Scottish Parliament, 6 March 2008

329 contributions from 74 members. The official report.

Official Report 6 March 2008

State Hospital (Redevelopment)

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a statement by Nicola Sturgeon on the redevelopment of the state hospital. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her 10-minute statement, so there should be no interventions.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Recent media coverage has raised questions about the decision to reduce the number of beds at the state hospital as part of a planned redevelopment of that facility. I welcome the opportunity to provide reassurance to Parliament and to explain exactly what is planned for the state hospital.

The current policy on the management of mentally disordered offenders was established in January 1999 and is outlined in the document, "Health, Social Work and Related Services for Mentally Disordered Offenders in Scotland". That document established a number of key principles that were intended to provide protection for the public and to ensure the provision of appropriate care and treatment services. The four key principles that were articulated are that mentally disordered offenders should be cared for with regard to quality of care and their needs as individuals; in the community, as far as possible, rather than in institutional settings; under conditions of no greater security than is justified by the degree of danger that they present to themselves or to others; and in such a way as to maximise rehabilitation and their chances of sustaining an independent life as near as possible to their homes and families. Those principles have informed the development of the forensic mental health services in Scotland since 1999.

The third principle, which is about ensuring that such offenders are cared for in conditions of appropriate security, has since been enshrined in section 1(4) of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, which states that functions under the act should be discharged in a

"manner that involves the minimum restriction on the freedom of the patient that is necessary in the circumstances."

We are rightly proud of our mental health legislation and in opposition I was pleased to support it. It gives appropriate consideration to public protection and to the care and treatment of individual patients.

In 1999, when the current policy was developed, it was clear that the national health service estate that offered secure care for mentally disordered offenders did not comply with the principles that I have outlined. With the exception of mentally disordered offenders who received the high-security service that was provided by the state hospital, all such offenders who were cared for in in-patient settings were in low-secure settings. The fact that there was no intermediate stage between high security and low security meant that patients were spending longer at the state hospital than was necessary for their rehabilitation or for public safety. It also meant that when they transferred on to another hospital, the step down in security level that they made was in some cases greater than might have been desirable.

The policy direction that has been pursued since 1999 has resulted in the creation of two regional facilities that provide treatment in conditions of medium security—in other words, in settings where the level of security is somewhere between the level of security at the state hospital and the level of security of a locked ward.

The Orchard clinic in Edinburgh, which opened in 2000, provides 50 medium-secure beds, primarily for the population of the east of Scotland. The Rowanbank clinic in Glasgow, which opened last year, provides 74 beds, primarily for the population of the west of Scotland. Plans are in hand to establish a similar facility for the north of Scotland. Those units have been specifically designed and built to conform to an agreed environmental, procedural and relational model of security within mental health services. Each medium-secure unit is designed to meet and operate to exacting standards, thereby ensuring that patients are cared for in conditions that are appropriate to the level of risk that they are assessed to present.

The creation of those new units has resulted in a reduction in the number of beds required at the state hospital. Work was done by the forensic network, the three regional planning partnerships and the Scottish Government to model the future requirement for beds, and the outcome of that work was published as a Health Department letter in 2006.

The reduction in the number of beds required enabled the previous Administration to agree that the business plan for the redevelopment of the state hospital should include a planned reduction from 240 beds to 140 beds. I will put that in context: at the moment, there are only 115 restricted patients in the state hospital.

So far, good progress has been made with careful and considered planning for the redevelopment and modernisation of the state hospital. When that process has been completed, in 2011, the institution will offer a standard of care and accommodation that is appropriate to the age that we live in and to the expectations that we have of modern health care facilities. Next month, my colleague the Minister for Public Health, Shona Robison, will attend the ceremony to mark the start of the building works.

I know that the state hospital staff welcome the development, which fits with their focus on the provision of modern care in a safe, secure environment, in which the objective remains to match each patient with the appropriate care and level of security.

It is important for me to stress that the redevelopment will not, as some people have rather irresponsibly suggested, result in a sudden exodus of 100 patients from the state hospital. Nevertheless, recent coverage has prompted discussion about the process for the transfer of patients from the state hospital, so I want to set out the legal and the policy position.

As members are aware, many patients who enter the state hospital are very ill and, for that reason, present a high level of risk at the time of committal. However, with modern treatment, through drugs and therapies, their mental illness can be treated and managed and the level of risk that they present can be reduced. In such circumstances, it is appropriate that they be considered for a move to a lower-security setting. Although we want patients to make progress, the process for managing the rehabilitation of patients at the state hospital is a careful one. No patient is transferred unless a robust risk assessment has been carried out for the patient and there is clinical agreement that the level of risk that the patient presents can be managed by the receiving hospital.

I take the decision on the transfer of restricted patients and, in each case, will want to assure myself that appropriate arrangements have been made and that safe care will be provided following the transfer. Scottish ministers' consent is required under section 218 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, which allows for no exceptions.

The 2003 act creates a parallel process to the transfer process by allowing patients to appeal against being held in conditions of excessive security at the state hospital. All appeals are carefully considered by the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland and only when the tribunal is satisfied that the patient no longer requires to be detained in the special security of the state hospital on the grounds of risk will it find that the patient is being detained in conditions of excessive security. Patients who are successful in their appeals are generally transferred to a medium-secure unit but, in the case of restricted patients, that still requires the consent of Scottish ministers.

In addition to our role in respect of a transfer, Scottish ministers have the right to be represented at any appeal, and to argue that the conditions are not excessive and that the patient is appropriately detained in the state hospital.

We recently introduced a further safeguard for the public, whereby all restricted patients, from the time that they enter the mental health system, should be managed through a robust care programme approach, as part of which care plans are developed and monitored by a multidisciplinary care team, including members of the police. It is the responsibility of all NHS boards to ensure that the CPA regime is implemented effectively for all such patients in their care and for other patients about whom there are concerns about the risk that they pose.

I hope that my statement will reassure members that the current developments in the physical forensic estate are part of a long-standing policy to ensure that public safety is protected and that mentally disordered offenders are properly cared for and managed in settings that are appropriate to the level of risk that they present.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues that have been raised in her statement. I will allow around 20 minutes for such questions, after which we will move to the next item of business.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of her statement and, having asked that such a statement be made, I welcome the fact that that has now happened.

Can the cabinet secretary confirm that no recommended transfer of appropriate patients will be delayed as a result of a lack of resources or a lack of places?

My second question is more complex. On 21 February, the First Minister claimed that ministers are required to consent to any hospital transfer of a restricted patient—a requirement that the cabinet secretary, in a letter to The Herald on 26 February, claimed

"is not subject to any exception or exclusion."

However, sections 264 to 273 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 allow patients in the state hospital, including those with restricted status, the right to appeal being kept in conditions of excessive security. If the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland rules that they are being held in conditions of excessive security, that order can be enforced in the Court of Session. Would the cabinet secretary therefore be prepared to amend her position in order that she is not seen to take a view that is contrary to article 5(4) of the European convention on human rights, which states that any person who is deprived of liberty by detention must be entitled to take court proceedings by which the lawfulness of that detention can be challenged? Does the cabinet secretary agree that, under section 193 of the 2003 act—which she supported—ministers do not in any case have the final say on who remains on a restriction order?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Margaret Curran for those questions. I am sure that she agrees that although she asked for today's statement, the law and the policy are a continuation of the law and the policy that were followed by the previous Administration. She asked whether I could assure her that the recommended transfer of patients would not be delayed because of a lack of resources. I assure her that the Government's objective—again, I believe that we are continuing the policy of the previous Government—is to ensure that adequate resources are in place at the right levels of security to ensure that patients are cared for in appropriate settings. That is the thrust of our policy on mentally disordered offenders. Like the previous Administration, I think that that policy is right.

I turn to Margaret Curran's second question. I covered that aspect in full in my statement. Ministers are required to consent to transfers of restricted patients out of the state hospital. There is no ambiguity about that. There is a parallel process under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, which I detailed in my statement. It allows patients to appeal against being held in conditions of excessive security. As I said, ministers have a right to be party to those proceedings, and indeed can object to a finding of a patient being held in conditions of excessive security. If the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland finds that a patient is being held in conditions of excessive security, there is an obligation on NHS boards and the Scottish Government to ensure that that patient is transferred to a more appropriate setting. However, the critical point is that no transfer takes place without the approval of Scottish ministers, and Scottish ministers do not give the approval to transfer unless they are satisfied that the setting to which a patient is being transferred is appropriate both for the patient and for public safety.

Margaret Curran says, rightly, that patients can appeal ultimately to the Court of Session. She will want to be aware, though, that that has never happened because the Government, working with NHS boards, complies with orders that are made by the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland. However, we do so in a way that ensures that ministers are responsible for determining that any transfers are appropriate. That system is right—it strikes the right balance between public safety and the needs and interests of patients. I will continue to apply that policy with a great deal of care.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, thank the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing for the copy of her statement. The issue was under discussion in 2003 and I welcome the progress that we seem to have made.

First, the health secretary states that

"with modern treatment, through drugs and therapies ... mental illness can be treated and managed".

Will she confirm that all patients with a personality disorder, both in Carstairs and the community, will be given the appropriate diagnosis, treatment and support?

Secondly, I agree with the health secretary that patients should be cared for as near as possible to their homes and families. Will she give more information on the proposed medium-secure unit to serve patients from the north and north-east of Scotland?

Finally, with 100 patients from Carstairs about to be moved to medium-secure units—I appreciate that that will happen over a period—and only 124 medium-secure unit beds in Scotland, will the health secretary give an assurance that those patients who are currently in the Orchard clinic and Rowanbank will not be moved into the community to make way for the Carstairs patients unless and until it is clinically safe for them to be independent in the community, and public safety is assured?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Mary Scanlon for those questions. First, I assure her that nobody will be moved anywhere unless it is right for the patient and right in the interests of public safety. In the case of restricted patients, those decisions lie with me and I will make them with a high level of care and attention.

The point that I tried to make as gently as I could in my statement, but which I want to emphasise very strongly indeed, is that it is not the case that 100 patients are about to be transferred out of the state hospital. We are talking about a planned redevelopment of the state hospital, which will, over a period of years, lead to a reduction in the number of beds. The number of beds at the end of that process is estimated to be 140. To put that in context, as of today there are fewer than that number of restricted patients in the state hospital. Whatever the temptation, I appeal to members not to indulge in a scaremongering exercise about some mass exodus from the state hospital—that is not based in fact.

The planning for a medium-secure unit in the north of Scotland is on-going. I undertake to fully inform Mary Scanlon—as I will inform the whole Parliament—of developments in that respect. It is important that Parliament is informed as those plans develop.

Mary Scanlon's first question was whether patients with a personality disorder would get the appropriate treatment and support. First, the treatment and support that any patient needs is a clinical decision and not a decision for any politician to take. However, it is of the utmost importance—from the perspective of public safety and of the proper care and treatment of patients—that the care and treatment a patient is considered to need upon diagnosis, and relating to their diagnosis, is the care and treatment that they receive. That is what I intend to happen.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I, too, thank the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing for the advance notice of her statement. On behalf of my party, I particularly welcome the fact that the Government is continuing the policies that developed from what was regarded as a seminal work, "Health, Social Work and Related Services for Mentally Disordered Offenders in Scotland", which was published in 1999. The cabinet secretary's statement has clarified the current state of play. She mentioned the medium-secure units. That report, having dealt with the inadequacy of not having such units, identified the danger that we might not properly manage the procedure of taking patients from medium security to lower security. That is, if you like, the other side of Mary Scanlon's question. Will the cabinet secretary expand on that?

Among the major deficiencies in the previous system was the absence of adequate care for those with learning disabilities and services for children and adolescents. How is the cabinet secretary taking forward those two important aspects?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Ross Finnie for those constructive questions. He raises an accurate point about the concerns expressed in the report that once we dealt with the inadequacy of a lack of medium-secure capacity in the forensic estate, there was a danger that there would be problems further downstream. However, I reassure him that one of the four principles at the heart of our policy is that people are treated as close as possible to their homes, communities and families. The decisions that are taken around that must have due regard to public safety as well as the interests of patients. I assure Ross Finnie that we want to ensure that that principle is enacted in practice. I do not want people to be detained in conditions of excessive security, whether that is in the state hospital or in medium-secure units. It is important that we get people into the right conditions and care settings, and that we have the right capacity and services in place to enable that to happen.

Ross Finnie asked about taking forward adequate care for people with learning disabilities and for adolescents and children. I am happy to write to him in detail about how we are taking forward that aspect of our policy.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We come to questions from back benchers. Members know the form by now.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary expand upon the level of liaison and communication that she has had with staff working in the state hospital?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Brevity is indeed beautiful.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

It is commendable.

Shona Robison chaired the annual review of the state hospital last year. As I said, next month she will return for the opening ceremony of the start of the building works. As with staff anywhere in the NHS, I set great store on good communication and the good relationships that we have in NHS Scotland as a whole. There are excellent staff partnership arrangements, which apply in the state hospital as they do in all other parts of the NHS.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

As the constituency member for the state hospital, I welcome the cabinet secretary's statement and pay tribute to the staff in the hospital for providing a valuable service to patients and the public.

On the bed configuration, particularly in medium-secure facilities, you will be aware that the Orchard clinic is operating at capacity and that the Perth unit is not yet available. Are you content—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am sorry, Ms Gillon, but I must ask you not to use the word "you".

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Sorry.

Is the cabinet secretary content that the proposed bed configuration is adequate for appropriate transfers? As someone who has always supported appropriate transfers, I would not want to be accused of scaremongering in any way, shape or form. Is she also content that the beds are in the right place to enable patients from across Scotland to be housed as close to home as is appropriate?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I acknowledge Karen Gillon's close interest in those matters as the local member. I echo the point that she made about the staff in the state hospital: they do a difficult job very well. I am sure that we would all want to pay tribute to them and the commitment that they show.

Karen Gillon raises some important issues about bed configuration. She asked whether I am confident of the bed configuration that we have proposed. The short answer is yes, but—as with any other aspect of bed planning in the NHS—there is always a need to keep the situation under review. We will do that in this case, as we do in any other part of the NHS.

It is important that we have the right number of beds in the state hospital, but to ensure that people are not being detained inappropriately in the state hospital we must ensure that there are also the right number of beds in the medium-secure estate and the right services in low-secure settings to ensure that people can be treated as close to home as possible. I think that the planning assumptions that underpin where we are now are right and robust, but I assure Karen Gillon and other members that we will continue to keep those matters under close review.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

What will be the benefits to patients and staff at the state hospital once the redevelopment has taken place? Can the cabinet secretary remind us exactly where we are with the medium-secure unit for the north, in respect of where it will be and approximately how many beds will be available?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The benefits of the redevelopment to patients and staff are considerable. I hope we would all agree that we have an excellent facility in the state hospital and that those who work there do an excellent job. However, the facility is not as it should be in the modern age and there is a need to ensure that we modernise and develop it to ensure that the staff who work there are working in the conditions that they have a right to expect; more important, the patients must be in the proper conditions, which add to and enhance their opportunities for rehabilitation and recovery. The redevelopment, which is due to be completed in 2011, will result in us having modern, fit-for-purpose facilities of which we can be proud and which will match the modern, fit-for-purpose legislation that the Parliament passed back in 2003.

