Scottish Parliament, 19 June 2008

365 contributions from 83 members. The official report.

Official Report 19 June 2008

Financial Outturn 2007-08

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The first item of business is a statement by John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, on the financial outturn for 2007-08. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his 10-minute statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions during it.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I welcome this opportunity to inform Parliament of the provisional budget outturn for 2007-08.

Although we inherited the 2007-08 budget when we came into office last May, the responsibility for managing it lay firmly with the new Administration—and we have managed it to a level of precision unseen by any previous Administration.

The 2007-08 budget was originally approved on a departmental basis, but we used the opportunity that was afforded by the autumn budget revision last November to formally restate that budget on the basis of the Government's portfolio structure. That reflected the establishment of a smaller and more effective ministerial team and put in place a much more streamlined structure for the Scottish Government, which is better equipped to deliver our policies and priorities.

I also used the autumn budget revision to draw down from HM Treasury more than £600 million in end-year flexibility balances, which was necessary to cover two major additional factors that we inherited from the previous Administration: first, we required resources to meet the bulk of the original budget overcommitment of £220 million; and secondly, we required resources to meet the additional costs of capital expenditure programmes that had been approved by the previous Administration.

In addition to meeting those obligations, I provided additional capital funding of £100 million to support a range of projects in the higher and further education sectors, and funding of £30 million to meet some early policy commitments of the new Government, which included the removal of bridge tolls in February and increased support for Scottish international development projects.

At the second of the routine budget revisions in the spring of this year, I used the opportunity to formalise a number of transfers between budget lines in order to align them with predicted spend for the rest of the year. That was in accordance with normal procedures and the principles of sound financial management. In any given year, there will be fluctuations in budget performance, and this Government—just like our predecessors—has addressed those factors.

As a clear demonstration of that sound financial management, I am delighted to report today that the provisional outturn for 2007-08 is expenditure of £27,367 million against a departmental expenditure limit budget of £27,409 million—an underspend of just £42 million.

The end-year flexibility of £42 million that has been generated by the provisional underspend is by far the lowest total ever recorded by any Scottish Administration. It represents less than 0.2 per cent of our DEL budget, which is equivalent to less than half a day's spending by the Scottish Government. That is in stark contrast to the levels of underspend reported at this time over the past four years: £623 million in 2003-04; £382 million in 2004-05; £139 million in 2005-06; and £135 million in 2006-07. That amounts to an accumulation of £1,279 million in underspends between 2003-04 and 2006-07, which the previous Administration left to languish in HM Treasury's coffers.

The achievement of such a low level of underspending reflects our proactive approach to budget management and our desire to make maximum use of the resources that are available to us. For the first time, the end-year flexibility balance, which is held on account at HM Treasury and is due to appear in its public expenditure 2007-08 provisional outturn publication in July, will have decreased significantly.

The opening balance of Scottish end-year flexibility at HM Treasury of £1,528.6 million, which was published last July, will have fallen by nearly £600 million to around £950 million. This is the first time since 2002-03 that the end-year flexibility balance held by HM Treasury has fallen below £1 billion. I need hardly remind Parliament that that is Scotland's money, which is intended to be used for the benefit and the interests of the people of Scotland. Where the previous Administration failed to make use of those resources, we have already shown that we will not be so tardy in using them for the benefit of the people of Scotland. Not only have we reduced the balance by £600 million during the past financial year, we have secured access to the vast majority of the remaining balance over the next three years.

The unprecedented agreement that I made with HM Treasury as part of the spending review settlement ensures that we have guaranteed access to £300 million in 2008-09; £400 million in 2009-10; and £174 million in 2010-11. That is a total of £874 million, which has already been factored into our spending plans as outlined in the spending review document that was published last November.

Outturn against the Budget (Scotland) Act 2007 limits will be published in the Scottish Government consolidated accounts and is expected to show an underspend of approximately £216 million, subject to audit. That includes variances of approximately £100 million in capital charges; £21 million resulting from lower demand in student loans; and £21 million in national health service and teachers' pensions. Those variances are outside the departmental expenditure limit and have no impact on the delivery of our policies or the resources that are available to the people of Scotland.

The underspend of £42 million represents our headline underspend figure and measures our performance in managing the Scottish block of public expenditure. However, in announcing and celebrating that achievement, we recognise that there is no room for complacency. The efficient and effective management of our budget remains a key characteristic of the Government.

We are pursuing our programme of investment in the future of Scotland, despite the lowest increase in the United Kingdom spending settlement for Scotland since devolution. Parliament will recall that, over the next three years, funding will grow at an average of only 1.4 per cent per year, compared with an annual average increase of 4.3 per cent over the three years of the spending review 2004.

We will pursue our programme by continuing to govern with a sharp focus on delivering the maximum value for the taxpayer and the maximum impact on the Government's purpose. The outturn position that was achieved in 2007-08 provides ample evidence that we are fulfilling our promise to the people of Scotland to act wisely in the Scottish interest.

We will also govern to ensure that we retain in Scotland, for use in developing the Scottish economy and public services, as much of our resources as we can.

It remains a key objective to ensure that we maximise the use of the resources that are available to us and avoid any suggestion of a return to the bad old days of leaving languishing at Westminster £1.5 billion of budget that is intended to benefit the people of Scotland.

This Scottish Government has managed, and intends to continue to manage, the budget effectively in the best interests of the people of Scotland. However, it is becoming clear that we will have to overcome significant obstacles put in our way by the financial arrangements under which we operate and the actions of the UK Government.

We have been denied around £120 million of consequentials arising from the £1.2 billion of additional funding that has been given to HM Prison Service in England and Wales as a result of the Carter review.

Lord Sutherland said in his report published in April that it was "clearly contrary to equity" that people in Scottish care homes were denied attendance allowance while those in care homes elsewhere in the UK received it, and he called for the restoration of £30 million a year to the Scottish budget.

The continued suspension of the council tax benefit mechanism remains contrary to the spirit of "Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly: Statement of Funding Policy" and is estimated to deny Scotland approximately £100 million per annum of funding to which we are properly entitled.

We need to be sure of a fairer deal on issues such as animal disease after the lessons of last year's impact on Scottish budgets of foot-and-mouth disease in the south of England. In that situation, policy is devolved to us but budgets are retained by Whitehall and spent at its discretion.

I intend to continue to pursue those and other issues with the UK Government to ensure that Scotland gets its fair share of funding and that its people are treated equitably.

The Government has today announced a level of underspend that is the lowest ever achieved by any Scottish Administration. It bears testimony to our sound and prudent financial management and demonstrates our intention to use all the resources that are available for the benefit of the people of Scotland.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on issues that were raised in his statement. We have around 20 minutes for such questions, after which we must move to the next item of business.

I remind all members that contributions should be made through the chair, which means that members should refer to other members by name or title.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance sight of the breakfast edition of his statement.

Underspend in the Scottish Executive budget has, of course, been on a downward trend for some time. It would be churlish not to congratulate the cabinet secretary on continuing that trend.

Recent practice has been for finance ministers to report the full underspend, not just the DEL underspend, in order to avoid any suggestion of hiding any of it. In this case, that would be £216 million rather than £42 million. Does the cabinet secretary accept that that sum demonstrates a rather more modest improvement? Is that why he has reverted to using the DEL figures? Can he explain why, on previous occasions, he believed that the higher figure was the important one but, on this occasion, he argues that the lower figure of £42 million should be the headline?

Given that the cabinet secretary has allocated allowed EYF draw-down in his spending plans—indeed, he has made a virtue of that—can he explain what measures he has taken to allow for contingency and flexibility by way of reserves, central unallocated provision or money that is available under any other heading? How will he deal with the unforeseen?

The cabinet secretary referred to proactive budget management. What plans does he have for routine autumn budget revisions this year?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I thank Mr Gray for the generous remarks at the start of his contribution. He correctly records the fact that I have reported the underspend of £42 million on the basis of the DEL figures. That is consistent with the declaration of underspend that has been put to Parliament by my predecessors throughout the period of the existence of the Scottish Parliament. In my statement, I recorded an underspend against the Budget (Scotland) Act 2007 limits of £216 million. As Mr Gray knows, the difference between that figure and the DEL figure is that the budget act provision includes annually managed expenditure over which the Government has no control. The provision that I think is the appropriate indicator of performance is the DEL budget, for which the Government has full responsibility. Of course, that is also the approach that was taken by my predecessors.

On forward budget activity, the Government has not made provision in the 2008-09 budget for contingency. We recognised the tightness of the financial settlement and realised that it was important that we allocate resources fully to maximise effective spend. In the course of any year, underspends emerge in particular programmes. Part of the routine financial management over the year will be to identify those resources timeously and ensure that they are allocated appropriately to deal with any pressures that emerge.

I expect to come to Parliament with autumn budget revisions. That would be the normal way of ensuring that our financial programmes are properly aligned with the expectations of Parliament. I will give due notice to Parliament of those provisions at the appropriate time. Of course, I will appear before the Finance Committee to address any issues that arise from that.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of the statement.

