourage reduced energy consumption in Scotland's homes, including improving energy efficiency through our fuel poverty programmes, support for microgeneration and delivery of energy efficiency advice. We are also considering the cost implications of "A Low Carbon Building Standards Strategy For Scotland", otherwise known as the Sullivan report. From December 2008, all house purchasers will receive as part of the home report a comprehensive report on the energy efficiency of a property before they bid.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does the minister agree that the introduction throughout Scotland of smart meters, which provide accurate information and monitoring of electricity and gas usage, would be instrumental in meeting the Scottish Government's carbon reduction targets? Is he aware that the United Kingdom Government has refused to include a mandate for the introduction of such meters in the Energy Bill, which is currently going through Westminster? Will he make representations to UK ministers to ensure the greater use of smart meters in Scotland?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Back in November, I wrote to two Westminster ministers on the wider issue of fuel poverty. The introduction of smart meters obviously forms a part of that agenda, but I have yet to receive a response from either minister. As soon as I do, I will be happy to inform the member of the outcome. I am certainly disappointed that the UK Government has not included in its Energy Bill any requirement for companies to have an adequate support programme for their most vulnerable customers, as outlined in the energy white paper.

I have met the Energy Retail Association to discuss, among other issues, smart metering, and I certainly recognise that the accurate real-time information provided by such meters could help householders and large organisations such as local authorities to control their energy use and tackle areas of energy waste. However, I understand that smart meters raise a number of technical issues and that a range of different meters need to be looked at.

The UK Government is running a number of smart metering pilots, and it would be best to await the outcome of those pilots before we decide the best way of taking the matter forward. That said, I am very sympathetic to the idea that smart meters can play an important role in dealing with energy consumption in Scotland.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Does the minister agree not only that small-scale renewable energy technologies can play an important role in reducing domestic energy consumption but that the 15 per cent renewables target for new developments set out in Scottish planning policy 6, which was issued before the election, can be important in expanding their use? If so, why have the majority of local authorities not translated the target into their local plans, and why have they not received any support or pressure from the Scottish Government to do so? Moreover, why is the Scottish Government dragging its heels on introducing permitted development rights for microrenewables in existing buildings, despite independent advice received more than a year ago that supported the policy?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

If the member can wait, he will soon find out the answers to his questions. We are currently considering many of those issues, and an announcement will be made very shortly.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will provide an update on its involvement with proposals for a biodiesel plant at Grangemouth. (S3O-2433)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

In March 2007, an offer of £9 million of regional selective assistance was accepted to support a £68 million investment by the INEOS Group in biodiesel manufacturing at its Grangemouth site. Officials are continuing to work with the company to progress this project, which is expected to create 22 new jobs and safeguard a further 410.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Does the minister share my disappointment at the news that the proposed biodiesel plant at Grangemouth is not going to happen? Has the Scottish Government given any money to INEOS? If so, how much?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I confirm that no money has been paid and that the Government will continue to explore every possible option to maintain and maximise Scotland's energy mix and energy security.

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-540)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

I think that all members will want to join me in thanking the emergency services for the quick and effective way in which they dealt with the radiation scare in Edinburgh yesterday. [Applause.]

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I associate myself with the First Minister's comments.

As ever, the First Minister has a lot on his plate. He is making sure that we can see the footie on television—we are all for that—and he is currying favour with the people of Berwick, although perhaps Lockerbie needed some extra tender loving care this week. Amid all that activity, can he tell the Parliament when he will publish his plans for a local income tax?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Very soon indeed. In relation to the consultation paper, we have been waiting for every local authority to set its council tax for this year so that we can compare the amount that would be raised by local income tax with the amount raised by council tax. I am delighted that it looks like every local authority in Scotland bar one will freeze council tax, in contrast with the 3.9 per cent average increase south of the border.

The council that is not going to freeze council tax is Labour-led Stirling Council, which, thanks to the generosity of the local government settlement in Scotland, is able to maintain and expand vital services and cut its council tax. The local income tax document will be released in that context.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

As ever, the First Minister talks a good game—[ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That is enough. Order.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

When it comes to local income tax, it is time that the First Minister started doing his talking on the pitch, because we are already into extra time. First we were promised plans within 100 days in government, but that did not happen. Then, in November, John Swinney promised that the document would be ready in a few weeks' time, but Christmas came and went. Until 10.23 this morning, the Government's website said that the document would be published today, but at 10.24 the website changed. By tomorrow we will have been waiting 300 days for a 100-days promise. Why is it taking the First Minister so long?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I refer the member to my answer to her earlier question. It would probably have been better if she had listened to it before she repeated Simon Pia's carefully crafted words. I must say that I thank him for saying that the First Minister talks a good game.

Simon Pia's praise for this First Minister is nothing compared with that of the other remaining spin doctor, Gavin Yates, who said of me that it is great to see a politician at the top of his game. According to Wendy Alexander's spin doctors, this Government does not just talk a good game, it plays a good game.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Before the First Minister offers further praise for Simon Pia, he might reflect that Simon suggested in his column that the First Minister could be described as Mussolini, Fat Boab from Oor Wullie and the great pudding of the chieftain race, which proves that in politics we all need a thick skin.

The country wants to know whether the Scottish National Party's election promise of a local income tax, fixed at 3p in the pound, still stands—yes or no?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

That is what the consultation document will show us. It compares the council tax that is raised with the local income tax proposals—of course it does.

Wendy Alexander is a bit confused. Her spin doctors are meant to criticise me; they are not meant to criticise her. I assure her that I will never describe her as a gruppenführer, as Simon Pia once did, nor will I ever write, because it would be disparaging:

"Spotted in the executive lounge at Heathrow waiting for the shuttle were a senior Labour MP and his researcher. Huddled over their papers they were attracting attention with the odd guffaw. Could it have been another one of Wendy Alexander's policy papers they were reading?"

When we publish our paper on local income tax, it will not cause any guffaws, unlike, as Simon Pia thinks, her policy papers do in the Labour Party.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The question was: does the SNP's election promise of a local income tax fixed at 3p in the pound still stand—yes or no?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

rose—

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The truth, of course—[ Laughter. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The First Minister has his knickerbockers in a twist when it comes to his local income tax because, as we have just seen, he is never shy about quoting others when he thinks that they agree with him. When it comes to local income tax, what does he have to say to the Confederation of British Industry, which says that it is misguided, to the Institute of Directors, which says that it would be anti-business, or to the Federation of Small Businesses, which condemned its huge financial cost for business? Even his own Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, Jim Mather, admitted:

"raising income tax rates would be naive in a knowledge economy".

When the SNP finally gets round to publishing its plans, will not Scotland see that the next item on the menu from Mr Takeaway is a huge chunk out of the pay packet of every hard-working Scot?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I say to Wendy Alexander that the form is that, when a member demands a yes-or-no answer to a question, they are meant to stop and allow the person to answer.

Yes, of course we will publish our consultation document on local income tax. Of course we will cite the Parliament's support this session for the principle of such a tax and put forward why the general public believe that it is much fairer than the council tax or any other available system.

On people commenting on the Government's performance, I am content to leave the final arbitration to Lord George Foulkes, who said this week on "Scotland at Ten":

"The SNP are on a very dangerous tack at the moment. What they are doing is trying to build up a situation in Scotland where the services are manifestly better than south of the border in a number of areas."

Colin MacKay intervened to say:

"Is that a bad thing?"

Lord George said:

"No, but they are doing it deliberately".

This Government is content to rest on the final arbiter of its performance: Lord George Foulkes.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-541)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans at present to meet the Prime Minister.