The medium-secure unit in the north of Scotland is not yet on stream. I want to ensure that members are properly advised of the current state of planning around it. I undertook to give that information to Mary Scanlon in writing—I will ensure that Brian Adam gets it, too.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will pursue the north-east question a little further, because the issue of resources is clearly important for the speed of transfer, given that the development of the state hospital will be completed by 2011. The cabinet secretary said that she will write with the detail, but can she tell us a little more at this stage? Has the consultation process begun in the north-east? I ask because in 1999 I was the reporter to the Health and Community Care Committee on the medium-secure unit at Stobhill. The cabinet secretary will remember that that was a bad set of consultations, which led to big changes in the NHS. That meant that there was a long lead time to the development of Rowanbank. I am concerned that the cabinet secretary's time plan will be difficult.

I also have a technical question, in order to be clear about the cabinet secretary's answer to Margaret Curran. Are we saying that the minister does or does not have the final say in the transfer of restricted prisoners? If the Court of Session decides that the restriction of the prisoner is excessive, surely the prisoner must be transferred? Is the minister's power only to delay the transfer if a suitable medium-secure unit place is not available, or is she still saying that the minister has an absolute right to say that no transfer will take place, despite a decision of the Court of Session on appeal?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I acknowledge the need to move quickly on the north-east medium-secure unit, which is integral to our overall plans. I assure Richard Simpson that plans are well in hand and well developed. It is important that I give full details of that to Parliament in due course.

I want to be clear on the issue about the legal responsibility of ministers. Under the 2003 act, patients can appeal against being held in conditions of excessive security. The appeal can ultimately go to the Court of Session, although no case has yet gone to that court. In such cases, if the tribunal or the Court of Session said that a patient was being held in conditions of excessive security and should be transferred, it is not the case that a minister would attempt to stop the patient being transferred. The minister's decision would be to assure him or herself that where the patient was being transferred to was appropriate. Approval has to be given by ministers before the transfer takes place, and approval has to be given to where the transfer is to. That is the safeguard that is in place. It is an appropriate safeguard, which balances the needs and human rights of patients with the duty and obligation of ministers to protect public safety. We have that balance in our system; Parliament said that that was right in the previous session, and I continue to think that it is right.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I welcome the continuity of policy on these matters, but I will question the cabinet secretary further about patients appealing against an excessive level of security; her colleague Shona Robison said that that was one of the most welcome parts of the bill when it was debated in the Parliament five years ago this month. To some extent, the cabinet secretary clarified the position in her answer to Richard Simpson. Is it not the case that the First Minister has to give consent to the specific place with a lower level of security but does not have the right to stop the transfer altogether? Does she agree that the First Minister was misleading Parliament when he implied that he could stop a transfer? Can she give a guarantee that the First Minister cannot stop a transfer when the Court of Session has demanded it?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I am disappointed that Malcolm Chisholm, whom I respect greatly, has reduced a serious issue to baseless allegations of members misleading Parliament. I make it clear that no patient, regardless of any appeal against conditions of excessive restriction, will be allowed to transfer out of the state hospital unless the minister approves the place to which they are transferring. The transfer would not take place without ministerial approval. That is crystal clear, and it is laid out in the 2003 act. The Parliament should accept that the act strikes the right balance between the human rights and needs of patients and the very important issue of public safety.

We have proper judicial oversight, which is exercised through the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland and ultimately the Court of Session. However, we also have a role for ministers, who must undertake their obligation to ensure that, before any transfer takes place, they are satisfied that the proper arrangements are in place. I think that that is crystal clear, and I hope that all members agree.

Rape and Sexual Offences

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1490, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on the Scottish Law Commission's report on rape and sexual offences.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Will the Lord Advocate take an intervention on that point?

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I apologise—I have to attend a meeting and so I cannot contribute to the debate.

Does the Lord Advocate agree that the rape of women by men is an act of violence and the abuse of power and that it is predicated on women's subordination in society and on discrimination? How can attitudes be changed alongside the legal changes that have been proposed? In particular, will the Lord Advocate consider the need to prosecute men who buy sex from trafficked women, as they are in fact raping them?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will consider that while you continue, if I may.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Further to that point—

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Labour welcomes the long-awaited report from the Scottish Law Commission on the reform of rape and sexual offences law. The report is good and we thank the commission for its hard work on a difficult job. I believe that the commissioner, Gerry Maher, is in the gallery and I welcome him to the debate.

The Labour amendment calls for adequate time to scrutinise the bill when it is published. As the Lord Advocate said in her excellent speech, the report deals with complex legal issues and, as it took the commission about three years to make its proposals, the Parliament should have enough time to scrutinise their complexities.

Whatever else I say this morning, it will not be as important as what we do about changing the attitude of the public to women who are raped. Rape is an abhorrent crime, and it is part of the continuum of violence against women. It is tried in our highest court and I hope that there is a commitment that it always will be.

We know that juries can be reluctant to convict in cases in which alcohol has been consumed by both parties, or where a degree of intimacy has already been established. There are so many cases like that in our High Court, but the old adage still applies. When a woman clearly says no to sex, she means no, and no matter how intimate she has been with the accused, the fact that she has had too much to drink should not make any difference; the law should protect her. When she is so drunk that advantage can be taken of her state, there can be no consent to sex, even if her state is self-induced. I commend Rape Crisis Scotland for the work that it has done, because it is so important to tackle public attitudes to this abhorrent crime.

I preface my remarks by saying that mine will not be Labour's last word on every point. There is a lot to think about so I regard my speech as expressing our opening views.

Labour has no difficulty with supporting the report's proposal to broaden the definition of rape to include men or women who are raped; we will welcome that change to the law, and we are content that other forms of unwanted physical penetration should also be defined as a crime. We are also broadly happy that there should be a separate definition of sexual assault, notwithstanding the Lord Advocate's comments this morning. Sentencing should continue to be appropriate to the circumstances of both crimes.

The Scottish Law Commission's remit was primarily to resolve the issue of consent in rape cases, although it had a wider remit to do other things. Labour is a bit concerned that the commission's proposal to change the law as it relates to children and to cut to 13 the age in respect of what is, in effect, statutory rape might send out the wrong message. I simply say that we want to discuss that issue further.

On consent, the concept of free agreement seems to be clear cut and to strike the right balance. It is a phrase that the public can understand. In rape cases, it is crucial that the law is clear. We need to think about the ordinary person sitting on the jury and what they will commonly understand by the term "consent", so I welcome the commission's suggestion.

This week, the Parliament and press have had a lot of debate about Scotland's low conviction rate. I agree with the Lord Advocate that we cannot easily compare Scotland with other countries whose systems are not the same as ours. They might use different definitions, and some countries do not have juries, or have a different jury system. I agree that we must see our unique system in the Scottish context and choose the right course for Scotland.

I do not agree that we have the worst system in the world, although it needs to be substantively reformed. It would be wrong not to acknowledge the strengths in our system. There are mixed views about the use of the section 275 procedure, under which a judge decides whether evidence on sexual history or character can be allowed. On the one hand, defence lawyers say that they cannot get the relevant evidence into court, even when they think that that prejudices their client. On the other hand, Rape Crisis Scotland believes that judges are allowing all such evidence regardless of whether it is relevant. We have to get to the bottom of that issue, because the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002 was well intentioned and was meant to be used to the victim's advantage. I call for an examination of the section 275 procedure before we make a final judgment on whether it does what we intended it to do.

The Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 is important in rape trials. We removed the right of the accused to conduct their own defence, which was another important step in handling rape cases. A jury can convict with a minimum of eight jurors, and a life sentence can be imposed, so there are some important aspects of our current law.

Given the number of cases that we decide to prosecute, it appears that perhaps not enough result in a conviction. That seems to be a concern, but we should start by getting the law right, not by saying that our conviction rates are wrong. Rape is an unusual crime, as the Lord Advocate has said, in that there tends not to be a witness and, until the evidence is led, the jury does not know whether a crime has been committed. In most cases, the outcome of the case turns entirely on the question whether the sexual act was consented to.

Whom the members of a jury believe is the determining fact in ascertaining whether a crime has been committed—that is the fundamental issue that we must address alongside reform of the law. We must be sure that we interrogate the system in the context of such facts. We need to know where the problem in getting a conviction lies. The view now is that a change in the law will provide clarity, but it will not necessarily affect conviction rates. As we redefine the crime of rape to include other things, the conviction rate might seem to get disproportionately higher, although it does not alter a great deal as a percentage of overall sexual crime. As I have said, the law must be clearer to understand, because when juries are making their determination, it is important that they believe that the law is clear for them to apply.

I am glad that the Lord Advocate has addressed some of the issues that were raised in the press yesterday about the law of corroboration. She said that if we are serious about reforming the law, the rules of corroboration must be examined. I would be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary for Justice would clarify when he agreed to examine the issue of corroboration and where it is going, because I do not recall any announcement on it. I am aware that reference was made to the Moorov doctrine, but not to corroboration.

Corroboration is a unique concept in Scots law. The fact that two sources of evidence are required to prove an offence is an important safeguard for the accused in our system. I have strong reservations about unpicking a law that fits with the other checks and balances in our system, and it would be controversial to go down the road of watering down that requirement. Although I have no issue with a review of the Moorov doctrine, I have some difficulty with supporting a change in the law on corroboration in rape cases without some proportionate way of ensuring fairness for the accused—I am not clear about how that could be done.

I agree that the application of the concept of honest belief is wholly wrong. Whether the Scottish Law Commission's proposal for a slightly more objective test will be better remains to be seen, but it will have to be scrutinised closely to give us clearer law.

Scrutiny is needed of the proposal on advance consent in cases in which a couple have previously agreed to have sex and a question of consent later arises. I have serious concerns about whether the proposal is practical, and it will be an important issue for the Justice Committee to examine when the bill comes before it.

I whole-heartedly welcome this difficult debate about complex issues. It is important that we get the law right—we need clear law—but we cannot rely only on the law; we must tackle attitudes to men and women who are raped, and we must make it as easy as possible for juries to determine how to apply the law. I look forward to the publication of the bill.

I move amendment S3M-1490.1, to insert at end:

"recognises that the proposals from the commission are complex and that it is important for the Parliament to be given every opportunity to interrogate the bill when it is published, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to aim at an agreement with the Justice Committee on a timetable which gives adequate time to properly scrutinise the bill."

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I welcome the debate, which is likely to continue for some months and, indeed, years, because we must get this particular legislation right. I also welcome the exceptionally helpful clarification from the Lord Advocate today, following yesterday's publicity.

I will deal with three principal issues, although there are other important matters—for example, the involvement of children, which Pauline McNeill raised. The three main issues are consent, the extension of the law and the rules of evidence and corroboration.

As we know, rape is a very difficult crime to prove. I sometimes feel—and I know that this view is shared by others—that juries have considerable difficulty in that respect. There was a need to clarify the law following the Lord Advocate's reference in the case of Watt, but the situation is perhaps still not as clear to juries as it might be. The public perception of rape is of a woman who has been forced, possibly as a result of extreme violence or threat of violence, to have sex with an individual. Of course, that is rape, and juries' attitude to that is quite clear. It is easy to make a determination. So-called stranger rape usually results in a conviction, but so-called date rape is much more problematic.

The Scottish Law Commission's report, by including the requirement for consent to be demonstrated, makes that much easier, and it is very helpful. The examples that it cites cannot be exhaustive, nor are they intended to be, but it is a good framework from which to proceed. The Lord Advocate raised the issue of women's risky behaviour, and quite properly so. If I leave my car unlocked with the keys in the ignition, I might be a very silly chap, but it does not entitle someone to steal my car. If a woman goes out scantily dressed, gets drunk and behaves in a flirtatious manner, she might be foolish, but that certainly does not entitle anyone to have sex with her without her consent. The definition of consent will be particularly helpful, and we must examine the way in which consent is measurable, particularly—as the Lord Advocate said—as heavy drinking is involved in so many cases.

The extension to the law is welcome—in these gender-neutral days, we must acknowledge the fact that homosexual rape should be defined simply as homosexual rape, and we will certainly support those changes to the law.

Not for the first time, I listened with considerable interest to the Lord Advocate on the other types of sexual assault that are not at present classified as rape and which certainly skew the statistics on conviction rates—I accept that. My initial argument had been that, providing that a suitable penalty was in place, the definition of the crime did not matter particularly. However, having examined the matter further, I now have some sympathy with what the Lord Advocate has said today and what she has been saying for some time. The Justice Committee and the Parliament will have to consider the issue carefully—the insertion of implements into the anus and other parts of the body is certainly a very brutal assault.

The extension of the definition of rape to include sodomy is entirely appropriate. I ask members to picture the scene of a woman who is alone in a house and is confronted by two intruders who might have broken in for the purpose of assaulting her or purely for the purpose of house-breaking, after which they decide to assault her. If that woman is physically beaten and repeatedly sodomised, there can surely be no worse experience that anyone could suffer—and yet, as the law stands at the moment, that is not rape. I think that there is a unanimous view among members in the chamber that the law should be extended in that respect.

I turn to the rules of evidence and the requirement for corroboration, which has been a matter of concern. Scots law has long recognised that rape cases are difficult to prove and that many such cases would be downright impossible to prove if the normal standards of corroboration were applied. As such, the law has been clarified and extended over the years, which is entirely appropriate, as it would be difficult to get the corroboration from two eye-witnesses that would be necessary in relation to any other assault.

I fully understand and sympathise with the frustration that prosecutors inevitably feel when cases cannot be proved or even proceeded with at all. However, suggestions—and I note that they come not from the Lord Advocate—that the law in that respect should be radically changed are fraught with danger. The function of any justice system is, in equal measure, to protect the innocent and to punish the guilty, and we must consider why the requirement for corroboration is viewed as such a vital component of Scots law.

The requirement for corroboration is a bulwark against injustice where false evidence is given. It defends the poor against the rich and the inarticulate against the articulate and, in many cases, it protects society's most disadvantaged, whose ability to give coherent evidence may be limited. Those who suggest that a wholesale change in the law of corroboration is necessary must realise that there would be a real, albeit unintended, consequence: a significant increase in miscarriages of justice would be inevitable. Most members and the general public would be profoundly uncomfortable with that happening. That must be remembered.

I have listened to the arguments about the Moorov doctrine. There is validity in what has been said, which must be carefully considered, and it was not inappropriate for the cabinet secretary to refer the matter back to the commission. Real considerations are involved and there are real arguments to be made. I commit the Conservatives to listening to those arguments exceptionally carefully. Like Pauline McNeill, I would have serious difficulties with a change unless someone suggested additional checks and balances, which would be necessary in our legal system.

The law required clarity, which the Scottish Law Commission's report gives us. It is highly likely that the report will be closely examined, analysed and digested in a complex but interesting and important parliamentary process, and it is highly probable that some of its proposals under the headings that I have mentioned will be changed during that process. That would be appropriate. However, I congratulate the commission on the report, which takes a sound, professional and, above all, reasonable approach that gives us every opportunity to do what we all seek to do: not only to clarify the law, but to support the victims of one of the most horrible crimes that can be committed. I fully commit the Conservatives to giving the matter our fullest, earnest and sympathetic consideration.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I welcome the Scottish Law Commission's final report on rape and other sexual offences and the consultation on its findings. The proposed legislation and the on-going review of evidence give us an opportunity to define and redefine new rape and sexual assault offences, to balance the rights of victims and accused people, and to modernise our law in the area in a way that recognises individuals' sexual autonomy and the need to have legislation that gives people equal protection, irrespective of gender or sexual orientation. To do that properly requires time, so we are happy to support the amendment in Pauline McNeill's name.