I will pick up on the points that were just raised about flexibility and dealing with the unforeseen. Given that the balance at the Treasury is being reduced quite significantly and the overall level of underspend is falling as well, does that not mean that, if the unforeseen were to arise late on in the financial year, after the Government had taken all reasonable steps to reduce underspend across all portfolios, there is a greater risk than previously that the unforeseen might have, shall we say, unforeseen consequences? What measures is the Government taking to ensure that, if something arises late on in the financial year, the consequences for the Scottish budget are not extremely serious?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Brownlee seems to be terribly concerned this morning by the unforeseen. We always monitor issues that arise, and we are already monitoring various factors in the budget to identify where potential pressures might arise in the period ahead.

We have a significant budget—today, I have announced figures that relate to our 2007-08 budget, which totalled over £27 billion. Within that budget, we have flexibility that will allow us to adapt to challenging circumstances that might emerge. The situation is routinely monitored with that in mind by me, the permanent secretary, the strategic board and the Cabinet. We will take appropriate decisions to guarantee that we are able to support the programmes that the Government has announced.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement, which will be, we presume, the last before the summer recess.

Rather than the unforeseen, which Mr Brownlee mentioned, I want to ask Mr Swinney about a number of foreseeable issues that he will have to deal with.

Yesterday, the governor of the Bank of England said that rising food and energy prices could push UK inflation above 4 per cent. Further, interest rates are set to rise and the credit and financial squeeze is a reality, as anyone will find out if they talk to any of the one in six householders across the country who fear losing their jobs. Those factors are foreseeable—they are commentators' assessments of what is happening. Given that today is Mr Swinney's last statement before the summer recess, does he agree that he could have used this opportunity to consider some of the wider economic influences that the Government and the country face?

Further, why was there no comment in Mr Swinney's statement on how he is going to fund capital projects such as the new Forth bridge? He promised to make such a statement to Parliament before the summer recess. Why, too, was there no mention of pay policy, which is a significant part of overall Government expenditure? Is his policy still that there will be no redundancies in the public sector?

Finally, why was there no mention of the "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland" report—the famous GERS? We are told that the press—not Parliament—will receive that tomorrow. Possibly, Mr Swinney could confirm when the rest of us—that is, MSPs—will see that particular paper. Is it still a "dodgy dossier", to use his words? Will the authors, who are, of course, now Mr Swinney's civil servants, alter the report in light of Mr Swinney's comment in 2007 that

"the authors have once again admitted that it says nothing about how Scotland would fare with the benefits of independence"?

What are the authors to do this time, and when will we hear about it in the Parliament?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

On a number of occasions in the past few weeks, I have commented extensively to Parliament—over the complaints of many, I suspect—about the wider economic circumstances. The governor of the Bank of England set out some very real issues and challenges. That is precisely why the Government remains committed to its agenda of reducing the costs of business, to ensure that we protect Scottish business and support it to weather what will undoubtedly be a difficult climate. I look forward to Mr Scott's support in that process.

On capital projects, the Government published its infrastructure investment plan in March. We set out our capital allocations in the spending review document in November, and all of that detail was approved by the Parliament in the Budget (Scotland) Act 2008 in February. We have in no way deviated from those plans. We will make a statement to Parliament about the replacement Forth crossing during 2008, which is precisely what we said we would do. Mr Scott will hear that statement when it is ready to be delivered.

The Government has published its pay policy, and I can confirm to members that this Government will not preside over any compulsory redundancies in the programmes that we take forward.

Mr Scott will be aware that GERS is a product of the statistical teams in the Scottish Government and does not involve oversight from ministers. I understand that it will be published tomorrow. I cannot recall there ever having been a ministerial statement to Parliament about GERS. All that I can say is that, if that approach was good enough for Mr Scott over the past eight years, it is good enough for me.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We come to questions from back-bench members. As always, time is limited, so I beg members to keep questions brief and to ask one question per member.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I congratulate the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth on having a very sustainable budget. The record low underspend figures are highly commendable. Significant progress has clearly been made with regard to the balances that are held at Westminster but, by my calculations, £76 million of Scotland's money will still be "languishing"—as the cabinet secretary put it—in the Treasury for a further three years. What further steps will he take to try to retrieve that important money for Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Adam will be aware that, as part of the spending review arrangements, I secured an agreement with the Treasury for a three-year allocation of draw-down from end-year flexibility, which will be used to support the delivery of public services in Scotland over the next three years. Part of the terms of that agreement was that any further end-year flexibility that arose during that period would be held on account and released only in exceptional circumstances. In such circumstances, we would make appropriate representations to the Treasury. However, the arrangement that we have secured to have access to £874 million of Scottish resources held at the Treasury allows us to invest that money in supporting Scotland's public services over the next three years.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I note from the attachment to the cabinet secretary's statement that there is an underspend of £22 million in education and lifelong learning, which comes at a time when there is a requirement to reduce class sizes, find jobs for probationary teachers and build schools that are fit for purpose. Will the cabinet secretary explain the reason for the underspend in the face of those major policy challenges?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

One of the remaining challenges with regard to the Scottish Government's budget arrangements is that we are required to provide the Finance Committee with a reconciliation of budgets on a portfolio-by-portfolio basis. As a member of that committee, Mr Kelly will be aware of that. That means, essentially, that we do not have the opportunity at advanced stages in the financial year to reallocate expenditure to take into account the fact that some programmes may have emerging underspends at that level. We are now down at those levels. We have a global figure of £42 million and a very tight management level in relation to the effectiveness of public expenditure allocations.

What has emerged in the Government's handling of the budget is a focus on ensuring that we leverage out as many resources as possible. We have allocated more resources to education during the past financial year. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning was able to announce resources for the higher and further education community; to put in place resources to assist with capital allocations for school building; and to allocate more resources to increase the number of teachers in employment. A number of steps have been taken to ensure that more resources are available in education, and the Government is delighted with the impact that that has had on work to achieve its priorities.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

The people of Scotland have already benefited from the £600 million of underspend that the cabinet secretary has managed to recover from the UK Treasury. In response to Brian Adam, the cabinet secretary said that he has negotiated the draw-down of more money over the next three years. How does he intend to ensure that we do not get into the situation again in which Scotland's money languishes in London instead of being used to benefit the people of Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr FitzPatrick's point is important, as most members will acknowledge. My response is to ensure that we have the maximum ability to use the resources at our disposal for the benefit of the people of Scotland. I have put in place arrangements to ensure that the planning of end-year changes in the Scottish Government's budget can be done in a fashion that allows us—subject, of course, to the consent of Parliament—to manage within the Scottish block the fluctuations in expenditure between portfolios to guarantee that we maximise the effectiveness of our expenditure.

We have recorded an underspend of £42 million this year. Frankly, I do not think that we could have got that figure any lower, although we will, of course, try to do that in the years to come, in order to maximise the effectiveness of our end-year spend. We will work to ensure that there is a willingness among portfolios to transfer resources to appropriate programmes—subject, as I said, to the consent of Parliament—in order to guarantee that we maximise the end-year expenditure of resources that are available to the Scottish Government.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

There is a Micawberesque aspect to the way in which Mr Swinney is presenting this. What would the overspend be in the current account if the draw-down from the Treasury were excluded? That is the real figure—the amount that you are spending over your annual income. Can you confirm Brian Adam's point that £76 million will be all that is left in the Treasury by April 2011 for contributions to major infrastructure projects such as the Aberdeen western peripheral route and the lower Forth crossing, all of which will have to be funded from your revenue income? Are we storing up huge problems for the future? Are you, in effect, making Scotland bankrupt?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am certainly not, Mr McNulty. I asked members to address other members through the chair. Somebody of your experience should know how to do that.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

That was a scurrilous allegation to level at you of all people, Presiding Officer. The only thing that was bankrupt with regard to that question was the intellectual bankruptcy of Mr McNulty's proposition.

The previous Administration negotiated with the Treasury the level of draw-down that was anticipated in the financial year 2007-08. Had I not drawn down, I would not have been able to support the capital programmes that were initiated by the previous Administration, which Mr McNulty supported. Those programmes, which were all committed and which I inherited, would have had to stop.

The Government has ploughed on with capital programmes, much to the irritation of members such as Mr McNulty and Mr McAveety—they are horrified that we are going ahead with the M74 extension and other such projects. The draw-down was essential to ensure that we met the infrastructure commitments that the previous Administration made and the revenue budget overcommitment of £220 million that we inherited. We have secured a three-year agreement—which my predecessors were unable to do—that allows us to factor amounts into our spending review proposals for the next three years. Parliament has, of course, approved the first part of that in the 2008-09 budget.