Scotland has one of the worst conviction rates for rape, notwithstanding the fact that the offence may be too narrowly drawn, that there is widespread underreporting of sexual offences and that the task that the previous Executive set the commission was far from easy. Victims of rape or sexual assault can experience physical, emotional and psychological damage that can last for many years—indeed, it can last a lifetime. For many, the experience of rape is compounded by their experience in the justice system. However, we cannot forget that false accusations that those most despicable of crimes have been committed can also destroy lives.

The fact that more than 1,000 rapes were reported last year alone is shocking. Rape Crisis Scotland has told us that it saw 2,500 victims, but it has estimated that there were actually 7,200 attacks last year, which indicates that the reported total is the tip of a disturbing iceberg.

Rape stands alone in how we as a society denigrate and blame its victims. If a young man is stabbed in the street, we do not hear people say that he asked for it because he had had too much to drink or because he had drifted into a part of town that he did not know well. However, we have heard yet again in the past few days that around a quarter of people think that women are asking to be raped or assaulted if they drink too much, act flirtatiously or wear revealing clothing. Those attitudes need to be challenged. Justice will never be served properly if 25 per cent of a jury think that the victim is to blame before the proceedings go any further and the jury hears evidence and starts its deliberations.

We welcome the work that the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office have already done. We agree that there is a need for enhanced training and guidance for those who are involved throughout the justice system in dealing with rape and sexual offence cases. Also, we welcome the work that is being done by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland to try to standardise the response to rape across the eight police forces. I pay tribute to the great work that our forces have done over the past few years in that area.

Improvements to and clarity in the rules of evidence and the legislation that covers rape and sexual offences must be at the heart of progress. The Lord Advocate has expressed concern that substantive law changes alone are not sufficient to tackle the conviction rate problem. Such comments may be controversial, but they were well made.

There is a need to review issues relating to corroboration, the Moorov rule, the manner in which victims are cross-examined about their character and sexual history, and the use of information about previous convictions. However, such a review must be set against the absolute need for a fair trial. I think that Pauline McNeill and Bill Aitken said that moving away from the requirement for corroboration is fraught with great difficulties, and that doing so might lead to a greater number of miscarriages of justice. We welcome the fact that the Scottish Law Commission is considering Scotland's laws of evidence in prosecuting all offences without losing sight of the peculiar difficulties that are inherent in prosecuting crimes such as rape that are unlikely to be carried out in public and witnessed by others.

There is a great deal to welcome in the draft bill. It is right to try to address the lack of clarity about the key issue of consent, and we welcome the commission's suggested definition of consent as "free agreement". We welcome the fact that an accused will have to justify his belief as a reasonable belief that a woman had consented, and the clear setting out of seven scenarios in which consent is clearly absent, including when victims are intoxicated, is useful. However, we should bear in mind the fact that such a list is clearly not exhaustive or devoid of problems of interpretation.

The commission's recommendations acknowledge that sexual contact without consent should be illegal even if consent for sexual activity has been given on other occasions. I whole-heartedly reject the view that there should be a difference in law between rape by a complete stranger, so-called date rape and sex without mutual consent with an existing partner. The belief that it is somehow less horrific or criminal to force sexual contact on a person against their will because of an existing or previous relationship with them is absurd.

I welcome the widening of the definition of rape so that it will include the oral and anal rape of a woman or a man. Bill Aitken gave one example of why widening the definition is right. Such clarification is an important part of addressing the discriminatory nature of existing laws and brings us into line with England. I agree with the Lord Advocate that the use of an implement against someone can be as horrific as rape. I hope that the Justice Committee will consider that matter in due course.

It is vital that the laws on rape and sexual offences are not only clear to the people of Scotland but relevant to our society. Much of the current legislation was passed when attitudes were very different. Modernisation of the existing legal framework is crucial to ensure not only that our laws do not support prejudice, but that they afford equal protection to men and women. The current laws often mean that there are much lesser penalties for sexual offences against men or boys, for example, although such offences are no less horrific for their victims. The existing law in relation to transsexuals is also unclear, and it uses outdated and offensive terminology in relation to homosexual activity between men. We welcome reform in those areas.

We also welcome the commission's approach in classifying sexual offences laws into three types of law: laws that cover sexual assaults, laws that protect children and other vulnerable people, and laws that protect public morals. We believe that the general direction of the draft bill, which includes the new offences of rape against children and rape against people with a mental disorder, is to be welcomed.

However, there is one particular area of concern. I expect that the Justice Committee will have to work through several issues to do with the proposals relating to older children, aged 13 to 15. I have concerns about what I have read so far. It is essential that we protect our children who are at a particularly vulnerable stage in their sexual and emotional development. We must balance protection and pragmatism, and we must deliver a system of rules that is clear to young people, parents and the police.

As I said previously, many people never come forward to report a rape or other sexual assault. One of the reasons for that is the widespread view that complainers are subjected to gross invasions of their privacy when they give evidence in court. A great deal of public concern remains about that. Despite the fact that the Parliament has already legislated on the issue, in the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002, recent research has shown that seven out of 10 complainers in rape trials are asked about their sexual history or their character. The legislation was meant to protect the complainer's dignity and privacy and—crucially—to ensure that relevant evidence was led.

We appreciate the need to ensure that an accused can mount the best possible defence and receive a fair trial. However, will the minister reassure us that that aspect of the law remains under review and give us his view as to why it continues to be an issue? Is it because the law is defective or because of the way in which the law is being interpreted in situ?

The Liberal Democrats look forward to seeing the consultation responses and the bill in due course. We will work constructively with the Scottish Government and others inside and outside the Parliament on this important and challenging area of criminal justice.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I welcome the final report from the Scottish Law Commission and the commitment from the Scottish Government to bring about much-needed reform of the law on rape and sexual offences. Credit is also due to the previous Executive, which instigated the wide-reaching review in 2004, when some high-profile cases highlighted ambiguities in the Scottish legislation that needed to be tackled quickly.

The statistics on rape and sexual offences make grim reading and serve as a wake-up call to anyone in Scotland who may become complacent about justice, human rights and equality in our modern democracy. The battle has clearly not been won. Given the increased public awareness of the crime of rape, the emergence of victim support services, strong action from women's groups and legal changes to end discriminatory practices, people can be forgiven for having expected to see an increase in the reporting of rape accompanied by a rise in the number of prosecutions and convictions over the past few decades. However, that has been far from the case.

The number of reported rape offences has grown by 230 per cent over the past 20 years, but an increase in reporting has not led to a higher number of cases being prosecuted. Indeed, only approximately 10 per cent of rape reports make it to court—a figure that has been more or less constant over the same period—and the rate of convictions is decreasing. As has been mentioned, the current conviction rate in Scotland is only 3.9 per cent—an all-time low, and one of the lowest rates in Europe. The Scottish courts are clearly failing the victims of rape and other sexual offence crimes.

The proposed sexual offences bill will bring about necessary modernisation of rape and sexual offences legislation. Our country's law does not exist in a vacuum. Legislation on rape and sexual offences has developed in a cultural atmosphere of stereotypes, prejudices, misunderstandings and myths, and the proposed sexual offences bill is a positive step towards the provision of a clearer and more robust legal framework to deal with some of the issues.

I welcome the proposal to create statutory definitions of rape and consent, although questions remain about the detail of how the definitions will be implemented and whether there will be any loopholes. The introduction of a clearer and wider definition of rape and the definition of sexual assault as a crime that is no longer subsumed within the general assault law reflect changes in our thinking and understanding of those crimes. The Law Commission has also identified a shift in emphasis in the wrongfulness of rape from the historical position that it is an attack on a person's honour and value to the view that it is an infringement of a person's physical and sexual autonomy. I welcome those proposed changes to legislation as a reflection of more enlightened thinking. I also welcome the proposed abolition of redundant common-law offences, such as those that refer specifically to homosexuality, as an important modernising step to ensure that equality is enshrined in our law even if it is not yet enshrined in our society.

Although those developments are welcome, many contentious issues still need to be addressed, and I believe that improvements can be made to the proposed bill. Those improvements are vital, as I am far from convinced that the changes that have been proposed to date will be enough to improve significantly Scotland's dismal conviction rate for rape and other sexual offences. The need to re-examine the corroborative evidence that is required for rape cases must be considered. I was pleased to hear that the cabinet secretary has asked the Law Commission to conduct a review of the law of evidence in Scotland. As members have mentioned, that review is complex and controversial, and it will require difficult and far-reaching decisions to be made at its conclusion. Nonetheless, it is important that the issue is pursued.

It is difficult to provide corroborative evidence in cases of rape and other sexual offences and, as the Lord Advocate has restated, Scotland's law is among the most restrictive in the world in such cases. The victims of such crimes often fear that their accusations will be met with scepticism, and in Scotland that scepticism seems to be encoded in law through the need for corroboration. Any changes will, however, require careful consideration.

It is vital that we grasp the opportunity to improve the response of Scotland's judicial system to crimes of rape in other ways. Legislative changes in 2002 that were designed to curb the use of evidence relating to sexual history and character in sexual offence trials have proved to be counterproductive. The Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002 was passed with the best of intentions and was widely supported, but there seem to have been unforeseen consequences. As Margaret Smith has mentioned, sexual history evidence now seems to be introduced more frequently in the courts than ever before. Although further legislation in this area may not be the solution, I urge the cabinet secretary to carry out an urgent review into the matter, to determine whether the current legislation is the best way to tackle the problem. We must ensure that our courts do not continue to put women through such a distressing ordeal.

We must be mindful of the fact that changes to legislation are not enough. As Rape Crisis Network Europe confirms,

"legal reform and changes in the investigation and prosecution of rape have had little, if any, impact on convictions".

That is why it is important that work to update the law is accompanied by work to change the confused and prejudiced societal attitudes that remain towards rape and violence against women in all its forms. It is shocking to read that 26 per cent of Scots—men and women—who were surveyed only last year thought that a woman bore some responsibility for being raped if she wore revealing clothing or if she had been flirting. It also does not bode well that a 2005 survey of young people's attitudes found that one in five young men believes that women often provoke violence. I therefore welcome the Scottish Government's announcement of funding for Rape Crisis Scotland to develop a hard-hitting information campaign to tackle those ignorant and destructive attitudes.

The Scottish Government's proposals are a positive step in the right direction, but there is still a lot of work to be done to change public attitudes and secure justice for the victims of these devastating crimes.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am pleased to take part in this debate on the Scottish Law Commission's report on rape and sexual offences. The report and the first-ever systematic review of the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences in Scotland are landmarks in the modernisation of Scottish law and the way in which those offences are dealt with.

To effect real and lasting change, all parts of the legal system must work together towards a common goal. We are taking part in a massive shift in policy and practice, and I trust that Parliament's scrutiny of the proposed changes will lead to clear and enforceable legislation. As we have heard, Scotland has a most restrictive definition of rape, which makes statistical comparisons difficult and, in some cases, meaningless. What are meaningful, however, are the experiences of victims and their often secondary ordeals in court. There are urgent calls for reform, and the extension of the definition of rape is widely thought to be overdue.

At its excellent conference this week on legal responses to rape, Rape Crisis Scotland's emphasis was on redressing the balance—a balance that is tipped against women, as was recognised in the recent research that showed that a female victim of rape is seen by many to carry a share of the blame because of her behaviour, her way of dress or her drinking. However, although the law may need to be framed so that it is gender neutral as far as possible, it must not be gender blind—society is not. Vulnerable boys and young men must be protected as well as vulnerable girls and young women.

We need to take into account the attitudes of society, which we are striving to change—attitudes that, unfortunately, are held by many people, possibly including members of juries, as well as victims and perpetrators. Sadly, those attitudes, perversely, mean that girls and young women may look up to and trust men who possibly are older and probably are stronger. The breach of such badly placed trust can mean for female victims that, on top of the trauma of rape, they run the risk not just of sexually transmitted infection, but of an almost certainly unwanted pregnancy. Equal opportunities is not about treating everyone in the same way, but about treating them appropriately to their individual circumstances.

Central to the proposed reforms are the essential principles of sexual autonomy and consent, which is defined as "free agreement". That is welcome. Also welcome is the considered, non-exhaustive list of factual situations that define when a person has not consented to sexual activity, including when the person agreed or submitted to the act because he or she was subject to violence or the threat of violence.

Parliamentarians need to consider many difficult and complex questions, such as whether the proposals cover or should cover women who are trafficked for prostitution. I accept that a fine balance must be reached between the gradual approach to change that is necessitated by the peculiar nature of law reform and the understandable impatience of women's groups in particular. However, a vision of a better future needs to be within our grasp.

I commend the poster campaign by Rape Crisis Scotland that depicts women in different scenarios with the caption, "This is not an invitation to rape me". I hope that it can begin to shift the attitudes that are prevalent in our society.

I draw attention to Rape Crisis Scotland's concerns about the report and pick out two areas. First is the idea of advance consent. I question how that squares with being able to withdraw consent. I also question whether free agreement can be possible in a situation of abuse or when the complainer has been trafficked for prostitution. I share Rape Crisis Scotland's concerns. As I have touched on only a few areas from the comprehensive report, I underline that it will take a great deal of time and consideration for all its proposals to be developed properly.

Changes in the law will be no improvement if convictions can be overturned. We need clear and enforceable legislation. However, as has been said, the debate on evidence is still to be developed. Scots law requires corroboration, which the Lord Advocate as described as a significant and often insurmountable hurdle that disallows around a third of reports from going to court. Consideration, at least, needs to be given to the Moorov doctrine to see that justice is served.

The report marks an important stage in a long process of reform of legislation, prosecution practices and support services. I hope that the cabinet secretary will note that continued political leadership is essential and that all areas require to be properly and consistently funded.

Equality is at the heart of what this Parliament stands for, and through its legislative programme the Parliament will change the lives of people in Scotland. The law review was initiated by the previous Administration, and I look forward to ensuring that the original vision is implemented by the new Administration.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

First, I declare an interest as a board member of Central Scotland Rape Crisis and Sexual Abuse Centre. I pay tribute to the Parliament's continuing work on rape and sexual abuse. People look to the Parliament as it deals with such issues, and wish it well in its work as it develops. I support the motion and hope that the chamber will support the Labour amendment.

Although members have already highlighted the low conviction rate for crimes of rape, I will concentrate on that appalling record. It is worth saying that less than 4 per cent of cases that go to trial result in a conviction. That is 4 per cent of an already low number of cases that make it to court in the first place.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am well aware of the member's close interest in such matters, but if he checked the figures he would learn that the conviction rate for the number of cases that go to trial is very much higher than 4 per cent. The last time that I checked, it was in the region of about 40 per cent.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Although I bow to the figure supplied by Bill Aitken, it does not alter what I will say. However, I will check the figures again.

No right-thinking person, whether a judge, policeman, lawyer or politician, should find acceptable or be relaxed about the number of cases and convictions. If the figures related to car thefts, house break-ins or some other crime, there would be a major inquiry and the public would want something to be done about it quickly, so why have we tolerated the rape law situation and why are the public not up in arms?

There are many complex reasons; I will touch on just some of them. Our system of law is out of balance. A rape victim—or a person alleged to have been raped—is almost treated like a person who is guilty of perjury, until the accused has been found to have committed rape.

Smart lawyers—by which I mean clever lawyers—whose job it is to get their client off, are able and willing to bring before the court information about an accuser with the sole purpose of painting a picture that colours the jury's view as to why they are not to be believed. Worse still, the person's sexual habits, dress or views nullify any concept of justice for them. In other words, such lawyers tell the jury, "Look at what she was wearing. She had a good bevvy. She flirted with him and she had sex with more than one man, so she asked for it." Let us consider those points.

"Look at what she was wearing." I challenge members to look at what their female family members and friends, as well as young women throughout Scotland, wear. The hem-lines of their skirts are up to their armpits and their midriffs are bare. That is the fashion. It is how young people dress, whether we like it or not. It is how 75 per cent of our young women dress when they have a night out. Does that mean that 75 per cent of young females, including our family members, are asking to be raped?

"She had a good bevvy." Unfortunately, too many young people, both male and female, drink to get drunk rather than to have a social experience. Whether that is because of peer pressure or because it is cool to get blitzed, I do not know, but it puts them at greater risk from the predators, animals and cowards who seek out the weakest to attack. I fully acknowledge that fact and would like to see the end of that drinking trend. Nonetheless, the courts should offer no refuge or assistance to those who prey on victims. If a woman is paralytic and cannot or does not say no, how can it be judged that she said yes?

It might be said that she had a reputation. She might have had sex with other men, but so what? What does that prove? It proves that she said yes willingly to them; it does not mean that another man is entitled to rape her. It could also be that she said yes to someone with whom she was in a relationship, but the relationship ended. Does that mean that after she said yes once, the answer was yes forever? Of course not.

If I could give advice to all those concerned, whether the police, the courts or the Parliament, it would be this: our rates for getting rape cases to court and obtaining convictions are, by any definition, appalling in the extreme, and we need to do something about it. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. Models exist that offer total protection and justice for the accused and give them the ability to defend themselves properly, while at the same time offering those who claim to have been raped the sure knowledge that their case will be heard and tried, and that they will be treated fairly and protected from the divulging of private and irrelevant information. Being able to deploy information to play deliberately to the jury's prejudices cannot be right, and it must be changed.

When rape cases afford a proper balance in court between the accuser and the accused, the prosecution and conviction rates in Scotland will rise, and Scotland's justice system will be the winner.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I join the debate because I want clarification on only one point that was reported in the newspapers during the week. The Lord Advocate will be pleased to know that I did not believe a word of what they said about her. However, I believed what I read about Rape Crisis Scotland's suggestion of what should be included in the proposed bill, which disturbed me, although I am not at all disturbed about the introduction of equality into the legislation, which is long overdue. I am interested in how corroboration will be maintained. The Labour Party is absolutely right that more time is needed to consider many aspects of the draft bill.

I want to speak in the debate because I do not believe that it serves any good purpose for Rape Crisis Scotland to suggest that we can tackle the problems that are additional to the ones that are traditionally associated with prostitution by saying that any woman who is trafficked should be considered to be raped. That would confuse several legal concepts.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Margo MacDonald is perhaps suggesting that it would be difficult to say that men who pay for sex unknowingly rape a person. However, I hope that the member acknowledges that, with trafficking, one way in which women are coerced and threatened on a weekly basis is by being raped by the people who possess them. Those folk should be dealt with severely.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I thank the member for that information, of which I am aware—I abhor that situation as much as the member does. However, the same treatment can be meted out to young women who, for example, are groomed prior to leaving care homes. They might come from south of the border or from Dundee. That is what I was referring to. Trying to tackle one problem through a law that is designed to address another is usually flawed. In this case, that approach would be severely flawed. Many cases would fail if they came to court, because they would be wrongfully based.

Although I agree with Rape Crisis Scotland's intentions, I ask it to withdraw its request. I would like an assurance from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice that it will not be considered as part of the proposed bill. That is all that I have to say. I wish the proposed bill well.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I support Pauline McNeill's amendment and all that she said. I welcome the consultation on the draft bill, which is published at the end of the Scottish Law Commission's "Report on Rape and Other Sexual Offences". I am glad that Labour in Scotland led the way in this area of social policy and that Jack McConnell, our then First Minister, set the agenda by directing the Scottish Law Commission

"To examine the law relating to rape and other sexual offences and the evidential requirements for proving such offences and to make recommendations for reform."

The aim of the proposed bill should be not only to amend the way in which the law defines sexual offences and rape, but to make a statement of the proper values that our society holds about the ways in which we regard sexual relationships.

Sexual offences are a worldwide concern. As the Law Commission report states, that is reflected by the fact that countries such as the United States of America, Canada and Australia introduced radical reforms decades ago. More recently, further work has been done on that aspect of social policy in the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, South Africa and, somewhat closer to home, England and Wales. There is a wealth of information that we can draw on and use to make comparisons.

The debate focuses on the Scottish Law Commission report, which provides a critical opportunity to find out more about the outcomes of recent reviews and to consider whether the proposed legislation is likely to make a significant difference to complainers of sexual offences. That process will highlight the many issues that affect those who give evidence in rape and sexual offence trials and will involve examining different legal strategies for change. We should remember that Labour introduced the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004, which provides victims of sexual offences with assistance and protection that were not previously assured to them. I am pleased that the Law Commission report goes into detail on those and many other issues.

I have met victims of rape and sexual offences in my work as a member and have been most concerned to learn of the way in which some victims have been treated, with their lives and conduct, rather than the actions of the accused, being put under the microscope. To get a case as far as the court can be a real challenge. Many issues come to the fore, such as the gathering of evidence and the training of front-line personnel, not to mention the corroboration of evidence and the presence of witnesses, or lack thereof.

In speaking about evidence and training, I have permission to mention the name of my constituent Juanita Berry, who has been mentioned in Parliament before. Juanita was the victim of an attack and rape, but the police surgeon discarded the evidence. Members can imagine how Juanita felt about that. She did not even get near the courts because of that. However, I am pleased that, thereafter, the chief constable in Fife rapidly addressed the guidelines and training, so Juanita's case helped to inform the situation in Fife.

It must be of great concern to us all to note the very low percentage of reports of rape to the police in Scotland that lead to conviction. That has been mentioned. Concerns about the criminal justice response to women who report rape led to the establishment of two major reviews in 2003 and 2004: a review of the investigation and prosecution of rape and sexual offences by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and a review of rape and the criminal law by the Scottish Law Commission, both of which have now reported. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is implementing 50 of the recommendations in its review, which will change how rape is prosecuted in Scotland.

Today, we are considering the Scottish Law Commission's draft bill, which aims to reform the law on sexual offences and is out for consultation. When I read the Scottish Law Commission's report, I was impressed that many of the people who responded to the consultation wrote in a private capacity, which perhaps underlines the public strength of feeling on the matter. Against the background of certain high-profile decisions by the High Court of Justiciary, we know that there is powerful concern from the general public as well as from professionals and academics throughout Scotland. However, that said, I am concerned about the sheer scale of the challenge that will confront my colleagues in the Justice Committee, who will in due course be tasked with taking the proposed bill through Parliament. The complexity of the detail and the volume of the concerns are somewhat daunting. It is vital that the time that is allocated for the consideration of the bill be carefully estimated—it would be a further injustice to our constituents if the work was not painstakingly careful.

In that context, our task as parliamentarians is to work with others to provide information on legal developments relating to the responses to rape and other sexual offences. We need to work closely with others who work in social policy and those who work with survivors of sexual violence to develop a greater understanding of the issues that face women who report rape and other sexual offences, with a view to inputting shared concerns into current legal developments.

I was interested to read that the Lord Advocate, in talking about the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service review, said:

"the outcome of the review signals a major reform of the way in which the COPFS approaches the investigation and prosecution of rape and sexual offences."

She continued:

"implementation of the recommendations in the report will provide a sound basis to deliver an improved quality of investigation and prosecution. Our aspiration is to build strong, more compelling cases, while treating victims with the courtesy, respect and sensitivity that they are due."—[Official Report, 14 June 2006; c 26626.]

Pauline McNeill made an important point about to the law on the rules of evidence and corroboration. I agree with her on that key issue, which requires further careful consideration. I trust the Lord Advocate—I know that she will consider that important issue carefully, with the best brains in Scotland. I trust my colleagues on the Justice Committee to come to the right recommendations.

The Scottish Law Commission said:

"we have decided not to make any recommendations as to reforming the law of evidence in relation to the offences"

that we are discussing. The commission gave two reasons for its decision, which I support. First, the commission thought that that aspect of the law is

"better suited for reform across the whole spectrum of criminal offences and not solely in the context of sexual offences".

Bill Aitken and Pauline McNeill mentioned that.

Secondly, the commission said that given the timescale for the project,

"the required detailed and thorough analysis"

of topics relating to sexual offences could not be made.

On behalf of my constituents, I thank everyone who was involved in the major and intensive work on the report and the draft bill. Labour thinks that such work is paramount, for the sake of victims of rape and other sexual offences. There is no more profound fear than the fear of such vile acts. Scottish Labour will stand up for the rights of victims of those crimes.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Members will forgive me for saying again that as I am speaking late in the debate I will resist the temptation to repeat what others have said and instead try to address, or expand on, issues that have not been covered as they might have been.

I will make two points. The first, fundamental, point, which I do not think has been mentioned, is that we should be trying to create a legal framework that will minimise the number of violations—the number of acts that we will subsequently decide are offences. We need to be careful when we talk about maximising the number of reports of offences and maximising convictions, although such outcomes are important and will derive from the legal framework that we create. We must bear it in mind that we need a society—and a legal framework within which society operates—in which the number of violations of a sexual nature is minimised.

I know that this cannot happen, but in Utopia we would develop a legal system in which there were no violations and therefore no prosecutions or convictions. We could reduce offending by moving the goalposts; for example, we could quickly reduce the number of speeding offences on our roads, not by eliminating the speed limit but by increasing it to 250mph. Shifting the goalposts does not help, however. If we want to slow people down we must ensure that the speed limit that we set is enforced and that people understand why it exists.

The appropriate legal framework will minimise the number of violations and it will maximise the tendency for victims to report offences and minimise the procedural impediments to achieving justice. It might help our thinking on the matter if we kept in mind that hierarchy.

The Scottish Law Commission's report contains a radical proposal, which would in effect change the balance of proof, so that the law required the accused to demonstrate consent instead of requiring the defendant to prove the absence of consent. I accept that that is a slight overstatement of the case and I am not trying to be too legalistic, but in effect the commission suggests that consent needs to be demonstrated.

My second point is about the definition of consent. The proposed term, "free agreement", does not offer the right way forward. Members will realise that I did my training on the other side of Hadrian's wall. I can still pretty much recite section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, which says:

"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".

That definition of theft served pretty well until some folk nicked a painting from a church and subsequently managed to demonstrate to the court that they were only borrowing it. However, the definition would be useful if we had to teach our children the law of theft. Mercifully, we do not have to do so, because by and large people understand the law of theft, so we do not use the legal definition to teach children.

I mention that matter because society must find a way of teaching young people what is and is not sexually acceptable. I do not in any way suggest that such an approach will help in the dreadful cases of serial offenders who have no interest in being taught anything—we know about those people, so that is not my point. However, if we—as parents, lawyers and, in particular, as teachers—are to guide our youngsters and teenagers to an understanding of what is acceptable and, therefore, of what the law on sexual offences says, it would be useful to have a working definition of consent that had value in that context.

The alternative definition of consent that the commission proposed is:

"positive co-operation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will, involving persons acting freely and voluntarily and with knowledge of the nature of the act in question".

Such a definition might make sense to members and I am sure that it makes sense to lawyers, but I respectfully suggest that it has no street credibility. The definition would not be much use to teachers or parents and would need to be refined. The important point is that it would not be much use to juries, either.

We need a framework of law that minimises the tendency for violations, maximises the tendency to report offences and minimises the impediments to achieving justice in court. To achieve those outcomes the law must be clear, enforceable and—crucially—well understood by the general public.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

This is the third time in as many weeks that I have spoken in Parliament on a complex and emotive issue. I welcome the debate, which presents an opportunity for Parliament to begin to tackle a national shame.

Only one other nation in Europe has a conviction rate for rape that is lower than Scotland's. As Shirley-Anne Somerville said—and I think Gil Paterson meant to say—only 3.9 per cent of rapes that are reported to the police result in convictions. Why is that? Has there been analysis of the problem? How many people who report offences are discouraged from proceeding, perhaps because they are told that there is no corroboration or that when they go to court the lawyers will ask them all sorts of questions?

As Bill Aitken said, 40 per cent of cases that go to court result in a conviction, but that is not good enough, either. Why is the conviction rate only 40 per cent? Surely when a procurator fiscal examines a case, he or she considers whether a conviction can be secured. Surely procurators fiscal do not think that only 40 per cent of the cases that they refer will result in convictions; they must be convinced that there will be far more than that. We must find out why such a small percentage of reported cases goes to court and why the conviction rate is only 40 per cent. I do not know whether anyone has carried out such an analysis, which might throw up interesting conclusions.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Has the member considered that the attitudes of juries might determine the matter about which he asks?

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I do not doubt that that is part of the problem and I will return to that issue. However, I maintain that analysis should be done in that area.

Progress has been made in some areas. Not long ago people who were accused of sexual offences were allowed to question their alleged victims directly in court. I am thankful that that inappropriate practice was ended by the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002—the result of a bill that was introduced by Jim Wallace. My colleague Margaret Smith referred to the 2002 act, as I think did Shirley-Anne Somerville. However, the 2002 act is not working as well as it might. We have all heard of cases in which people have felt intimidated and, indeed, have ended up wrecks as a result of going to court. Margaret Smith has already asked the minister whether he has any comments to make on this issue and whether things can be tightened up.

I greatly welcome the new rape crisis line and the introduction of four new national rape crisis centres, which significantly increase the range of accessible support services for victims. In line with that, there has been a steady rise in reporting of offences from a mere 775 in 1999-2000 to 1123 in 2006-07. Although it is clear that a lot more needs to be done, such increased reporting is surely the first step to securing more convictions.

I agree with a point that was raised not only by Pauline McNeill but by Margo MacDonald in her brief speech. When I was a member of the Justice 1 Committee in the previous session of Parliament, I often felt that we did not spend enough time on some justice issues and that we were always being pushed to reach our conclusions far too quickly. The Justice Committee must be given a considerable amount of time to examine this issue—and if it thinks that it needs more time to examine and reflect on the proposed bill when it is introduced, it will need to be given it. We need to take the time to get things right.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats have long been in favour of a review in this area and welcome the report's findings as a solid basis on which to build. I particularly welcome the recommendations that are aimed at eliminating the so-called grey areas in the current law. A simple tightening of definitions would provide far more clarity on which to build criminal proceedings in our courts, and the adoption of the protective principle and inclusion of non-consent scenarios in law would represent significant steps forward.

Like Pauline McNeill and other members, I echo the Lord Advocate's acknowledgement of the importance of corroboration, which is, after all, a fundamental feature of Scots law. We need to keep a close eye on that to ensure that we do not interfere with it. Moreover, given the report's recommendation that the issue be addressed as a component of criminal law rather than simply used in reference to sexual offences, the matter must be highlighted to ensure that the necessary investigations are carried out within that context. For too long, real improvements in rape conviction rates have been held back by legal technicalities and inadequacies. Now that this opportunity has arisen, we must thoroughly investigate every angle.

I said that I welcome the report's stance on enshrining non-consent scenarios in law. However, some pertinent questions, particularly on the prominent role of alcohol and drugs in the debate, still need to be answered. An issue, for example, that must be examined is the point at which drinking alcohol or taking drugs renders one incapable of making one's own decisions. What is the difference between lost inhibitions and loss of control, and can they be differentiated legally?