Mr McNulty is not technically correct about the level of underspend that is likely to be at the Treasury in 2011. I imagine that we will contribute further underspend at the close of the financial year in 2008-09 and 2009-10. The number will be larger by 2011 than Mr McNulty's rather crude calculation suggests. We will aim to ensure that, in the process, we maximise the impact of the public expenditure in benefiting the people of Scotland.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Having £1.279 billion at Her Majesty's Treasury is probably not in Scotland's best interests, but neither is having zero pounds and zero pence. In the interests of flexibility and being able to cope with the unforeseen, what is the appropriate balance to have at HM Treasury?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Brown's question takes us into ground that I am delighted to enter, with regard to the appropriate level of financial responsibility for this Parliament to retain. It is perfectly rational to have resources held in reserve if we can have access to them at appropriate times. However, there is a difficulty: the previous Administration found that it had a mounting set of resources held at the Treasury that—unlike under the arrangement that we have now secured—it was unable to access and deploy for the benefit of the people of Scotland.

It is obvious that if the Parliament had wider financial powers and financial responsibility, we would be able to manage our finances much more effectively and comprehensively than is possible within the limitations of the responsibilities that we have. Of course, that is an aspiration of members on the Government benches; I am not sure where Mr Brown sits on the spectrum, but I know him to be an aspirational young man so I am sure that he wants the Parliament to have more such powers.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

In the context of the credit crunch crisis, my colleague Vince Cable has suggested that some people in the financial services sector appear intent on nationalising debt while continuing to privatise profit. I listened to the cabinet secretary's statement and the comments of some of his party's back benchers and it is hard not to conclude that the cabinet secretary and the Government are hell-bent on privatising blame and nationalising self-congratulation.

Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that, although any underspend is welcome given reports of crisis meetings of the Scottish Government strategic board in January, at which civil servants prevented ministers from overspending on the budget, in light of the dodgy accounting on the Scottish futures trust, the lack of detail on planned efficiency savings and the various references to "smoothing" and "illustrative figures" in relation to the SNP's budget, there is likely to be considerable scepticism about the detail of the cabinet secretary's statement?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

That was a cheery contribution from the Liberal Democrats. My goodness, Mr McArthur must have been up all night crafting his soundbites.

I reassure the member that the Government has recorded an underspend of £42 million. I would have thought that that would have provided an opportunity for Mr McArthur to demonstrate some of the grace that Mr Gray showed when he congratulated the Government on its performance. Instead, as usual, Mr McArthur reverted to type and whinged from the sidelines.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We must conclude questions on the cabinet secretary's statement—we are already into the time for the next debate. I apologise to members whom I am unable to call.

Youth Justice

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2204, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on youth justice.

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

I am delighted to present to the Parliament a new youth justice framework, "Preventing Offending by Young People: A Framework for Action".

At the outset, I re-emphasise the Government's overarching purpose: to create a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish through increasing sustainable economic growth. Young people and their families and communities are at the heart of that vision for Scotland. There can be few more pressing issues for this Administration than the need to tackle problems associated with youth crime. The successful future of Scotland depends on getting it right.

When we talk about youth crime and youth justice it is imperative to stress that the vast majority of young people do not offend. Most of our young people make an extremely positive contribution to society and are valuable and valued members of their communities. We need to build on the great qualities that young people bring to our society: energy, enthusiasm, creativity, an appetite for learning and huge potential for the future. At the same time, we must acknowledge that a small but significant number of young people offend and reoffend. It is therefore essential that everything possible is done to address the issues in a young person's life that cause offending behaviour.

The purpose of the framework is to outline a shared ambition of what we, as national and local agencies, want to do to prevent, divert, manage and change offending behaviour by children and young people and how we want to do that. In driving forward our work, we will focus on prevention, early and effective intervention, managing high risk, victims and community confidence.

We are proud to have developed the framework jointly with our partners in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration, the Crown Office, the inspectorates, the Association of Directors of Social Work and Audit Scotland. Many large third-sector organisations have also welcomed the framework. Indeed, I had an extremely constructive meeting with a number of key players last week.

Our shared vision is to work together as national and local partners to deliver real improvements on the ground. All our partners will have a part to play in taking the framework forward through their various responsibilities. I have been greatly encouraged by the extremely constructive spirit of the discussions that I have had with all the parties involved in the development of the framework and I place on record my thanks to everyone who contributed to the work.

The framework's foundations were laid some time ago. For a number of years, the youth justice agenda in Scotland has been busy: there have been national standards, targets, legislation and we have had new money. During that period, a great deal of positive work has been carried out with young people and lots of good practice has developed. However, we have to ask ourselves what impact all that activity and extra money has had on outcomes for young people. For example, despite the £7 million of Government funding that has been devoted to antisocial behaviour orders for under-16s since ASBOs were introduced in 2004, only 14 ASBOs have been issued. It is perhaps no surprise that the appropriateness and effectiveness of ASBOs have been questioned.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Surely the minister is not suggesting that the number of ASBOs that have been issued should be a measure of the success or otherwise of the policy. I think that the Parliament agreed that ASBOs should be issued only when other interventions had failed. It seems strange to regard the number of orders issued as an indicator of success or otherwise.

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

We must take into account the effectiveness of expenditure of public money. If £7 million has been devoted to junior ASBOs and only 14 such ASBOs have been issued, by my arithmetic the cost must have been £500,000 per junior ASBO. The member might not agree with me on every occasion, but what I say is not my judgment but the judgment of Audit Scotland in its report "Dealing with offending by young people: performance update", which set out the number of ASBOs that had been issued—at the time it was even fewer than 14. The Auditor General for Scotland said in the report:

"the impact of this activity on improved services and outcomes is not yet demonstrated ... sustained reductions in offending behaviour have yet to be realised."

The road to Polmont and Barlinnie is paved with good policy intentions.

This Government has clearly signalled its belief that if action to tackle offending and antisocial behaviour is to be effective it must be taken at the earliest possible stage. We are determined to ensure that all young people have more choices and chances and that positive opportunities are available for all. Perhaps Cathie Craigie agrees that if £7 million were spent on providing more choices and chances rather than on junior ASBOs, the outcome might be more successful.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Will the minister kindly suggest specific alternatives to junior ASBOs? What proposals does he have in mind?

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

From my discussions with the third sector last week, my impression is that the belief that more effort on prevention and intervention would pay dividends is common ground among key players—that seems almost axiomatic. Indeed, there is such clear consensus on the matter among all people who are involved on the front line that it is scarcely a matter of controversy. I will mention specific examples.

We are already delivering on prevention and intervention through cashback for communities funding of around £7 million, which is providing a wide range of physical and cultural opportunities for young people in our communities. We are investing money confiscated from drug dealers and organised criminals in choices and chances for young people. After all, when asked what they want most from Government, young people most often say, "More things to do." That is what we are trying to offer. According to the old saying, crime pays, and it is now time for criminals to pay up.

I am particularly keen for youngsters who have been identified as being on the cusp of developing a pattern of offending behaviour to be given the opportunity to take part in structured outdoor activities on residential courses. In the long-term fight against crime, prevention is better—and far less costly—than cure.

Of course, that does not mean that we should ignore the small but significant number of children and young people who have complex needs and present a high risk both to themselves and to others. Their needs should be met and the risks that they pose managed to ensure that they have an opportunity to change their behaviour and become positive contributors to society. I believe that the word "divert" comes from the Latin "divertere", which means to turn aside—I see Bill Aitken, that noted Latin scholar, nodding sagely at that—and that is what we wish to do with these young people.

Although this framework signals a new approach, it builds on the best of what has gone before. I recognise, again, the positive work and commitment that have taken us to this point and will highlight a couple of examples of the effective work that is going on. For example, NCH's early intervention project, which works with not only primary school age children who are at risk of offending or who display challenging behaviour but their families, has been very successful in diverting children from entering the youth justice system. Moreover, by working together effectively, agencies in Fife have in the past year cut in half referrals to an overburdened hearings system—a particular problem, which the Conservatives have identified in their amendment.

Following a successful pilot, we have extended intensive support and monitoring to help to manage high-risk and vulnerable young offenders. I have seen for myself how effective a strong bond of trust between a youngster and the worker deputed to provide support can be. I could cite many more examples, but time does not permit.

This framework, which covers prevention, diversion, intervention and risk management, sets out a new approach to achieving better and more consistent ways of tackling offending by young people. However, although we are united in our focus on this problem, I am under no illusion about the task that faces us. I very much welcome the time and effort taken by all the partners to come up with this framework, which I hope that we all can unite behind. By doing so, we can secure a safer, stronger future for our young people and Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament acknowledges the positive contribution that children and young people across Scotland make to society; believes that every young person deserves the best start in life; is committed to giving young people more positive choices and chances and removing the barriers that prevent some from realising their potential and leading successful lives; notes that there are a number of young people who do not realise their potential and get into trouble and recognises the need to intervene quickly and effectively to turn their lives around; further recognises the need to support victims of offending, and considers that communities, the third sector, the private sector, public services, local authorities and the Scottish Government need to work together to build a more successful Scotland by preventing offending and intervening early with children and families at risk.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Another week, another justice debate. Either the ministers are on performance pay or they just like our company. Who knows?

Youth justice is a wide-ranging subject that, officially, covers a huge age range from eight to 21. It can mean different things to different people and, in presenting the "Preventing Offending by Young People" framework document to Parliament, the Government has set out some of what the issue means to it. Labour can certainly support some of its views. For example, we do not disagree that the vast majority of young people do not offend. As we know, there are offenders as young as eight—and, sadly, offenders who are even younger, but the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is eight and I see no reason to change that position. Some—though not all—of those children and young people come from our most marginalised communities; many do not get the best start in life and come from families with histories of offending. They have poor parental relationships and their aspirations are low.