Margaret Smith mentioned Scottish Government research that was carried out in 2007, which found that 27 per cent of people thought that a woman was at least partially responsible if she was drunk at the time of an attack. In that respect, I was quite taken by Bill Aitken's image of leaving his keys in his car. His comparison was a good one; after all, no one has the right to take that car. It does not matter how a young lady chooses to dress when she goes out or whether, later on, she is drunk or flirting; no one has the right to attack her.

Marlyn Glen made a good point about consent: what, indeed, is it? A person might very well be quite willing to have sexual relations with another, but that person, whether male or female, might suddenly decide to change the rules and say, "Hang on a minute. I think we should do something different." If, at that point, the first person says, "Wait a minute; I don't like oral sex" but the other person pushes the issue, that is rape.

The law simply cannot afford to be unclear and confusing. Instead, it must provide a robust framework that is fit for the 21st century and which inspires confidence in the justice system—I am sure that the interesting points that Nigel Don raised in that respect will be taken on board. A harrowing truth is that many rape convictions are lost because victims do not come forward in time, or fail to come forward at all. No victim should be dissuaded from coming forward to report such crime because they see the law as being unclear or unsympathetic.

We seek to strike an extremely fine balance: although new convictions cannot be artificially engineered through legislation, we need legislation that secures convictions where appropriate. At the same time, the accused's rights must be protected, but not at the expense of the victim's confidence in the justice system and not if it hinders the course of justice.

I fully support the report's well-measured recommendations, but we must remember that any legislative change must be carefully considered. We support the motion.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Today's debate has been very interesting and informative, and the wider debate, particularly on the law of rape, has also been very well informed. I also welcome the clarification that the Lord Advocate has given this morning of her position, given the reports in yesterday's press that many people have expressed concern about her intervention.

There is no doubt that reform in this area of law is long overdue and, given that academics and practitioners have been critical of the Scots law on rape for many years, we welcome the Scottish Law Commission's report and its conclusions.

The crime figures speak for themselves; indeed, it was partly the publication of the Scottish crime statistics in 2003 that led the previous Scottish Government to order the review. In contrast with recorded crime generally, which had fallen by 5 per cent over the same period, cases of rape and attempted rape had increased by 8 per cent. Moreover, only 10 per cent of reported rapes made it as far as court and, as a number of members have pointed out, the conviction rate in such cases has been extremely low. A series of court cases at about the same time that came in for criticism from legal commentators and the media was another factor in the drive for reform.

The Conservatives therefore agree that the law on sexual offences, particularly rape, needs to be examined to ensure that it is clear, gender-neutral and—to quote the Law Society of Scotland—

"free of the various historical and other anomalies which have characterised this area of the law, for the benefit of both the public and those, such as lawyers, judges and juries, applying the law."

I want to pick up on a few issues, particularly consent, that have arisen out of the proposals and this debate. The fact is that redefining this crime, important though it is, will not be sufficient to tackle all the issues that have been raised about the law on, and prosecution of, sexual offences. We need to consider other factors, such as the procedures that are adopted at trial, the law of evidence and the pre-trial procedures. I would be interested to hear the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's views when he winds up.

The essential element of a sexual assault, such as rape, is lack of consent. Under the current law, the consent element of the offence can either be considered as part of the actus rea of rape or as the mens rea, since the Crown must prove that the accused knew that the complainer was not consenting or was reckless about whether or not she consented.

As the McKearney case in 2004 illustrated, the fact that, unfortunately, there has been no legal definition of consent in the context of rape has created a number of problems. The draft criminal code provides that any consent that has been given by a person is to be disregarded if, when consent was given, it was

"induced by force or fear or was otherwise not freely given."

In England, section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines consent such that

"a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice."

Under the Law Commission's proposals, the concept of consent in rape cases would be clearly defined in statute in two parts. First, there would be a general description of the meaning of consent, or what is called "free agreement". Secondly, there would be a non-exhaustive list of situations, described by the Law Commission as "indicators", in which consent would not exist. I will not rehearse all the situations in which the complainer will not have had the freedom to choose whether to agree to intercourse, but they are broadly similar to those that operate in England and Wales. However, the commission says that they are not so much part of the law of evidence as illustrations of the key element of the offence itself. The list is to be welcomed.

However, I am not convinced that the introduction of the statutory definition of consent will solve all the concerns and problems with regard to rape cases. For example, questions whether the victim has given his or her "true" or "valid" consent will remain, because the line between true consent and mere submission is not always easy to draw.

It has been suggested that it might be preferable to avoid the use of the word "consent" altogether and to focus instead on whether the accused has had sexual intercourse with a person who did not have the freedom or capacity to choose, in the circumstances. Such wording would be similar to section 74 of the 2003 act. Commentators also believe that that would shift the focus of the trial from analysis of the complainer's behaviour to the accused's behaviour.

Discussion is also taking place on whether the legal burden of proof should be moved on to the accused. I am not sure whether that is the intention of the Law Commission's proposals and the issue will certainly require further thought. I am also not sure how such a proposal would fit with the European convention on human rights. Given the complexity of the problems, I welcome Pauline McNeill's amendment, which notes the need for Parliament to properly scrutinise the proposed bill.

I will conclude with a few remarks about the need for better education, about which the Lord Advocate, Bill Aitken, Margaret Smith and several other members talked. The figures from a study by Rape Crisis Scotland of 700 potential rape trial jurors are startling. Forty per cent of the potential jurors felt that women contribute to an attack if they put themselves in a risky situation, such as willingly going home with a man, and 20 per cent believe that women contribute to rape by wearing revealing clothes.

Given such attitudes, it is important that we support the police and anti-rape campaigners, who want to end the blame culture in which many members of the public believe that victims bring on attacks by being drunk, wearing revealing clothing or flirting. Everyone—men and women—must take on more responsibility for understanding what defines consent.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I will just raise an intriguing point. If the way in which the style of dress can be provocative is not to contribute to being attacked—I agree that that is not an invitation to rape—what is the positive side of that negative instruction?

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

My point is that society needs to be much more widely aware of the matter. People need to understand that simply wearing a certain piece of clothing does not give people a green light.

The issue is not just creating new laws or defining crimes—I agree with the Lord Advocate on that. Rather than undermine key principles of Scots law, we should consider the wider issues of education and public awareness. We are therefore happy to support the Government's motion and the amendment in Pauline McNeill's name.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

We have heard several powerful and thoughtful speeches on what—as several members have said—is a very complex area of law. When we analyse the Law Commission's findings, it becomes clear that it has used its experience and knowledge of the subject to reach a comprehensive set of 62 recommendations.

We have highlighted a number of matters, but we should be well aware of the work that the Justice Committee will have to do to interrogate the 62 recommendations. The committee will, for example, have to interrogate carefully the recommendation that the offence of lewd and libidinous behaviour should be abolished and replaced with a more focused approach in legislation, and it will have to ensure that the law officers and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice provide information on that.

We should recognise the crucial role that the Lord Advocate has played in her current post and previously as the Solicitor General for Scotland in modernising practices in the justice system. That modernisation presents many challenges, as the Lord Advocate knows, but she has taken them on. The announcement by Frank Mulholland last month that the Crown Office will form part of a new dedicated sexual offences team in Lothian is an example of not just talking good practice but doing something to put in place good practice that people throughout Scotland will welcome.

At the heart of Labour Party policy are victims' rights and ensuring that the justice system supports victims of crime by modernising the system in respect of rape and sexual offences. We believe that such modernisation will send out not just to victims but to perpetrators the right message—that we are willing to stand up to perpetrators' unacceptable actions and to take the issue forward. Like Gil Paterson, Labour members welcome the work of Rape Crisis Scotland and many other organisations that have played a crucial role in supporting victims over the years.

Pauline McNeill talked about providing clarity in the law. We need to ensure that whatever provisions we pass to provide clarity deal with attitudes to sexual assaults and that appropriate resources are in place so that cases can be prepared coherently and effectively. The issues to which the Law Commission's report refers will require practitioners with experience, expertise and back-up, if the proposed legislation is to have an impact.

In June 2004, the then First Minister, Jack McConnell, said:

"it is important that the ... Law Commission review cover all aspects of definition and proof in relation to sexual offences, and ... in particular ... that we maximise people's confidence not only in our courts—and in the sentences and prosecutions that are available to them—but"—

this is the important point that he made—

"in how the system deals with those who report ... offences."—[Official Report, 3 June 2004; c 8896-97.]

Will the cabinet secretary ensure that the necessary resources are in place to implement the legislation that the Parliament passes? Our advocates on the front line must be able to deal with the additional responsibilities that are placed on them. That theme was clear from the Justice Committee's recent visit to the Crown Office. For any changes in the justice system, we must both ensure that additional resources are provided and consider reconfiguring resources that are in place.

Members will note that, in the amendment in Pauline McNeill's name, we have called for more time in the timetable. On reflection, and as other members have said, we have in the past not had the full opportunity to interrogate proposed justice legislation. The Law Commission took more than three years to produce its report and its comprehensive set of recommendations, as I said. It is important to do that work justice by interrogating the proposed legislation effectively. The Parliament will have a job in ensuring that that happens, because extending the timetable has always been difficult, despite members' determination.

I reiterate Pauline McNeill's comments about changing the law in relation to children. We need to be clear that changing the law concerns not just how the legislation is implemented, but the message that such legislation sends to society. I ask the justice team to consider that carefully in producing the bill and to give us every opportunity to interrogate that aspect. We say that in a co-operative and constructive manner to ensure that whatever is passed provides absolute clarity.

Pauline McNeill also talked about clarity being provided to juries. I am not sure whether such clarity will be achieved in full, because of the need for expertise, or whether juries will at all stages be completely aware of the legislation. Let us face it—the report contains 62 recommendations. What can we expect of our juries? We need to be clear about that. However, we should ensure that common knowledge can be made available to juries. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will elaborate on that issue, which can be discussed later.

Margaret Smith made a thoughtful and effective speech—I say to her that Labour members give out positive vibes. She drew a good, thoughtful analogy with society's attitudes towards the stabbing of a young man in the street, which amplified the concerns about society's attitudes towards rape victims. Bill Aitken also drew an effective analogy. However, it is not good enough for us to draw such analogies in the Parliament. It would be better in the long run for us to ensure that we do something about the situation. That is the challenge that the Justice Committee will face.

The Law Commission's recommendations and the draft bill that it has produced mean that the Justice Committee has a great deal of work ahead of it. It will have a job to do in interrogating the draft bill, and Labour members will take that process very seriously. As Marlyn Glen said, the proposals for reforming the law on rape and sexual offences are ground breaking and we look forward to ensuring that that work is brought forward in the Parliament.

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

The debate has been thoughtful and helpful. We are happy to accept the Labour amendment. Pauline McNeill made the point—which Paul Martin and others echoed—that we have to get the law right. The Lord Advocate started out by saying that we have an opportunity to do that and that we must ensure that what we introduce is fit for purpose.

I echo other members' thanks to all those who have been involved in the process. In particular, I thank the Scottish Law Commission, whose significant work has allowed us to focus and will be the basis for the bill that the Government will introduce. We acknowledge that the Parliament is united in recognising that we have a problem, and we will seek to ensure that our proposals reflect the Parliament's will. We recognise that we are a minority Government but, perhaps more important, we also recognise that the Parliament is not divided on the issue. We are all on the same side, and if there are disputes over technical matters or matters of interpretation, we should seek to work them out rather than come at them from different perspectives.

Shirley-Anne Somerville correctly paid tribute to the previous Executive, and I put on record my thanks to my predecessor, Cathy Jamieson, whose reference of this area to the Scottish Law Commission instigated the review. She now has other responsibilities and is not present to contribute to or hear the debate, but we owe her a debt of thanks for driving the matter further forward.

I will comment on three preliminary issues that came up during the debate—obviously, other matters were raised as well. Members have recognised that we need to take a twin-track approach. This is not simply about changing the law; we must challenge and ultimately change attitudes in Scotland. Many members mentioned that issue, and I will come back to it. We must acknowledge that we should tackle it together, as I said, and the Government will seek to do that.

We recognise that the law in Scotland on sexual offences and a whole array of other matters is not fundamentally bad and has served us well for centuries. However, we need to address a particular problem in relation to rape and sexual offences—the problem is with the cases that are reported but which do not proceed to prosecution and with the ones that proceed to prosecution but which are ultimately unsuccessful. Whether the conviction rate is 4 or 40 per cent, the fact is that, at whatever juncture, we are failing some individuals, and we must seek to change that. That point also came out during the debate.

The Lord Advocate began the debate by acknowledging that problems exist and that we need to tackle attitudes as well as introduce new offences. Margo MacDonald and other members said that, sadly, sometimes juries reflect prejudices that exist in our society. Mike Pringle mentioned the perceptions that individuals have, and Gil Paterson commented on young women dressing attractively and being under the influence of alcohol. No means no—I think that Marlyn Glen and Elaine Smith made that point. No matter what the circumstances are, they do not legitimise rape.

We must challenge underlying attitudes if we are to move forward. The Government has made clear its support for Rape Crisis Scotland, to which many members have paid tribute in the Parliament. I echo those comments.

Elaine Smith, Marlyn Glen and others raised points about the trafficking of women, with which we have a particular problem in Scotland. The difficulty is that we know that something is going on, but we do not know the nature or extent of the problem or, sadly, who the main culprits are. However, the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency is addressing the matter and I had a conversation—indeed, a meeting—with Vernon Coaker about it. The problem transcends the borders of Scotland and, indeed, the United Kingdom. The solution relies on co-operative working not simply on a pan-UK basis but on a pan-Europe basis, and we will work the Home Office and with Europol on that.

I tend to take Margo MacDonald's view that simply seeking to bring in one law that relates to a particular issue will not address the more fundamental problem. We have to get to grips with and find out about the trafficking of women, and we are seeking to do that. Whatever perceptions exist in the Parliament about my inability to work with the Home Office, I assure members that we had warm meeting with Mr Coaker. We made it clear that we support him on the matter and he advised me that he is off to Stockholm and Amsterdam to review the laws on prostitution in those jurisdictions. I have asked him to keep me involved so that we in Scotland can consider any information that comes to light from those cities. I understand that Amsterdam is reviewing its position and considering the notoriety that it has attracted.

The points that members have raised on trafficking are valid, but the solution is not necessarily change to the law on rape. The fundamental problem is that trafficking is an evil crime that is part of the globalised world in which we live, and it needs to be tackled. I undertake to return to the matter.

We have to challenge attitudes. That is why the Government has committed funding to support the Rape Crisis Scotland adverts. As others have said—and as I said earlier—no means no. Simply being under the influence of alcohol and dressed attractively does not legitimise sexual assault or rape in any circumstances.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I rather clumsily intervened on the closing speaker for the Conservative party on the question of judgment as to what is attractive clothing and what is provocative clothing. If clothing is provocative, whom is it designed to provoke and what is it designed to provoke? How do we advise juries until we have decided that question of taste and, perhaps, morality, on which we are bound to differ?

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

Margo MacDonald will well know the maxim that beauty is in the eye of the beholder: what some perceive to be attractive is viewed as distasteful by others. We must recall that we are dealing with individuals and that people have rights. Obviously, our society has standards and mores. As we have seen with difficulties in one individual's case, people are not allowed to venture forth naked on to our streets and highways. That does not mean that we cannot disagree about what is acceptable or unacceptable, but the statistics are quite clear: there is a problem with a small minority in Scotland—thankfully, it is a small minority, although it is still far too large—who perceive as provocatively dressed a woman who anyone else would describe simply as attractively dressed. That is not acceptable.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Should we not ignore the question whether clothing is attractive or provocative? Those are subjective judgments and different people have different standards, values and mores. That is the problem with Bill Aitken's analogy. Leaving a set of keys in a car is a mistake, but someone choosing to dress in a way that entertains them, that they enjoy or that expresses their sexuality is a good, healthy thing and should not be judged. Should we not ensure that juries are instructed to ignore those matters?