When in government, Labour recognised that the cycle of poor achievement, low expectation and social exclusion had to be broken if we were to improve the life chances of those individuals and to help to change the overall picture of youth offending. However, we never allowed—and will never allow—someone's background to excuse bad or criminal behaviour. As well as shaping policies that identify where things go wrong and acting accordingly, Governments must also act against offenders who break the law and behave badly.

The framework document is extremely wordy and, to be honest, rather convoluted. I know what it is driving at—it is certainly very difficult to disagree with its view that every child should fulfil his or her potential and that we should intervene with positive choices and give young people chances—but it lacks any kind of reality check. It makes no mention of the fact that, in too many of our communities, young people are still committing serious crimes, or of the fact that they must be dealt with robustly if our communities are not to feel that society tolerates bad or criminal behaviour. In fact, the approach set out in the document seems very soft to me.

In Glasgow, there have been 6,501 referrals on offence grounds, involving almost 3,000 children. The Sunday Herald recently reported that children as young as five are running about brandishing knives and other serious weapons. Although there is probably some exaggeration in that claim, there is probably some truth in it, too. The newspaper also reported that young people felt that they had been born into a gang culture. Indeed, Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan of Strathclyde Police's violence reduction unit has said:

"Young men from deprived backgrounds who have poor parental relationships can often find the support they don't find within their families among a group of similar young men. The gang therefore becomes almost like an extended family."

It is believed that there might be more than 200 gangs in Glasgow alone. Gang culture sustains—

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Please allow me to finish this important point. Gang culture sustains high levels of offending and significant resources are needed to change that situation. Minister, we want you to show where those resources will be invested. We can get those young people out of those gangs, but you must show that you are prepared to put money into that kind of exercise.

You mentioned the cashback scheme, which Labour and the Liberal Democrats support—and, in fact, introduced when in power. We are still waiting for you to demonstrate in your sporadic announcements—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am sorry to interrupt, Ms McNeill. I ask you to address your remarks through the chair.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I apologise, Presiding Officer.

We are still waiting for ministers to show that that cashback money goes to the communities that are most affected by drugs. The violence reduction unit that I mentioned is carrying out very important work in that respect. Crimes of violence and dishonesty and, indeed, lower-level crimes such as vandalism and graffiti can blight communities and must be tackled robustly.

The minister appears to be backtracking on ASBOs for under-16s on the ground that the measure has not been proven to work. However, the Scottish National Party Government's approach to tackling antisocial behaviour must not slacken. It has already been sleeping on the job on this issue, and it will let down generations of people if it does not commit fully to the concept of challenging behaviour. Given the Government's decision to abolish, in April, ring fencing for tackling young people's offending, it is going to be very difficult for people to judge where the resources are going and for the Parliament to find out whether the Government is putting its money where its mouth is.

Indeed, the Government does not even appear to want to count the number of persistent young offenders. I would appreciate some clarity on that matter and an indication of how we are expected to monitor its progress.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I will, if it is on that point.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The member refers to young people reoffending. Does she not agree that constantly demonising young people makes them offend more and that, in fact, the best way forward is early intervention to find out the reasons for persistent young offenders' behaviour?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I have already discussed that point—and, indeed, have moved significantly on from it. This is, after all, supposed to be a debate.

In their amendment, the Tories criticise the previous Administration for failing to reduce the number of persistent young offenders. When we were in government, we were at least prepared to say what we were doing, to be transparent and to show where progress was being made. This Government is not prepared to do that.

The Labour amendment seeks to add a reality check by calling for the rolling out of youth courts and by recognising the key role of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. We should note that the act did some important things, by empowering communities and by introducing joined-up thinking to ensure that agencies think and act together in tackling antisocial behaviour. In my opinion, there is no better example of that than Glasgow Community and Safety Services, which is a unique organisation. The partnership brings together the local authority and Strathclyde Police to tackle offending. For the first time, civilian officers are knocking on doors and challenging the behaviour of young people. They have mapped out the names of the gangs and offenders and they are challenging their behaviour. That is what tackling antisocial behaviour is about.

Why is the Government not rolling out youth courts until 2009? The Government has said that it believes in early intervention and speedy justice. Youth courts have demonstrated great success and in the light of the evidence the idea that the Government will not even think about rolling them out until 2009 should be unthinkable. We know that that means that the courts will not be rolled out during the current parliamentary session.

On young people in prison, the Government has announced its intention to remove unruly certificates from the Scottish prisons system. Labour will support that move if the Government demonstrates how it will cope with difficult young people who currently would be kept in those institutions, but we have not heard from the Government on that. "Preventing Offending by Young People" also states that the Government will honour the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by not imprisoning children. I seek clarification on what that means because, as members will know, the convention defines childhood as being up to the age of 18. I am not sure whether that is a change in policy direction.

In summary, the Government needs to be prepared to be tested on its policies on youth justice. It needs to show us exactly how it will use the resources and new money to which the minister referred and give the Parliament a mechanism so that we can test whether progress has been made.

Clarity is needed on what the strategy means when it states that it aims to

"shift the focus from service provision as the vehicle for delivery of outcomes to building the capacity of individuals, families and communities".

Minister, a lot of that needs explaining—we need to know what it means. Yes, we can support the Government's general direction in tackling youth offending, but we need a harder edge on this. We want the Government to demonstrate that that harder edge is there.

I move amendment S3M-2204.2, to insert at end:

"and, while recognising the demand for services and initiatives to prevent young people offending and re-offending, considers that the criminal justice system must also seek to deal with those offenders who persist in breaking the law and disrupting communities; further recognises the important role of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004; believes the youth court pilots have been successful and calls for further rolling out of youth courts across Scotland, and further believes that the Scottish Government should ensure adequate funding is in place to support youth services and the youth justice system across Scotland."

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

In opening, I correct the minister on one point: it was once disparagingly said of my education that I had little Latin and less Greek.

There is not a great deal that separates the parties this morning, so it is important to underline that the vast majority of Scotland's youngsters are a credit to us. Having recently visited a couple of schools and received visitors—along with Robert Brown—from a school that is not in the best area of Glasgow, I can say that the children were a credit to themselves and to their parents. Not everything is negative. However, some youngsters are problematic—and a small minority seriously so—and we do neither ourselves nor them any favours by failing to acknowledge that and by failing to cope with the problems that they cause.

Paragraph 1.3 of "Preventing Offending by Young People" indicates that the preferred option is prevention and early intervention. That is entirely true. After all, prevention is better than cure. Sadly, in some family units, the problems are depressingly predictable and early intervention is essential in those circumstances.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does Mr Aitken accept that there is a high correlation between those who come before the children's panel at the age of six for neglect and the other family difficulties to which he referred and those who come back again at the age of 15, 16 or 17 for offending? Does he draw any conclusions from that?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Absolutely. I shall come to that presently.

One issue that we must address—I know that Robert Brown, Sandra White and Pauline McNeill share this concern—is the lack of amenity, particularly in Glasgow and other urban areas. Open spaces where kids could kick a ball without causing a problem are vanishing and opportunities for recreation are simply not available. Another issue—although perhaps not for this debate—is the restrictions that we are imposing on youth organisations. In becoming perhaps a little bit too restrictive, albeit for the best of intentions in respect of child safety, we may be restricting the voluntary sector's ability to play its part in preventing antisocial behaviour.

When kids get into trouble, the children's hearings system comes into play. Robert Brown is correct to say that many of those who offend have, earlier in their lives, been offended against. When I attended a series of children's hearings a few years ago, I found it a depressing experience because practically every case involved neglect or abuse. It seemed almost inevitable that the children who were the subject of the hearings would appear in later life before another hearing, if not before a court, on criminal grounds.

The children's hearings system, which was set up by the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, is much vaunted—although, significantly, no one else has copied it—and still has a real role to play. However, the research under which the system was introduced is well over 40 years old. We need to look again at the system's operation, as the amendment in my name suggests, because, in some respects, it is simply not working. I would be grateful if the minister could confirm that a review will be forthcoming at an appropriate point.

The disposals that are available to the children's hearings system are inevitably limited. I am attracted to the strategy document's proposals on introducing restorative justice, but that will work only if it has an impact on offenders. For instance, I understand that when, two or three years ago, some youngsters in Glasgow who had vandalised a park were put to work to correct the damage that they had caused, they were made to work for all of 20 minutes. Although the publicity highlighted the advantages of restorative justice, such work would not have had an impact on those offenders. We need to demonstrate to offenders that we mean business.

Sadly, one of the biggest problems that Scotland faces is drugs. There is unanimity in the Parliament on that. Given the unfortunate fact that there are many instances of drug abuse among those under the age of 16, it would appear appropriate to extend the disposals that are available to children's panels to include drug treatment and testing orders.