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

To some extent, those questions are for a different debate on a different day, but Patrick Harvie will find that juries are already instructed to ignore those matters. The problem is that some people in Scotland have an underlying prejudice, whether conscious or subconscious, which we must overcome.

It is clear that we must address the law with regard to consent. As far as the Government and I are concerned, the law has served us well, but there is a particular problem with definitions. We have to ensure that the law on consent is understandable not only to specialist lawyers but to everybody else. That is why there has to be a definition. People serving on juries and everybody else should have some understanding of the law.

Some areas of law will always be too complex for anyone but specialist lawyers to understand, such as information technology, media or construction law. However, some fundamental parts of the law should be clear. We have to ensure that our whole population—whether legally qualified or otherwise—understand the basis of consent and that simply being dressed a certain way does not constitute giving consent. Other problems arise when someone has not specifically said no because they are afraid or intimidated. All those matters have to be clarified.

Pauline McNeill was correct to raise the issue of how we deal with children and the under-16s, to which the report referred. We want to discuss that issue in the Parliament. We are happy to bring proposals before the Justice Committee and the whole Parliament and to see them through. I reiterate that the Law Commission has made it clear that the under-13s have no ability to consent and that any sexual relationship with them is entirely unacceptable; that always has been and always will be the case. It remains entirely unacceptable for males aged over 16 to seek a relationship with those aged between 13 and 16, except in the circumstances in which the male believed, or was misinformed, that the younger person was over 16.

However, we have to consider the situation, to which Margaret Smith referred, in which a 15-year-old boy has a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl. Do we criminalise that? Should a sheriff fine the boy? Should a fines enforcement officer deduct the fine from his pocket money? We are abolishing unruly certificates, so we are not going to send him to Saughton. However, as Paul Martin and Pauline McNeill said, that does not mean that we as a society should send the message that such behaviour is acceptable. We have to recognise that there are particular problems that we as a Parliament will have to address. The Scottish Law Commission has suggested that such cases should go to the children's panel. The individuals involved might be beyond parental control, or they might be deeply troubled and require to go to a residential home. In some circumstances, they might even require to go to a secure residential unit. The Government is genuinely open minded about how to address such problems, which the whole Parliament must discuss. We are happy to engage in such discussion.

We must recognise that there is a dichotomy in relation to the law of corroboration. The Scottish Law Commission is considering the Moorov principle, about which issues were raised after the World's End trial.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Has the minister referred the specific issue of corroboration to the Scottish Law Commission? If so, when did he do so? I would like him to clear up the matter. I am talking about corroboration, not Moorov.

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

The member will be aware that after the World's End trial, we considered a variety of matters, including the Crown's right of appeal, evidence of past bad character and the Moorov principle, which relates to corroboration. The Scottish Law Commission has long-term plans to consider corroboration. We have asked it to ensure that it considers the Moorov principle. It has indicated that it thinks that Moorov should not be considered only in relation to sexual offences, because it can apply in cases in which people steal cars or break into houses. It is correct to say that we should review Moorov in the context of the entire law of corroboration, not simply the law of corroboration as it relates to sexual offences. I hope that the commission will report on its findings on Moorov either later this year or next year. I certainly undertake to write to Pauline McNeill about the timescales involved.

If we are going to retain fundamental parts of the law of corroboration, we should remember that that will always mean that we are not capable of bringing proceedings against or convicting certain people. We have to set the calibration and strike a balance in that regard. I believe that corroboration is fundamental to the law of Scotland, although it will have to change as times move on. However, there will always be instances when we have good reason to believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice. I refer not only to occasions when the innocent are convicted, to which Mike Pringle referred, but to instances when the necessary evidence is not brought against those who should be living in black burning shame. We have to ensure that we get the balance right.

On the point that Paul Martin and Helen Eadie raised, the fundamental issue is how we treat victims of these heinous offences. The law has to ensure that they are treated with dignity and compassion. The Crown is moving matters on through work on the victim notification scheme, for example. That principle remains enshrined.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support it is giving to national health service boards to set up and run midwife-led units. (S3O-2508)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

It is for each NHS board to plan and organise maternity care provision to meet local need and ensure that informed choice and a variety of care options is available to all women. We expect all NHS boards to ensure that all women receive the best available evidence-based care when and where it is required.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

In response to a recent freedom of information request, NHS Fife has recently quoted the cost of providing a midwife-led unit in Dunfermline, which is considerably higher than the cost of an alongside midwife-led unit at Forth Park hospital in Kirkcaldy. Will the minister investigate whether more funding will be made available to ensure that such facilities are put in place at Queen Margaret hospital in Dunfermline as soon as possible?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The member will be aware that from the outset of the "Right for Fife" review in 2001-02, NHS Fife has always planned to provide a community maternity unit in Queen Margaret hospital. The timetable for providing the unit depends largely on the transfer of other services between Victoria hospital in Kirkcaldy and Queen Margaret hospital. I know that the board remains committed to providing the unit within the timetable for its general hospitals and maternity project. We expect it to do so within the budget that it has been allocated. I am aware that the member has been kept informed of the developments that have been taking place.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

What encouragement is the Scottish Government giving NHS boards to organise the distribution of community midwives according to maternal and neonatal risk factors in particular areas rather than on a crude population basis, as is often the case at present?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The member raises an important point. We would always expect such risk factors to be taken into account in the allocation of midwives, particularly in more deprived communities, where there is greater need. I am certainly happy to write to the member to provide more detail on that.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it is confident that it will reach Labour's target of zero delayed discharges from hospitals by the end of March 2008 in each local authority and national health service board area. (S3O-2547)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

All local authority and NHS partnerships are committed to eliminating all delays over six weeks by April 2008. We expect partnerships to continue to work together to ensure that that target is met.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sure that the minister will join me in congratulating the national health service on the excellent work that it has done over the past few years in reducing delayed discharges, which, by blocking beds, create major problems. Will she confirm that zero means zero only for those in hospital for more than six weeks? Will she give the Parliament an undertaking that the figure will remain at zero for the over-six-weeks delayed discharges and that the rise that has been seen by September and October each year will no longer occur? Finally, will she guarantee that in eliminating the longer-term, over-six-weeks delayed discharges, a larger number of short-term delayed discharges will not occur and that there will not be a rise in the number of beds blocked?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Once we have eliminated the delays, I want to see zero delays every day, not just on census day. I have certainly made that clear and I expect all partnerships to work together and put in place plans that will ensure that the zero target is sustained. From what I can see, that is happening locally. Yes there are seasonal fluctuations, which are a challenge in keeping the figure at zero, but from what I have seen of the local plans I am assured that plans are being put in place to avoid unnecessary hospital admission and for upstream services, which can help to ensure that we maintain the figure at zero. I assure the member that I will keep a very close eye on the matter.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to address inequalities in Scotland. (S3O-2530)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Our aim is to focus Government and public services on creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all Scotland to flourish. We are therefore committed to tackling the prejudice and discrimination that leads to inequality in Scottish society. We will do that by mainstreaming equality across all Scottish Government policies, practices and services to ensure that our activities meet the needs of all the people we serve. The requirements of the public sector equality duties for race, disability and gender will support us in that process.

We will continue to support and develop the capacity for equality communities and groups to engage with policy makers so that they can understand their needs and experiences, to inform public policy development and service provision. The provision of robust data and evidence will help us to deliver policies that understand the issues and help to address inequality. We will raise awareness of equality issues and promote best practice in relation to challenging discriminatory attitudes. That is vital if we are to reduce inequalities and promote equality. We will provide support for activity that promotes equality and challenges unjust discrimination across all equality interests and we will work in partnership with a wide range of interests.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The minister will be aware that today is world book day. Earlier this morning, I had the privilege of sharing in the celebrations at St George's primary school in my constituency. Can the minister outline what progress there has been in supporting the right to read campaign, which ensures that those with visual impairment have access to the joy of reading? Will he outline what action he is taking to ensure that equality indicators are compulsory in the developing single outcome agreements? How will he ensure that the equality impact of the single outcome agreements is fully monitored?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am happy to join the member in supporting the right to read campaign, which has a great impact on our young people, particularly primary school children. We want all our children to have access to the maximum education opportunities that literacy will bring to them as adults.

We are currently in negotiation with individual local authorities about the single outcome agreements. The results of that negotiation will be brought to the Parliament in due course.

Equality impact assessment is being carried out on a range of issues across the Government, as it should be. We assess the impact on equality groups of our individual policies. That will help us to develop policy that is responsive to people's different needs and enable us to distribute appropriately the resources that are allocated in the budget.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Does the minister agree that the 2014 Commonwealth games present us with a golden opportunity to provide employment opportunities for some of the most deprived areas in Glasgow? Will the Government consider introducing special measures to achieve those aims? I am, of course, willing to meet the minister to discuss any proposals.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Under the subject of equalities, minister, you are more than welcome to attempt to answer that.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The question was about equality of opportunity for people who live in the east end of Glasgow.

The legacy paper that was published by the Government a few weeks ago will take forward our commitment to ensuring that the east end of Glasgow, in particular, as well as other areas of Scotland, benefits as much as possible from the work on the 2014 games. Part of the legacy of the games must be increased employment opportunities and reduced inequalities in the east end of Glasgow. We will be happy to work with all members across the chamber to ensure that that happens.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The recent budget addressed the extra demands that are being placed on the city of Edinburgh but, at the same time, the fairer Scotland fund delivered a real-terms cut in funding to the city of Glasgow, which is also faced with additional significant demands.

Although the levels of poverty, deprivation and inequality have decreased in recent years, the problem is still significant. Will the Government commit to follow through on the precedent that was set in relation to Edinburgh and provide additional funding to Glasgow in recognition of that city's special circumstances and particular inequalities?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I disagree with the member's comment about the fairer Scotland fund. It provides £435 million over the next three years to challenge directly some of the problems of poverty and inequality across our country.

If the member does not support the idea of replacing seven different funding streams with one funding stream, thereby reducing the administrative burden on local groups that previously had to apply to many different funding streams to achieve the funding levels that were necessary to take on the work of tackling poverty in Glasgow and elsewhere, she is rather out of touch with the problems that those local groups faced.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to change legislation that prevents children from accessing free nursery entitlement on reaching their third birthday. (S3O-2551)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Entitlement to pre-school education was increased from 412.5 hours a year to 475 hours a year in the autumn of 2007 and it will increase further, to 570 hours a year, in August 2010. We are now starting to consider options to deliver the final step in achieving a 50 per cent increase by 2011. Options include starting entitlement from a child's third birthday or equalising entitlement so that all children receive six full terms of pre-school education before they start school. I will examine all the options to ensure that children in Scotland get the best start in life.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Excellent. I should give a loud cheer.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Steady—the Government has not done it yet.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Exactly. The devil is in the detail, and the minister gave us a lot of detail. However, I will not be churlish. My constituent, Alexis Stevenson, from Kirkintilloch, who is petitioning this Parliament for such a change, will no doubt be delighted to hear what the minister has just said, but I think that we will still continue with the petition.

Will the minister support the free from three campaign and sign up to the attempt to ensure that three-year-olds who were born at the wrong time of year are not penalised when it comes to accessing a nursery place?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

As I indicated in my answer, we are looking at those very live options in order to complete the job.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that Wick high school is in need of substantial refurbishment or replacement and, if so, what measures it plans to take to secure improvements to Wick high school. (S3O-2545)

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The Highland Council has statutory responsibility for the provision and maintenance of school buildings in its area. Questions regarding investment priorities for individual schools within the estate are matters for the council.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Over the past three years, Highland Council has undertaken the largest secondary school building programme for several generations. Unfortunately, Wick high school has not reached the top of that programme. This week, the parents council of Wick high school published an extensive catalogue of the deficiencies in the school building. Will the minister agree to visit Wick high school to hear the parents' concerns at first hand? When can Highland Council expect to get extra cash from the Scottish futures trust to rebuild Wick high school?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am aware of Highland Council's capital programme for secondary school refurbishments. Wick high school was on the council's original list of schools requiring refurbishment but was not included in the final list of 11. I understand that the highest priority is Thurso high school, followed by the unit for students with special needs at Nairn academy, and that joint third were Plockton high school and Nairn academy, with Wick high school next on the programme.

The member will be aware of the increased capital that has been given to Highland Council—£132.234 million from 2008 to 2011, including its share of the extra £115 million for 2008-09. Highland Council, like other councils, has been given a massive increase in its capital. It is up to Highland Council to decide how that is allocated.

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

At a packed meeting at Wick high school—I have here a copy of the article on it in the press—the chairman of Highland Council's education culture and sport committee, Bill Fernie, told us that the council does not have the resources for a new build. Wick high school should be on Scotland's conscience.

Further to my written request that the First Minister come to see the school for himself, will the minister instruct senior Scottish Government officials to visit the school and come back with proposals about how a state-of-the-art school suitable for the 21st century can be fast tracked?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Officials are constantly in touch with all local authorities regarding their school building programmes. The member well knows that, as is the case with other councils, it is for the Highland Council to determine its priorities. It is not for the Scottish Government to intervene to decide on the council's priorities.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Wick high school was given the lowest rating possible for the current state of its buildings. At what point and against which standards can a school be deemed to be unfit and unsafe for the purpose of educating children? [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Too many conversations are taking place round the chamber.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The member will be aware that the state of school buildings is a matter for councils to address, according to certain criteria. If the member wishes more detail on when a school is deemed to be unfit for purpose, I will write to her about that.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The minister will be aware that the fabric of Wick high school has been deteriorating since Peter Peacock was the leader of Highland Council. During the eight years of the Liberal-Labour Administration, not enough money was given to the council to deal with the problem.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Come to the question, please.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister agree that novel methods might require to be used? Does she support the idea of the council investigating a bond issue to deal with some of the immediate problems?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Various options are open to councils for accessing funding to rebuild their estate. As members know, the Government plans to introduce a Scottish futures trust, on which consultation ended last year.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether ministers support the proposals by the United Kingdom Government to allow oil and gas exploration within the protected area of the Moray Firth. (S3O-2552)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Oil and gas exploration and exploitation are critically important to the Scottish economy but so, of course, is our environment. In considering whether such activities should be permitted in the Moray Firth special area of conservation, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, as the relevant competent authority, must comply with the requirements of the European Union habitats directive and the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001, as amended.

An appropriate assessment of block 17/3 in the Moray Firth was published for consultation by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform on 21 December 2007. All the other blocks in the Moray Firth have been withdrawn from the 25th offshore licensing round, pending the outcome of the consultation on block 17/3, which goes on until 14 March.