We also need to look at age limits more generally. The 16-year-old of 1964, when Kilbrandon published his report, was quite different from the 16-year-old of today. We must consider whether the children's hearings system is equipped to deal with that type of offender. Youth courts certainly seem to be the answer.

This is a complex matter; it is not simple, and I do not suggest that members on the Conservative benches have all the answers. However, we must cope with the small minority who are causing trouble. If we fail to do so, they will continue to cause trouble, their pattern of offending will escalate and many of those who enter the children's hearings system will inevitably continue to graduate to the dock of the High Court.

I move amendment S3M-2204.1, to insert after "around":

"notes with concern the failure of the previous administration to reduce persistent young offending by 10% and recognises the increasing drain on time and resources that offence referrals are having on the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration (SCRA); recommends that an increase in disposals available to SCRA, such as an extension of drug treatment and testing orders, would enable it to intervene more effectively; recognises that the sending of 14 and 15-year-old persistent young offenders to youth courts would allow children's panels to concentrate more on referrals for non-offence grounds."

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I welcome the debate and I certainly agree that our children and young people make a positive contribution to Scottish society. As the minister and Bill Aitken said, there can be no doubt that the vast majority of our young people—whom I would define as being those not just up to the age of 16 but beyond that—are hard working, positive about what they want to achieve and know where they are going. Indeed, I think that today young people know where they are going even more than they did in Kilbrandon's day and they know how they are going to get there.

I agree with the minister that young people who offend often do so because they get bored. Young people need assistance and support in reaching their goals. I am sure that all members could give examples of good practice that serves young people well and helps them to achieve their potential, but I will set out two.

The City of Edinburgh Council's schools sports academy involves 44 talented pupils from throughout Edinburgh, including from three schools in my constituency—Gracemount high school, Liberton high school and James Gillespie's high school. Thirty-six of those pupils have progressed to regional and national squads in sports across the spectrum. Next year, the council will expand the number of pupils by 30. I fully expect and hope that many of those pupils will go on to represent Scotland at the Commonwealth games or even the Olympics, as well as at many national competitions and finals.

My second example shows how a small event—we might call it an acorn—can grow into something that affects a wide range of people in the local community. About three years ago, Liberton high school got a new headteacher, Donald Macdonald. The school had not been doing well and many problems in the local community were generated by a small number of its pupils. Donald Macdonald was a new leader and his troops—the teachers—needed new direction. A new regime was begun, with one of the first acts of the new head being to introduce a school uniform. I believe that that was significant. The uniform was not entirely rigid, but it was definitely identifiable with Liberton high. When Donald Macdonald took over, the existing report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education was not good. However, in the first three years after the change in leadership, I became aware of a gradual but significant improvement in the school. The police are grateful for that, as there is less offending in the area.

Last week, I attended the annual prize-giving ceremony at the school, which was a well-staged event, with more than 100 pupils receiving prizes. Many of the pupils are going on to universities and colleges. There is now a real buzz about the school—what a change in the past three years. The latest HMIE report says that the school is the most improved school in Scotland, but Liberton high's aim is to be the best school in Scotland. The young people of Liberton high were given a new direction; they have taken the opportunity and the entire community has benefited. That example illustrates that, when young people are given a new direction, they can improve and the improvement affects all of us.

How do we improve young people's attitudes? I agree with the point in the Government's motion about early intervention. After my election in 2003, I well remember a visit to a primary school in Edinburgh South. Coincidentally, it was Liberton primary school. Before I met the pupils, I met the staff and we discussed behavioural problems. One teacher told me, "It's all about early intervention. I can identify the pupils who are going to be trouble within a week of them starting in primary 1." The Liberal Democrats believe that we should all support a culture of early intervention, with professionals in nurseries and schools working to identify those who are at risk of offending.

New York has a good scheme under which a team of young people aged 14 to 18 is drawn from local schools to propose solutions to juvenile justice issues. In addition to giving young people a voice, which does not happen often, the scheme helps the policymakers, who can make better decisions with that youth input. Down south, the Home Office has extended the British crime survey to include 16-year-olds. However, the Scottish Government, in response to a question from Margaret Smith, has refused to do so. I ask the minister to reconsider. We realise that young people are less likely to share details of minor incidents with their parents or the police and we believe that extending the Scottish crime survey to 11 to 15-year-olds would offer a greater understanding of how crime affects young people in Scotland. That would allow more information to be gathered, which could be used to shape better messages on encouraging young people not to engage in crime, carry knives or engage in antisocial behaviour.

In the past two days, much has been made of the SNP's attitude to young people and alcohol. I realise that the SNP proposals are not only about stopping 18 to 21-year-olds purchasing alcohol in off-licences, although from the press coverage one might think so. However, the Liberal Democrats do not believe in that approach. We believe that there are already enough tools in the toolbox. For example, very few retailers who are caught selling alcohol to minors are prosecuted. Although 357 retailers were caught selling alcohol to underage customers in 2005-06, only 70 were prosecuted. Identifying those who flout the law is progress, but it is meaningless if they are not prosecuted. I urge the minister to encourage the Procurator Fiscal Service to ensure that all such people are prosecuted, which would send out a hard message to retailers who sell alcohol to underage drinkers.

Other discriminatory measures, such as the increased use of the Mosquito ultrasonic dispersal device, should be avoided. The minister admitted that he has not yet examined the issue. Will the Scottish Government clarify its position on the use of the Mosquito? I ask the Government and the Scottish Conservatives to back the calls for a ban of that device.

I move amendment S3M-2204.3, to insert at end:

"calls on the Scottish Government to introduce children's rights impact assessments to show how government decisions impact on the rights and wellbeing of children; notes that young people are themselves often the victims of crime and therefore calls for the extension of the Scottish Crime Survey to under 16s; believes that young people must be engaged fully in the ongoing review of the national antisocial behaviour strategy including improving the provision of diversionary activities; calls for increased involvement of young people in delivering solutions to youth

crime through innovative measures such as a youth justice board and youth justice panels, and calls for an end to the use of all ultra-sonic "Mosquito" dispersal devices."

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The debate is important. I thank the minister for his positive speech. Far from condemning children, he talked about the positive contribution that the majority of young people make to society. We must not forget that some of the children we are speaking about are as young as five and six. I acknowledge the issues that are raised in the Labour and Tory amendments and warmly welcome the motion. For too long, the youth justice system has been too focused on demonising and criminalising young people who commit offences. Although their behaviour is unacceptable, it is too simplistic to rely solely on punishment as the panacea for all ills. The time is right to consider why young people get into those situations and why too many of them cannot find a way out.

I hope that the Parliament will move forward together on the issue. I hope that we can reach common solutions to the problems, which affect all the constituencies and regions in Scotland. I welcome the Liberal Democrat amendment, particularly the points about the Mosquito device, which I believe goes against children's human rights. I thank Mike Pringle for his thoughtful speech. Youth justice is too big and important simply to be used as a means of political attack. Members must act responsibly and contribute positively.

We must put young people at the forefront of the policy decisions that affect them. It could be said that it is little wonder that young people act in certain ways when we consider the behaviour of some of those who are said to represent them—present company excluded, of course. We must take into account young people's views and concerns in our approach to the problems. A recent report by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child identified as one of its main recommendations the need to involve children in decisions that affect them. I would be grateful if the minister told us what steps the Government will take to ensure that young people's views are taken into account. I suggest that an appropriate starting point would be the current antisocial behaviour strategy review, which has been criticised for having no clear plans to engage young people. I ask the minister to comment on that in his summing-up speech.

Another key point that has been highlighted is about children's right to play. There are not enough activities for young people. As Bill Aitken mentioned, places where kids play—particularly parks in Glasgow, although the same is true in other areas—are slowly being eroded. Many people I speak to mention concerns about the rise in youth crime and antisocial behaviour, but in the exact same breath they identify the solution and talk about a need for more facilities such as sports centres. As the minister said, young people need more things to do.

We can all agree that the Government's efforts so far to provide more opportunities are laudable. The cashback for communities scheme, which has been mentioned, is hugely successful and is a perfect example of how we can tackle the problems. We can fund projects to support young people who are at risk, such as drop-in services and outdoor activities. However, to return to my earlier point, such initiatives should involve young people at every stage of the process. It is not good enough, and is not conducive to helping young people, to build a basketball court and then bemoan the fact that no one uses it, or that young people just hang about in it. Did the young people want it? Did we ask them whether they wanted it? Did we involve them in the process? The key point is that we must involve young people. If we take that approach, new facilities will be successful and will, I hope, flourish. I ask the minister to consider seriously involving young people at all stages.

To tackle the problems of youth crime, we must also try to change attitudes to violence. As has been said, many young people grow up in an environment in which violence is accepted and is seen as a routine and ordinary part of life. We must consider certain activities that are covered in the media that may glorify violence and desensitise people to the reality. I give the example of cage wars, which involves two contestants locked in a cage battling it out while being bayed at by a huge audience. The event came to Glasgow twice last year and was widely condemned, including by Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan and me. We thought that it was highly inappropriate to have glorified gladiator contests in a city with some of the highest levels of violence in the UK. As a Glaswegian, I am not proud of that, but it is a fact.