As Scottish Natural Heritage has not yet finalised its comments on the implications for the Moray Firth special area of conservation, it would be premature for me to comment on the specific proposal before I have had the opportunity to consider SNH's advice.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I presume that the minister will have seen today's coverage in The Press and Journal , which shows that Westminster's attitude to the available science is deeply flawed and that our precious marine environment is in danger. Has the Government decided whether to make representations to Westminster on this serious issue, given that we already know that its attitude is seriously flawed?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Our science will not be seriously flawed and our attitude will be determined by the work that is being undertaken by Scottish Natural Heritage. I repeat what I have just told the member. SNH is finalising its comments. The consultation round does not finish until 14 March. When I have seen SNH's advice, I am certain that I will do my usual robust thing.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does the minister acknowledge that UK ministers and the oil and gas industry are guided by guidelines that were drawn up by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, whose data do not bear out the concerns that Mr Harper has expressed? Does he share my view that the UK Government's requirement that a strategic environmental assessment be carried out before a block is released for exploration under a licensing round is the right approach?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The right approach is to listen to the advice of SNH, to submit that before the end of the licensing round and to recognise the sensitivity of the issue.

Yesterday and today, the regional advisory councils have been meeting in this very building to discuss maritime policy throughout the EU and to consider maritime protection areas. We should all be concerned about how we balance economic interests with environmental interests. The right way to make progress is to listen to the bodies that are charged with doing that before we come to our conclusions, and I am quite sure that that is precisely what this Government will do.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am delighted to say, before we move to First Minister's question time, that His Excellency Ron Prosor, the Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom, has joined us in the Presiding Officer's gallery this afternoon. Ambassador, on behalf of the Scottish Parliament I bid you a very warm welcome.

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-567)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Can I say how delighted I am to be answering Wendy Alexander's questions, given that it appears that if her boss had had his way, she would have been asking questions of Annabel Goldie or Nicol Stephen?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

We all saw the headlines this week about Scotland's booze and blade culture, and we all know that it is now even more uncomfortable to walk down the street on a Friday or a Saturday night—not just in the small hours but in the early evening. Does the First Minister agree that we need new approaches to tackle drink-fuelled violence in Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, I do. That is why I am sure that Wendy Alexander will want to join me in congratulating the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on raising the issue so high on the public agenda and for introducing so many new initiatives.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I welcome what the First Minister has just said, but I have concerns about the mixed messages that are coming from the heart of his Government. Given the reality of drink-fuelled violence, is the First Minister on the side of his justice secretary, who said on the BBC's "Wasted Nation" that he wants to double the cost of drink, or is he on the side of his Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, who told the weekend's papers that he wanted to cut it?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Wendy Alexander should probably acknowledge that when we talk about drink being cheaper than water, we are talking not about 10-year-old Glenmorangie being cheaper than water, but about high-strength cider and beer, and about the heavy discounting by supermarkets and retailers aimed at promoting a binge culture. I hope that, in her joint enthusiasm for tackling what is a real social problem in Scotland, Wendy Alexander is not suggesting that we continue the discrimination against one of Scotland's most famous exports—discrimination that might hamper us in terms of jobs and exports around the world.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

There the First Minister goes again—no answer. It is time for a straight answer to a straight question. The finance minister is lobbying for a tax cut on all spirits. Like it or not, cutting tax means cutting the price of the vodka and alcopops that are causing much of the trouble on our streets. Meanwhile, the justice secretary wants to double the cost of alcohol. Which side of the bar is the First Minister on?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am only responsible for the answers and not for Wendy Alexander's questions. If she had listened to my previous answer, she would know that I tried to make what I thought was a perfectly valid distinction, which would be well understood by the people of Scotland, between 10-year-old malt whisky and the cheap drink that is available in so many areas and that is causing us such great concern.

I do not know whether Wendy Alexander has been following the television programmes on the matter, because I remember seeing Pauline McNeill on "Newsnight" just last week, when she refused to say that she did not think that excise duty on whisky should be cut. Before Wendy Alexander asks the justice secretary or me about contradictions, she should ask her own MSPs.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

We have still not heard whether the First Minister is in favour of cutting the price of alcohol, as his finance minister suggests, or doubling it, as his justice secretary suggests. The First Minister knows full well that excise duty is also charged on vodka and alcopops and the like. We believe that the alcohol epidemic is too serious to play politics with.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Even the Scotch Whisky Association is arguing only for a tax freeze. However, the Scottish National Party is busy stoking up a budget battle and calling for a cut. Why is the Government more interested in starting fights with London than in stopping the fights on Scotland's streets?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Over the past 10 years, I have been delighted to work on a cross-party basis with members of Parliament who have been calling on Chancellors of the Exchequer for a cut—with considerable success—based on the recognition that one of Scotland's great industries should not be discriminated against by taxing the alcohol content of drink.

If we are to address deep discounting and the binge-drinking culture, surely we should support the justice secretary in bringing forward his key proposals for how Scotland can address the problem. I do not agree with Wendy Alexander that addressing the problem means continuing to discriminate, through the tax on alcohol content, against one of Scotland's great industries, and I do not think that many of her own members will seriously support that absurd position.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-568)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans at present to meet the secretary of state.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We know that the First Minister's much-vaunted pledge of a local income tax—he set a 100-day deadline, but it has become 300 days of dither—will now, perhaps, finally surface next week. On a point of basic principle, can the First Minister confirm that the proposal is still for a nationally set tax?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The proposal will be set out in the consultation document. As Annabel Goldie knows, our proposal is to have a 3p rate of local income tax. The reason that we advocate that is that we believe that local income tax is a better and a fairer way to contribute to paying for local services. We believe that taxation should be based on the ability to pay. I know that there is a powerful coalition between the Conservative and Labour parties in favour of council tax, despite the fact that until this Administration took office that tax had risen by 60 per cent over the past 10 years—I also know that this Administration's decisive action to freeze council tax is welcomed across Scotland—but I hope that at some point Annabel Goldie will be able to persuade her members and the Labour Party that there is something fundamentally flawed about a taxation system that does not take account of people's ability to pay.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Whatever else a tax set nationally is called, it is not called a local income tax. Let us be clear: we are dealing with a Scottish national income tax and it will not happen because there is no majority in this Parliament for a Scottish national income tax. Not even the Lib Dems would provide it, unless the First Minister is praying that when Nick Clegg orders opposition to the proposal there is a collapse in the Scottish ranks and they rush to the aid of the First Minister.

Let me offer the First Minister a way out and a way ahead. If he still insists that his sums add up and that he can find a way to fund the universally acknowledged black hole in his plans for a Scottish national income tax, why does he not do something that has one feature of compelling attraction to the First Minister—it is popular? Why does he not scrap the plans for his complicated and unwieldy new Scottish national income tax and consider using the money, which he insists that he can find, to cut council tax for everyone? Scotland has a choice and the First Minister has a choice: an unwieldy 15 per cent hike in income tax or a simple, easily administered cut of 25 per cent in council tax for everyone. What is it to be?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I remind Annabel Goldie that we have just cut council tax for everyone across Scotland by freezing it—except in the case of Stirling, where the Labour-run local authority, supported by the Conservatives, decided that it was so well endowed by Scottish Government support and finance that it cut its council tax in addition to the freeze. People throughout Scotland welcome what the Scottish Government has done, particularly given what is happening south of the border.

I have read Annabel Goldie's and her party's suggestions about how we should deal with the council tax. They have varied over the years—there have been many of them—but I have read them. One thing troubles me, and it is important for the current debate. The Scottish Conservatives' previous suggestion for the council tax, before today's suggestion, was to add on to the social security rebate another rebate. The problem with that suggestion is that it would have fallen victim to the recent pronouncements of James Purnell and United Kingdom ministers on deducting from Scotland what is rightfully ours.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

That is rubbish.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am afraid that it would have.

As we pursue the debate, more and more people will come to the conclusion that we should have fair and just local taxation in Scotland. There should be no attempt by Westminster ministers to withhold Scotland's money.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-569)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Fiona Hyslop, was asked on television's "Politics Now" programme:

"Are you going to remove student debt? Are you going to write it off?"

Her reply was:

"We never promised to write it off."

Does the First Minister think that she was absolutely and completely accurate in saying that?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Nicol Stephen well knows, the manifesto commitment was to pay the interest payments on student debt.

Last week, as I stood shoulder to shoulder with his MSPs and the students who demonstrated in favour of the Government's proposals to reintroduce free education in Scotland, little did I think that, only a week later, he would seek to divide us where we were so unified.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The SNP seems to have a new tactic, does it not? It used to deny breaking its promises. Now it denies making them in the first place. Does the First Minister expect us to forget that "dump the debt" was on every leaflet, on every badge and on postcards to students? There was a cartoon logo and there was even a podcast by the First Minister, yet Fiona Hyslop said last week:

"We never promised to write it off."

I wonder whether the First Minister has seen the SNP website that says:

"We will write off the accumulated debt".

Who should people believe, I wonder—Fiona Hyslop or fionahyslop.com?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

My view is that people should follow manifesto commitments. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

My view is that students in Scotland were demonstrating in favour of the Government's proposals for free education. I am delighted with the support that we had from the Liberal Democrats to make that progress. I hope that we will get their support on the local income tax. I got a very nice letter from Nicol Stephen only the other day.

However, I found myself reflecting on manifesto commitments on Tuesday night, when a rumour swept the country that the Liberals were about to honour their manifesto commitment by voting for a referendum on the European treaty. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. [ Interruption. ] Order. When I ask for order, it is not an invitation to double the noise.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I headed down to London because I realised that my vote might well be decisive, only to find out that the Liberals had decided to split and were in total disarray.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

The First Minister will be aware that, on Tuesday, Texol Technical Solutions in Dundee announced 85 redundancies. I am sure that the First Minister will agree that our first priority must be to ensure the rapid re-employment of those who face redundancy. Will he ensure that Dundee gets the Scottish Government's full support to develop a forward-thinking economic and enterprise strategy?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, I can make that commitment to the local member. I know about the redundancies in Dundee, which are a serious matter. The offices of the Scottish Government will give the maximum support to the local area and the employees who have been affected by the redundancies.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

The First Minister might be aware that next Sunday, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde will begin charging for car parking at Stobhill hospital. That is despite the fact that the Public Petitions Committee has asked the health board to delay the implementation of charging until its consideration of a petition is complete. Does the First Minister agree that the Public Petitions Committee should be allowed to complete its consideration of the petition before the car parking charges are implemented?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Public Petitions Committee's work should be considered by all concerned. I am sure that the member will want to salute the cap on parking charges that has been introduced by the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. A £3 cap is a thoroughly good idea given the outrageous charges that developed in certain hospital car parks under the tutelage of the previous Administration. The cap that is being introduced will mean protection for staff and patients around Scotland. We should remember and welcome the fact that the majority of hospital car parks in Scotland remain free to use.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with United Kingdom ministers regarding firearms legislation. (S3F-575)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice have met UK Ministers to discuss firearms legislation. We have also exchanged letters with UK ministers on that very important subject.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Between 2003 and 2007, the number of air gun incidents that were handled by Grampian police increased fivefold. In Scotland, the number of cases in which air weapons were fired at a person and caused injury has jumped 20 per cent in the past two years. That contrasts with the situation in England and Wales, where the number of crimes involving air guns has dropped by 10 per cent during the past two years. Taking those figures into account, does the First Minister agree that, contrary to the views apparently expressed by the Home Secretary, Scotland has a more acute problem with air guns that must be addressed urgently?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I agree with that. Members will be disturbed to hear the figures that the member from the area gives for the north-east of Scotland—figures that are replicated throughout Scotland. In 2006-07, 144 cases were reported in which an air weapon was fired or killed or caused injury to a person. I am sure that everyone will agree that that is 144 too many and that we should all be determined to reduce the risk posed by those weapons for the people of Scotland.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Does the First Minister agree that, given the powers that are available to us, a useful first step would be for the Government to adopt the Liberal Democrats' suggestion to introduce a tough licensing scheme for air guns?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Although the Home Secretary has turned down the invitation to jointly host a summit to consider the issue, it should and will go ahead because, over and above the basic requirement for legal protection, it might well be that we can toughen up the situation using existing legislation. I am sure that Margaret Smith will want to bring her views to the summit that will be held by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

To ask the First Minister, in the week of international women's day, what the Scottish Government is doing to support women suffering domestic violence. (S3F-581)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government has shown its commitment to the work to tackle violence against women, including domestic abuse, through the allocation of more than £40 million over the next three years. For example, both the violence against women fund and the children's services-women's aid fund will continue, as will funding for Scottish Women's Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland and the two national helplines for domestic abuse and rape crisis.

Furthermore, six of the 15 national outcomes are relevant to work to prevent violence against women and, as Margaret Curran well knows, I signed the zero tolerance statement of intent at the cross-party event held in the Parliament a few weeks ago.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I thank the First Minister for his answer and acknowledge that progress is continuing on our work.

Does the First Minister agree that many, if not all in the Parliament will, on international women's day, want to pay tribute to the women of earlier generations who fought for the vote, for equal pay, child care and political representation? However, I am sure that the First Minister will acknowledge that members across the chamber recognise the continuing and profound challenge presented by domestic abuse. Does the First Minister agree that the pilot domestic abuse court in Glasgow has been proven to work and, if so, will he tell the chamber what he considers to be the successes of the domestic abuse court? Will he stand, on international women's day, with the women who tackle domestic abuse day and daily and who want the court extended throughout Scotland? Will he tell the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, who refuses to support that change, which is demanded by women's organisations throughout Scotland, to think again?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The first thing is, of course, to continue the work of that court and extend it throughout the city of Glasgow. Not every court in Scotland is suitable, as Glasgow most certainly is, for that work, but it is certainly being considered for application elsewhere. I should have said to Margaret Curran that, on Tuesday, Mr MacAskill and the Deputy First Minister met the women's coalition and, in this week of international women's day, they examined a range of issues that the women's coalition is bringing forward. It was an extremely productive meeting.

Furthermore, on Saturday there will be a daytime event at the Scottish Parliament hosted by the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture and a reception at Edinburgh castle later on. The range of issues on the agenda on Tuesday—I have an outcome note of it—makes extremely interesting reading and shows the commitment that I hold, and that I hope is held by members across the chamber, to the vital importance of those issues.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The First Minister will be aware of Amnesty International's report, "No recourse, no safety", which highlights the plight of women with insecure immigration status who are fleeing domestic abuse, and who have no recourse whatsoever to public funds. Will the First Minister look at that issue and enable those women to access the services to which they are entitled under our country's obligation to protect human rights?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I will look at the issue, as suggested, and I will write to the member.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

As part of the strategy to address the abhorrence that is domestic violence, will the First Minister ensure that the vulnerable persons database is included in the scope of the Disclosure Scotland scheme, to ensure that potential employers have access to relevant information relating to domestic abusers?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I will certainly see that that suggestion is properly considered and taken forward if it is appropriate.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

On a more positive note, can the First Minister outline any education measures that will be undertaken? If we seek to reduce violence against women in the home, men have to be educated from the cradle to the grave.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

One of the key items discussed at the meeting on Tuesday was to examine further the work that is already under way in the prevention strategy to underline the importance that is placed on education and on promoting that work; and also to look at the international experience, which gives us valuable insight into that. That was welcomed by the women's coalition members, and officials are currently being asked to provide further advice to ministers on how that can be taken forward.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with BAA about the future of Scotland's airports. (S3F-572)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We have regular contact with the operators of Scotland's main airports at ministerial and official level. The meetings can cover a wide range of issues, including the future development of airports.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Although the decision on a third runway at Heathrow is a matter to be determined south of the border, the First Minister will be aware that there are concerns that, unless overall capacity is increased, connectivity to Scotland's airports might be adversely affected. There is serious concern that more routes to Scotland will be lost, or that the frequency of flights will be reduced. Can the First Minister outline the steps that ministers propose to take to protect and develop air connectivity between Scotland and London in the interests of growing the Scottish economy?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Competition Commission is conducting an inquiry into the provision of airport services by BAA. The Commission met with Scottish officials on 30 January and a transcript of that hearing will appear on the commission's website in due course. As the member will know, I am visiting Prestwick airport on Tuesday, and I will be keen and anxious to talk about the particular impact and importance of Prestwick to that part of Scotland.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

That Scotland is now free of bridge tolls is welcome, but I am sure that the First Minister is aware that BAA has introduced a road toll: it has introduced charges for collecting passengers at airports in Scotland. Will the Government step in and find a way to nullify and negate the powers of regulation that BAA has used to introduce a holiday tax?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Government has submitted evidence to the Competition Commission in relation to the inquiry. I know that the matter that the member raises has been controversial for several airports in Scotland, and I know because of my constituency role that Aberdeen airport has just withdrawn its initial proposals on taxation on taxi uplifts. I hope that the matter will be properly discussed, as there is concern that there are competition implications to some of the charging mechanisms that are being used.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Is the First Minister aware of the view that the Aberdeen Hotels Association expressed last week that setting targets for growing tourism on the one hand and cutting the route development fund on the other hand

"just does not stack up"?