I accept that these are contentious and difficult issues, but we must tackle them nonetheless. I hope that the Parliament will support us in doing so. We must take difficult decisions together, not just for the sake of the Parliament but for the sake of future generations, to change our attitudes and, perhaps, even the media's attitude to reporting on children. We never seem to hear good news from the media—it is always bad news. If there is anyone in the press gallery, I hope that they will look at good examples of what young kids are up to.

Every one of us wants Scotland to be a safer and fairer place. To achieve that, we must take our young people with us and ensure that they see themselves as part of Scotland's future.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

It is strange that the motion that we are debating starts by saying that the vast majority of young people in Scotland make a positive contribution and are valued members of their community. We do not have to say that—we are dealing with youth justice policy and understand that only a small minority of young people ever become involved in the justice system. For members to start their speeches by making that point is an excuse. In this week, when one half of the Scottish National Party Government is discussing votes for 16-year-olds and the other half does not want 18 to 21-year-olds to purchase alcohol in supermarkets or off-licences, it is an absurdity.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the member agree that the problem is not what we believe but what the press portray? With respect, that is why the first line of the motion was included.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

We play to the prejudices of the press if we start motions with such lines. Sometimes the press listen to what is said in the chamber.

As all members are aware, early intervention and preventing offending are not tasks that can be accomplished easily with blunt instruments. That is why it is disappointing that we seem to be determined to malign Scotland's youth with headlines, while offering no real solution to the often substantial problems that face our communities and many young people. If any group in society deserves a second chance, it is young offenders. Scotland's prison population is largely made up of people who have lost their way. Almost all prisoners have a history of youth offending.

A series of risk factors show up time and again in the backgrounds of Scotland's prisoners. Those many risks include being male; coming from a deprived or disrupted family of which one or more members are already offenders; poor parenting, abusive parenting or no parenting at all; hyperactivity; a low attention span; truancy; and exclusion from school. As Robert Brown and Bill Aitken pointed out, the problems that lead to youth offending start very early in life. There is a real need for us to offer continued support for better family health care, parenting support, early education and child care. The SNP Government should commit itself to real policies to deliver early intervention, starting with the introduction of Labour's policy of free nursery care for two-year-olds.

Early intervention to support vulnerable Scottish families is an important aspect of any policy, but it is not necessarily sufficient to address the root causes of offending behaviour. As well as working with vulnerable children, the Government should do more to help young people who are already caught up in offending. Young offenders need to have the opportunity to learn, often for the first time, that there are people in their community who think that they are worth something. Indeed all Scotland's young people benefit from learning to value themselves. It is hardly surprising that some young people lack self-respect and self-esteem if, for whatever reason, neither family nor school has equipped them with the resources that are necessary to make the transition to adulthood.

The Government is right to consider

"that communities, the third sector, the private sector, public services, local authorities and the Scottish Government need to work together"

to prevent offending and intervene

"early with children and families at risk."

However, where that intervention fails, young people who break the law and those who work with them must understand that communities and their friends and neighbours are not prepared to sit back and accept bad or criminal behaviour. People of all ages—young and old—are right to expect to be able to live in peace and quiet in their communities and to feel safe as they go about their daily activities.

In the previous session, Labour successfully passed legislation that was designed to give communities respite and to make young offenders face up to their irresponsible and unacceptable behaviour. Youth courts, tagging, restorative justice measures and ASBOs were all put in place and proved to be useful tools. The youth court at Airdrie is still working to provide swift justice for young people and communities. Restorative justice is working in my community for the good of the community. Tagging allows the community to get some peace and helps the young offenders concerned to address their offending behaviour. ASBOs provide respite for my community and help the young people concerned to realise that their actions have consequences. What is happening to the legislation under the SNP? From what we have heard this morning and from what we hear from members of the governing party, it appears that it has been parked on the sidelines, where it is gathering dust. That is not good enough for my community and for communities throughout Scotland.

I say to the SNP that it should start to take some action and do away with woolly justice debates.

We want not just words, but action, and to see what the Government proposes to do.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Presiding Officer, it may be a week or two since you or even I could be described as a youth, even charitably. However, as we both remember fondly St Martin's summer, halcyon days, children's laughter and the gentle strains of the Sex Pistols wafting across the grass, we come to this debate with the benefit of experience—perhaps not the most recent experience, but experience nonetheless.

I am sure that every member in the chamber can trade tales of people whom they have known or come across whose youth was wasted by a lack of engagement with society. It can be argued that society failed those youths. Our deliberations on youth justice must be underpinned by a determination to prevent any further waste of that asset.

The obligation that we carry is no easy burden—if there were a simple solution, it would have been used by now. Much as I have had occasion in the past to disagree with my good friends in the Labour Party, I refuse to believe that any Labour member has ever wished ill on the youth of Scotland or anywhere else. Where our attitudes and opinions may diverge is on the most effective remedies for addressing the problems faced by youngsters across the land and the problems that are caused by a minority of those youngsters.

I have long had concerns, which I am sure are shared, about the march of the ASBO. A temptation to label, pigeonhole and dispatch problems is common to all politicians, including me, but we should not fall for that temptation easily. I have to admit to a certain reluctance to hug a hoodie. The ASBO has its place, but that place is not at the forefront of the challenge of youth. The justice system and its outriders cannot be a panacea for the problems that society faces and should not be the first tool for which we reach every time; acceptance by and the encouragement of society can be far more effective.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

This morning, the Minister for Community Safety advised us that, over the past statistical period, only 14 ASBOs were issued. Does the member agree that that is hardly the march of the ASBO?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is the media attitude towards ASBOs. Cathie Craigie and I will probably disagree on this, but ASBOs are not an effective measure for dealing with youth crime.

Young people who are integrated into society instead of alienated from it must be a measure of our success. I am pleased to see the Government taking us down a route that is more likely to lead to engagement than to disengagement. Tackling the drinking culture is essential; it is important to change the idea that drinking as much as you can is the ideal way to spend an evening. Alcohol has a place in our society and in oiling the social wheels, but it should not be the prime driver of socialising. Raising the qualifying age for off-sales purchases is a step in the right direction. It is important to send the message that alcohol consumption involves responsibility, as well as enjoyment, and implementing a unit price will carry that message further; cheap drink is not cheap for society.

The oversupply of alcohol has enormous costs in lost productivity, health spending and social breakdown. We should not allow those costs to be underestimated by the people who will pay the price. Test purchasing, a scheme to ensure the enforcement of age restraints, is one plank in the policy raft. Ensuring that the law is enforced as well as strengthened is vital to its success. Likewise, tackling the flow of drugs in our communities is essential. Drug misuse is not the preserve of the poor in our communities, as is so often suggested, but a blight that touches us all. Cutting the demand for drugs as well as tackling the supply—addressing both ends of the chain—requires concerted action across agencies. Educating children about drugs—what is what and what is not, and the ups and downs of drugs—is essential to enable them to make the appropriate choice when the opportunity presents itself.

I congratulate the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on his initiative to take assets away from criminals and recycle them into the communities that have been damaged by those criminals. As members said, the cashback for communities scheme, funded from the proceeds of crime, is delivering societal benefits to some of our poorest communities. That is a step towards alleviating deprivation and the cabinet secretary should be congratulated on that.

Encouraging the youth of our nation to engage properly in constructive activities is the way forward. Youth crime is not a universal stain on our young people and youth justice should not be seen as a rod with which to keep all our youth in line. We should aim at rewarding good behaviour, alleviating deprivation, providing routes out of poverty for our youth and allowing hope. We should encourage our youth to lift their vision so that they see the possibilities and reach out to the far horizon, and we should praise the efforts that they make to get there.

Speaking with all the experience of my very recent youthful activities, I am encouraged by the direction in which this Government is travelling and confident that it will pay dividends. We all have a journey to make, and it will be easier if we help each other along the path.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I support the amendment in the name of my colleague Pauline McNeill. Youth justice is a serious and complex issue that has no easy solution. The previous Labour-led Executives made huge strides in this area, but of course we need to do more as a Parliament. As elected members, we all face the task of ensuring that we deliver for every young person in Scotland—even those who have offended. We need to ensure that those young people are integrated or reintegrated into society and become useful members of our nation.

When we talk about youth justice, it is important that we remember, despite what some members of even my party have said, that the vast majority of young people in Scotland do not offend. Indeed, only a very small percentage of the under-18 population in our country transgresses. Of those who do, most will respond positively to the guiding hand of a concerned parent, the support of a teacher, the involvement of a youth worker or a warning from the police. Our starting point in tackling youth offending must be to put the needs and deeds of the young person at the heart of what we do. That is not about excusing unacceptable behaviour or actions, but about providing support where and when it is needed, as well as challenging their offending behaviour. We must do that because we are passionately involved in thinking about the positive future that all our young people deserve. We do not wish to lose any young person to a life of crime; we want to help young people who have offended to turn their lives around and make the most of the opportunities that are out there for them. Our aim as a Parliament should be to enable every young person in Scotland to become a successful learner, a confident individual, an effective contributor to society and a responsible citizen.