Given that in Aberdeen next week, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee will take evidence on the tourism growth targets, will the First Minister offer some good news for tourism in the north-east by announcing a new fund to support direct flights into Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Lewis Macdonald well knows, it is no longer possible to pursue the route development fund because of European competition rules. The extension that the previous Administration was allowed has now run out, and it would be impossible to pursue the scheme in its current form.

We are considering transport policy in the round. Obviously, the tourism targets were industry targets that the previous Administration adopted, and we have endorsed them. In the coming years, there will be a number of positive developments in Scottish tourism, not least of which will be the year of homecoming next year, Glasgow 2014 and the Ryder cup. I have every confidence that, although the targets are challenging, they are reasonable and can be met.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am sure that every member is aware that scientists have said that emissions from the aviation sector have a far more damaging impact on climate change than emissions from ground-based industries. Does the First Minister accept that if we allow the aviation industry to expand at its current rates and build more capacity to allow and facilitate that expansion, aviation will account for the majority of the country's carbon budget well before 2050, and well before the long-term targets to which the Government has committed itself are met? How is the target of reducing emissions by 80 per cent to be met if the Government continues to facilitate the expansion of the aviation industry?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The 80 per cent target will be a statutory obligation on the Government.

I want to put two points to Patrick Harvie. First, I am sure that if members were to judge the best and most appropriate way of taking people from Scotland to London, the bulk of them would favour a fast rail link; unfortunately, such a link is not the favoured choice of the Department for Transport. It was not the favoured choice of the previous Secretary of State for Transport and it is not the favoured choice of the current Secretary of State for Transport.

Secondly, even Patrick Harvie should acknowledge that there is a bit of common sense in having direct flights to and from Scotland. If there are direct air flights, two air journeys—for example, a journey to Heathrow or elsewhere and an international journey from there—are exchanged for one air journey. Such flights would seem to be a carbon gain, good for the Scottish economy and good for our carbon emissions output.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am sure that the increasing number of flights boosts the economy, but aircraft noise is a problem. It pollutes the environment in communities such as Whitecrook, Linnvale and Drumry, which are in my constituency. How can the problems that are caused by aircraft noise be mitigated through discussions that the First Minister may have with BAA and the airline operators? Does the First Minister's Government have any intention of progressing the issue?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Legitimate and serious concerns exist about environmental damage, which can be caused in a number of ways. When I consider the matters that have been raised, I will do my absolute best to reconcile the points that Lewis Macdonald has made and the point that Des McNulty has just made. Some people might see them as being directly contradictory, but on balance and on the whole we can judge such things in the best interests of the Scottish people.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Finance and Sustainable Growth

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

To ask the Scottish Executive what dedicated investment there will be for supporting economic development in the Borders. (S3O-2502)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The prime source of investment for supporting economic development in the Borders, alongside the private sector, will come from the local authority and Scottish Enterprise. Scottish Enterprise's delivery will be organised on a regional basis, with Borders alongside Dumfries and Galloway comprising its south of Scotland region.

Scottish Enterprise's future budget allocations to each of the five regions in its area have not yet been approved. I can however tell the member that the Scottish Government places great importance on supporting and encouraging economic development throughout Scotland, including the Borders.

The Government economic strategy sets out how we will focus on creating a more successful country through increasing sustainable economic growth. The strategy sets out an approach to growth that is cohesive across Scotland's regions.

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

It is only a matter of weeks until the start of the new financial year and yet there is still no definite figure for what the enterprise network investment will be. The cabinet secretary will know that the figure last year was £9 million, of which £1.1 million was for skills and learning. How much will go to the Borders next year? When will agreement on that investment be reached with the business gateway and the local authority? What is the target for start-up businesses? The cabinet secretary knows that last year's figure of £9 million included £520,000 to encourage more than 200 new business start-ups. What is the figure for next year?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Discussions relating to decisions on the business gateway are on-going. The Government is working to ensure that those decisions are arrived at timeously. Obviously, in many respects the formulation of budgets is predicated on the passage through the Parliament of the Budget (Scotland) Bill. I am delighted that we succeeded in achieving passage of our budget bill last month.

One measure that will support investment in the Borders is the small business bonus scheme, which has been warmly welcomed across Scotland. It will have a formidable effect on communities in the Borders. The effect will be no less in the town of Hawick. The town may not be in Mr Purvis's constituency, but it is in the Borders. In the Hawick News, of which I am an avid reader, I read that the announcement of the small business bonus scheme was welcomed as "great news" by Hawick and Hermitage councillor Ron Smith, who is—I happen to have heard—a Liberal Democrat. Mr Smith said:

"This is great news. It will particularly favour the smaller local shops which are the mainstay of any High Street."

I am delighted that the Government has made such a positive impression on economic development in the Borders. I look forward to Borders businesses benefiting from such a visionary scheme from the Government.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I draw the cabinet secretary's attention to the Government's gross value added figures, which show a dramatic drop in investment in the Borders during the time of the Liberal-Labour Administration. Can he assure me that the trend will be reversed?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am pretty sure that Mr Lamont is also an avid reader of the Hawick News, so he too will have seen the warm welcome that the Liberal Democrats have given the small business bonus scheme that the Government was delighted to introduce. I am glad that the Conservatives were able to support it during the passage of the budget bill. I am certain that the reduction in business rates will have a significant effect on improving business competitiveness and opportunities, particularly for businesses in areas such as the Borders where business rates are a formidable part of the cost of running a business. I look forward to seeing the fruits of that success in the months and years to come.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I attended a successful Borders tourism exchange event in Kelso on Tuesday, as did my colleague John Lamont—this is not a coalition. As the cabinet secretary is aware, tourism is a key growth area in the Borders. Has he had any contact with this fledgling partnership? If not, will he or the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism meet representatives and me to discuss ways of assisting this development?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Christine Grahame is omnipresent in the Borders—Kelso, Hawick, Galashiels and all other areas—and I am delighted to welcome her interest in the area. The Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism will be delighted to meet the tourism representatives. There has been a great deal of dialogue between the Government, particularly the enterprise minister, and the tourism sector. We appreciate that dialogue, which forms part of our determination to ensure that tourism becomes an even greater contributor to the Scottish economy. There is significant potential for it to do so.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

How does the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth reconcile the statement, made in June 2007, that the Scottish Government would provide £115 million towards the Waverley line project with yesterday's announcement, which effectively removes £115 million—which was earmarked for taking forward the project—from the budget for the spending review period? How is no money and no railway before 2011 good news for economic development in the Borders?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Because we will actually do it. This is the big regret about the previous Administration, which had eight years of an undiluted opportunity. Without being in any way disrespectful to the record of the Labour Party in the previous Administration, I remember its members being privately reluctant about the Borders railway—so much so that nothing was done to lay one metre of track. It is bizarre that Mr McNulty is trying to hold the Government to account in this way. We will be able to deliver on the Borders railway in a way that the Labour and Liberal Administration comprehensively failed to do during the past eight years.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to allocate additional funding, over and above the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning's budget, to ensure that all young people receive sufficient education and training to contribute effectively to the economy. (S3O-2548)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Budget (Scotland) Bill for 2008-09, which details the Administration's spending plans, was approved by Parliament on 6 February 2008. Appropriate provision has been made in the overall budget, and in the education and lifelong learning and local government budgets, to ensure that all young people receive sufficient education and training to contribute effectively to the economy.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that sufficient funding is essential if further education institutions are to be allowed to prioritise the educational needs of the communities they serve rather than operate as businesses subject to financial constraints based on restrictive performance indicators? Is the cabinet secretary aware of the situation in my constituency, where general education courses at Coatbridge College are under threat? Can he offer any assistance to help secure a future for those vital courses?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am aware of the detail to which Elaine Smith refers regarding the situation at Coatbridge College. As I understand it, the changes to the general education courses there have been undertaken on educational grounds, as part of a process that has been under way for some considerable time. Essentially, their purpose is to improve the performance of the college, which is now achieving formidable levels of performance—and the number of enrolments has increased from about 5,000 to about 7,000. The college is performing well, it is financially secure and it is working to deliver the courses that are appropriate for all the communities it serves.

On Elaine Smith's more general point at the start of her question, the Government is determined to ensure that the further education sector receives adequate funding, which I believe it has, and can make a significant contribution to the development of skills in our economy. It is upon the skills agenda that we will be able to build a great measure of our competitiveness. The further education sector and Coatbridge College, which is in an area where economic development is very welcome, will be able to contribute to that, based on the budget that Parliament has approved.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding investment in the development of renewable tidal energy in the Pentland Firth. (S3O-2507)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We are in close contact with the UK Government on a range of issues relating to the development of renewable energy. The Pentland Firth presents a huge potential energy resource and could play a vital role in terms of our renewables targets as well as revitalising the local economy. The Scottish Government is working closely with a number of bodies, including Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Highland Council and the Crown Estate, on ways to accelerate deployment in the firth and maximise the associated economic benefits for Caithness.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I call Jim Mather—sorry, Jamie Stone.

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

Yes, I am indeed Jamie Stone, but that does not prevent me from warmly welcoming the positive tone of the minister's answer. As Dounreay continues to decommission and people are worried about long-term quality employment, there is a lot of positive talk about the potential of the Pentland Firth. Does the minister agree that turning that potential into an actuality will take considerable investment and that the enterprise network, the Scottish Government and Highland Council will not have those resources? Does the minister therefore agree that co-ordination with Westminster to provide public funding and to attract private funding will be essential?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We do not see the enterprise agency as working in isolation, and we tend to go beyond what Westminster is offering. Our proposed changes in the renewables obligation Scotland will give developers the appropriate support to develop the technology further. We will consult on those proposed changes in due course.

In addition, there is the Scottish Government's £13 million wave and tidal energy support scheme. The scheme supports nine innovative projects and provides funding for infrastructure upgrades at the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney. We have also just completed a strategic environmental assessment that has identified a number of ways in which we can push forward our knowledge to understand how best to develop marine renewables. In response to that, we will convene a marine energy policy group, made up of key industry and environmental stakeholders. They will lead in creating and monitoring an environmental research programme for the sector. The situation is looking positive for the future.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Would the development of a European energy network be a means to take marine power to the markets that exist, perhaps to bypass the blockage with the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, and to get the UK Government to see that there is a wider market in Europe? Would that incentivise the investors in the Pentland Firth potential to commit the large sums that will be required?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

It is interesting that the wider potential has been identified not only by the Scottish Government but by a very British institution, the Crown Estate, which identified the potential of subsea interconnection. The bottom line is that the Government is committed to harvesting offshore renewables. The development of an offshore network and infrastructure is accepted to be vital in unlocking the long-term economic benefits—hence the strategic environmental assessment. That is an indication of our desire to explore every option to optimise the renewables. We will maintain close and regular contact with a range of stakeholders. However, under the current framework, regulatory responsibility remains with Ofgem.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Does the minister seriously still intend to reduce targets for tidal and wave energy over the next four years?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Reducing targets and returning to zero, and thereby not penalising consumers and the industry for devices that do not exist, seems eminently sensible to me. That is indeed what we intend to do.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does the minister agree that, in addition to the funding from Scottish sources that he has indicated, it is important that tidal energy initiatives in the north of Scotland continue to attract UK Government funding, as they have done in the past four years? In view of industry predictions that commercially achievable tidal and wave energy projects are likely to come on stream eight to 10 years from now, will he indicate his intentions in addressing base-load need in the interim period?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

On UK collaboration, the answer is yes—it is important so that we can develop and help to meet the UK targets, which would otherwise be a struggle. Let me point also to UK data that say that, in 2006, 92 per cent of the Scottish energy requirement was provided by fossil fuels, renewables and pump storage.

In essence, our future in renewables is rosy. We are seeing material investment programmes from all the major companies. The Government is laying down the right signals, which are being followed and which we intend to augment in the future. We are also seeing unprecedented interest from overseas. This very day, I am meeting companies that are beginning to look at what they can do in Scotland.

We are putting out the right signals and the investment is forthcoming. We will collaborate with anyone and everyone who will help us to meet the targets that Scotland is setting for itself on energy and stability of supply, and our commitment to climate change.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the Scottish Executive on what basis it was decided that services to and from Mull and Islay should not be included in the pilot of the road equivalent tariff scheme that was recently announced by the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change. (S3O-2540)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Mr Swinney announced details of the road equivalent tariff study during his visit to Stornoway on 13 August 2007. That announcement made it clear that we would carry out a study into RET in the context of ferry fares in Scotland and that the study would include a pilot exercise on one or more of the Western Isles to mainland routes.

I am pleased to say that we are able to include all the Western Isles to mainland routes in the pilot exercise as well as the Oban to Coll and Tiree service. Focusing on those routes initially will allow us to reach a view on the potential costs and benefits of the scheme and to take informed decisions on its potential impacts across other routes. Consideration will be given to the roll-out of RET across the Clyde and Hebrides and northern isles networks once the impact of RET has been evaluated.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Some of the minister's responses are beginning to resemble the justification that was provided by comical Ali during the Iraq invasion. Such things will be picked up—[ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

People in Arran and Cumbrae will be extremely annoyed that significant reductions in ferry fares will be available to others, but not to them. People in Mull and Islay will be annoyed that significant reductions will be available to others, but not to them. People in Orkney and Shetland will also—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

They would probably like a question as well, Mr McNulty.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Had the Government followed Labour's approach of implementing a 40 per cent reduction in ferry fares—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Can we have a question, please.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Such a reduction would have delivered something for everyone. Why will the minister not deliver that?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Perhaps we can now clearly understand why Labour has no parliamentary representatives in the Western Isles.

The median wage in the Western Isles is £55 a week less than that in Shetland. The unemployment rate is twice that in the northern isles. Over the past 20 years there has been an 18 per cent reduction in the population of the Western Isles, but other island populations have experienced relative stability. If it is not clear to the member, we are delivering equity and fairness as well as delivering on a manifesto commitment. We have done the right thing by the people of the Western Isles.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Not only the people of Mull and Islay, but the residents of Jura, Bute, Colonsay and Arran—as well as those who live in Dunoon—will miss out on the lower ferry fares. All those people would have benefited from the previous Government's manifesto plan for a 40 per cent cut in ferry fares, but after 19 October—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Can we have a question please, Mr McGrigor.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

For 30 months after 19 October, only the people of the Western Isles, Coll and Tiree will benefit from lower fares. Does the minister think that that is equitable?