Wherever possible, we should look to prevent and divert young people from offending through positive interventions. Investment in community safety partnerships and community quality of life are key to the success of that approach. It is crucial to give young people the opportunity to do something positive in their communities. We need to encourage imaginative schemes that bring together a range of services—education, youth services, social workers and others—to offer young people a variety of opportunities to engage in activities that they enjoy but may never have had the chance to experience in a structured and positive way, such as music and drama, outdoor activities and various leisure activities.

The previous Labour-led Executive promoted such initiatives and the current Government has developed them. One scheme that is worthy of mention is the street football initiative that is funded by the proceeds of crime, which was initiated by the previous Labour-led Executive and is being continued, quite rightly, by this Government. As members will know, occupying young people productively, especially during school holidays, can be difficult. The objective of street football programmes is to target key disadvantaged areas where young people may often be tempted to indulge in antisocial behaviour or petty crime as a result of having no positive activity with which to become involved.

We need to do all that we can to ensure that many such projects and imaginative initiatives are available in Scotland's communities and are attractive to young people. For the minority of young people who become involved in gang culture and antisocial behaviour, we need schemes such as operation reclaim in Glasgow, in the constituency of my colleague Paul Martin, to help build new skills and teach young people that there are alternatives to booze and blades. We need to resource projects that get participants back into education or employment. By building self-esteem we can target repeat offending—we all acknowledge that that is a problem for which there is no easy answer—and reduce the incidence of low-level crime, which blights too many of our communities and makes ordinary working people victims when they do not need to be victims. That is unacceptable and that is what I mean by saying that we must have a balanced approach. There is an absolute necessity for such an approach.

When young people transgress, there must be an appropriate degree of punishment. Antisocial behaviour must be tackled and, where appropriate, the variety of provisions in the 2004 act must be employed. I believe particularly that restorative justice services can be effective if they are supported and developed fully. They can be effective in forcing young people to see the harm that is caused to members of their own community by their unacceptable behaviour and ensuring that they make appropriate reparation—that is essential.

The minority of young people who indulge in antisocial behaviour and low-level offending must be encouraged to change their ways. Many will do so; for those who do not, condign punishment is required. I say to Mr Ewing that that must include as an option so-called junior ASBOs. They must not be the first option, but they must be an option.

Victims of offending demand and deserve nothing less.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Before I came to participate in the debate this morning, I had a meeting about a scheme that the previous Government initiated, called getting it right for every child. At the heart of that scheme is, in fact, the child. Many of the issues that speakers have covered are referred to in the principles of the getting it right for every child scheme—for example, early intervention and supporting opportunities—and that is all good. However, I am a little disappointed that a substantial debate about young people again comes under the auspices of justice. I understand that part of the reason for that is the framework that has been published; however, protecting our children and young people is complex, as is delivering services, so rather than yet again defining young people in terms of the justice agenda, it might have been helpful to have a wider debate on how to address all the issues affecting young people.

Too often, we are quick to label the young as troublesome, bad mannered, ill educated or just downright bad, although, as other speakers have said, the latter category applies to only a very small minority. Sadly, however, we are considerably slower to recognise that the young have been born in, live in, and are subject to the society that we, politicians present and past, have created for them. Far too often, society's general approach is to blame young people for the way they react to the society in which they find themselves.

Here we are again, defining young people almost exclusively in terms of the justice agenda, with a subtext that implies that that is the only way in which we can define them or deal with them. Perhaps what we should be doing is addressing the injustices that—directly, deliberately or otherwise—are done to them. Because of the misdemeanours of a few, we have—with the complicity of the more rabid elements of the tabloid media—branded all our young people as being bad to some extent. If we are here to talk about justice, that is certainly an injustice.

The victims of crime in our streets are more often than not the poorest, the most vulnerable and the least influential in our society. The most likely victims of violent crime are young males. Although offenders often have poor educational attainment and no qualifications, and although they often lack stable employment or opportunities to gain stable employment, we as a country are not making enough progress in tackling those wider social issues. The previous Administration and the present Government are taking steps, but we are not doing so fast enough. Too often, we do not include the young people whose interests we all have at heart.

What I said about offenders does not excuse crime, nor does it mean that Liberal Democrats will shrink from appropriate measures that will address head-on the major issues in law and order. However, we reject approaches or policies that adopt a simplistic and authoritarian view of antisocial behaviour and the minor petty crime that is often an annoyance to older people.

Who can sound the toughest is not the challenge that politicians and people in the media face. The challenge is to tackle the problems of crime in our communities with policies that have been proven to work, instead of simply chasing headlines and proposing draconian measures. Liberal Democrats want the Government not to demonise young people but to invest in them. The Government should increase the level of financial investment in young people, doing so in the belief that those young people are the future of our country. The Government should give them a say in their communities and in the services that are available to them.

Liberal Democrats believe that the Government should be investing more in supporting a culture of early intervention and I look forward to the document on early intervention that I believe the Government will produce in due course. The Government should work with the agencies that are responsible for helping and supporting young people. I am sure that when my colleague Robert Brown winds up he will clarify the detailed Liberal Democrat policies in such areas—policies that encompass such ideas as youth panels and the successful youth court systems that have been piloted in Lanarkshire in my region. At the moment, the SNP Government seems less than keen to support such ideas.

We must remember that the success and foundation of every state is the education and support of its youth. There is no value in laying the blame for all society's ills at the door of our young people.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

My remarks will concentrate mainly on some of the outcomes from the Scottish cashback for communities scheme. Important lessons have come out of that, some of which have already been touched on.

Five projects are being supported in Aberdeen, using money that has recently been announced. The first relates to a youth cafe in Torry, in the south side of the city, which operates on Wednesday and Friday evenings during term times and offers other activities during the summer holidays. The cafe organisers have been approached by youngsters from Kincorth, which is no great distance away. However, the organisers feel that they do not have the facilities for so many youngsters. It would be a very good idea if facilities also existed in Kincorth. We know that youngsters are territorial, and we must acknowledge that when we provide facilities.

For the second project, I turn to an area of the city known as Fersands and Fountain—the name is a corruption of road names in the area—in which a wide range of work is done in a community project. Recently, a graffitied wall was repainted, and it seems to me that that work incorporated several useful aspects. First, it was creative; secondly, it was a group activity; thirdly, it built confidence in those who took part; and fourthly, it improved the environment. It would be appropriate to consider those four aspects for any activity.

Thirdly, Transition Extreme Sports offers activities on a very large space near the waterfront. The sports have to be confined to their own space, and some youngsters find them great fun; I am talking about skateboarding, BMX biking and that kind of thing. There are also climbing walls and other relatively mad music and art activities. We must allow our youngsters to be creative and to go off in their own directions, and we should ensure that they have opportunities to do so. A great deal can be done creatively with graffiti; it just needs to be done in the right place. I make that comment drawing on my experience as a trustee of the Hot Chocolate Trust in Dundee, which continues to offer such projects very productively.

The fourth project concerns Befriend a Child. It is a very different type of project, which provides an opportunity for a relatively young person to work one to one for a few hours with a younger person—subject, of course, to all the checks that we would expect—who suffers from a lack of social skills and confidence, which can happen for all sorts of reasons. During a few hours of such work, the younger person's self-confidence and skills can be built up. Such work is very valuable in its place, and when we consider group projects and national projects, we should not forget one-to-one work, which can be crucial.

The last project that I want to mention is Apex Scotland, which is a national charity that works with offenders. There is work to be done with people who have failed—people who have gone through the sausage machine, come out the other end and are seen to be offenders. The work of the charity is to try to make them employable—not to tell them that they are bad boys, or possibly girls, but to say to them, "Right, we need to move on from here. What skills do you need?" We all know something about prisons and offenders, and we know that offenders' skills are usually pretty low. The ability to put together a curriculum vitae might be beyond most of them, but that is the kind of skill that we must help them to acquire and use.

Recently, I went to a community policing meeting in Westhill, to the west of Aberdeen, and found that the community police officers rarely take things as far as an ASBO. Cases go through a system that involves an informal warning, a letter to parents, and an acceptable behaviour contract.

I am very glad that the legislation on ASBOs is not going away. I entirely take the point that ASBOS are not the right answer, but there is value in the whole process of helping youngsters to understand what they are doing.

I finish with a quotation from an Audit Scotland report from last August, "Dealing with offending by young people":

"Most councils have found it difficult, both strategically and operationally, to overcome the differences between the child-centred focus of youth justice under the children's hearings system and the community-focused design of the antisocial behaviour legislation."

That has been described as a philosophical difference, and I have heard it widely commented on in social work departments. We must understand that if we are going to be child centred, the community-focused antisocial behaviour legislation is perhaps not quite perfect.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I apologise for having to pop out at the beginning of the debate. I was speaking to the school students who we see in the gallery, who are from Armadale—a very topical place at the moment. I will come back to that later.

I am delighted to take part in the debate. It seems obligatory to acknowledge—other members have done so, and the motion does it too—that the majority of children and young people are well behaved and a credit to their families. I do not say that flippantly, but with some concern that it makes us sound defensive. I am not defensive. It is right to challenge the behaviour of those who cause trouble, regardless of their age. However, more so than older people, the behaviour of children and young people is likely to be affected by those around them, which is why it is important to consider how we support not just the child or young person, but their family and friends.

The minister tries to acknowledge that in the final sentence of the motion. However, I am concerned that projects that support families are suffering from reduced financial resources. Just last week, I heard that family projects run by Aberlour Child Care Trust are facing cuts to their budgets. I am sure that the minister agrees that if we are serious about early intervention and a comprehensive response to behaviours, such cuts do not make sense. I hope that he will look into that situation.

There has been much talk this week about the Armadale pilot, which prevents young people aged 18 to 21 from buying off-sales of alcohol. In fact, there have been so many ministers in Armadale this week that I had begun to wonder whether the rest of Scotland was getting a fair share. The pilot started as an antisocial behaviour measure, but clearly involved the misuse of alcohol. People from Armadale had complained to the police and the council that some young people were acting antisocially and vandalism was rife, and that alcohol misuse was often a contributing factor. As an aside, the pilot was never intended to be a health measure—although there are obvious benefits—and it was certainly not going to change the culture of alcohol misuse. However, I suspect that those are arguments for another debate.

The pilot included a number of measures. As alcohol was a contributory factor to the antisocial behaviour, the police sought to restrict its availability. They used test purchasing to ensure that alcohol was not being sold to under-18s. The plan with 18 to 21-year-olds was to stop them buying alcohol for younger friends or family. The police drug and alcohol liaison officer visited schools to discuss the misuse of alcohol with young people. The risk that alcohol might be replaced by other illegal substances was picked up on, too. The police did a floor sweep of known hot spots. When they found young people with alcohol, the alcohol was confiscated and the young people were taken to the police station. Their parents were called to collect them and referrals were made to the West Lothian drug and alcohol project.

Eighteen to 21-year-olds were allowed to purchase alcohol in public houses. Through the best bar none campaign, those pubs were encouraged to make responsible sales. For example, the pubs ensured that they did not serve people who were already drunk. Finally, the youth action team was out and about in Armadale, speaking to the young people to find out why they were drinking and what other activities they would like to avoid getting involved in alcohol misuse.

The pilot has been successful and all involved are to be praised, particularly Superintendent Chris Griffiths. However, I think members would agree that it needed intensive resourcing and back-up. If it is to be rolled out throughout Scotland and is the example that people want to follow, the minister will need to guarantee adequate resources for other areas. Six weeks of weekend pilots in a specific town is very different from Scotland-wide, 24/7, 365 days a year. The Scottish Government has raised people's expectations; I hope that they will not be disappointed. However, to give the minister some encouragement, Ross from Armadale academy said that he thought that the pilot was heading in the right direction.

As other members have said, we are proud in Scotland of the children's hearings system. The system sees many children who are there because they need protection, but there are others who need to change their behaviour. I recently sat in on a panel session in Bathgate and found that one of the difficulties facing panel members involved the array of disposals that they had available to them. In January, ministers indicated that there would be consultation on the administration of the hearings system. When will that happen? Will the minister ensure that any savings from that streamlining will be reinvested in the panels' front-line services? Is the Scottish Government planning any further reviews of the hearings system, particularly in relation to disposals? I agree with Mr Aitken that we should consider that issue, but I do not accept his assertion that we should remove 14 and 15-year-olds from the hearings system.

Early intervention is important if we are to reduce the influences that cause young people to get into trouble. We have the hearings system but, as Pauline McNeill and others have said, we have antisocial behaviour legislation and the youth court pilots. The fact that those measures were introduced by the previous Administration does not make them wrong. The Scottish Government should use the powers that it has—and build on them, of course—but we should not think that we must reinvent everything, including the framework, just to put the SNP's stamp on it.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

In a debate such as this, it is important to start on a positive note and, before we address the very real problem of youth offending, to commend Scotland's young people on their achievements. In my constituency, there are numerous examples of the positive contribution that is being made by our youngsters, day in, day out. From their involvement in youth arts, theatre and music to wider sports and recreation, our youngsters are making a difference and becoming responsible citizens; we all hope that that will sustain them into their adulthood.

Only this week, children from Dunlop primary school won a local sports and athletics competition involving 500 primary school children from throughout East Ayrshire. All those children now have a taste for sport—perhaps that will encourage some of them to try for a Commonwealth games place in 2014. Mike Pringle made a similar comment. Other youngsters from several schools in the area contributed greatly to a recent exhibition of their local heroes in Kilmarnock. The kids' enthusiasm was incredible. They decided who was in—and who was out—and gathered pictures and illustrations of their heroes. The students from St Joseph's academy put together a production relating to Kilmarnock's railway heritage—including a contribution by Andrew Barclay—which was performed in full costume during a recent visit by the First Minister to Barclay house.

The achievements of those youngsters, and of similar young students throughout Scotland, do not find their way into statistical reports of the kind that we are hearing extracts from today, but it is important to recognise and celebrate the great things that our young people do. There are common threads through those examples, such as positive intervention at an early age; engagement with relevant and exciting topics, in which young people can make a real contribution; and the sense of purpose and achievement that is gained by recognition of a job well done. Those are positive forces in delivering our shared agenda for responsible citizenship in our society.

From those bright and hopeful beginnings, where and when do things start to go wrong for the minority of youngsters? How can we step in and prevent that? How can we reverse negative behaviour when it occurs? There is surely no doubt that the big three Ds in our society—drink, drugs and deprivation—play a huge part in pulling some of those youngsters towards a life of offending and serious crime. Current figures show that 84 per cent of 15-year-olds have admitted to having drunk alcohol and that 88 per cent of all criminal damage offences were committed when the offender was under the influence of alcohol.

Similarly, more than 1,400 children in Scotland were referred to the children's reporter in 2005-06 on the ground of alcohol or drugs misuse and 20 per cent of Scotland's children live in households where the income is less than 60 per cent of the United Kingdom median. To that cocktail of despair, we must surely add the demoralising effect on our youngsters who live in families where parents are substance abusers or offenders of one kind or another.

In Scotland, we have wonderful young kids with great potential who sadly, unless we can intervene positively, will follow a path of offending and a future life of crime at huge personal cost to them and huge financial cost to society.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I compliment you on your speech. I assure you that I am not picking on you—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I certainly hope not.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I reassure you, Presiding Officer, that I would not do that.

Will anyone on the SNP benches—or, indeed, the Liberal Democrat benches—address the point that those who offend should take responsibility for their behaviour? Surely the SNP is not arguing that we can blame society.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am certainly not. Of course we want our youngsters and people in general to take responsibility for their behaviour, but the Government has a duty and obligation to try to address the issues by the kind of intervention measures that are proposed in the strategy.

What is to be done? Should we focus our efforts on the consequences of offending, find new and more ways of punishing the offenders and issue more unacceptable behaviour notices, acceptable behaviour contracts and ASBOs to youngsters; or should we focus more on the root causes and try to prevent problems from developing in the first place?

In my constituency, there are some youngsters under 16 who have been given large numbers of ABCs—34 in one case and 33 in another—but have not been given ASBOs and are, instead, under social work supervision orders. Members might be forgiven for asking what kind of supervision those orders provide when a youngster can go on to commit 34 crimes.

Having been a local councillor for many years, I can say with confidence that our community wardens—who I do not think have been mentioned so far in the debate—have played a significant part in reducing offending within my community. I do not have any figures to prove it, but I can see the difference and so can local people. In addition to reporting to the police and the local authority when necessary, the wardens focus on engagement, intervention and diversion, which are all benefits.

The Government is taking some bold steps in the fight to tackle youth disorder and crime. It is reassessing the antisocial behaviour strategy; tackling the problem of young people drinking alcohol; investing money in alcohol treatment and support services; deploying the test purchasing schemes that were mentioned earlier; investing money to tackle the drugs issue; and introducing the cashback for communities scheme, under which nearly £7 million that is taken from criminals will go back to our communities. Those are all positive measures that will, I am sure, give all Scotland's children the chance of a brighter future. I am happy to support the Government's motion.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I welcome the framework paper and the tone of the minister's introduction. The debate has been of high quality from all quarters of the Parliament. Speeches of some importance have been made, and I will draw out one or two of them.

I compliment Hugh O'Donnell on his excellent speech. He drew out the importance of putting the debate in a more holistic context than the justice portfolio alone, and many of the speeches have borne out that point.

Bill Aitken, Sandra White and Nigel Don raised issues of play, adventure and open space. I add to those the significant point, which is relevant to the debate, that between a third and half of children who are starting school have some communication difficulty, which contributes immediately to a disadvantage and a potential for frustration and alienation that can follow them right through school.

Bill Butler talked from his professional experience about the need for positive experiences for young people. His speech did not quite have the same tone as those by some of the other Labour members.

Mike Pringle made an important point about the ability of teachers and other professionals to identify problems in five-year-olds when they begin school; most teachers would echo that. He made another point about the influence of good schools and good headteachers. I know from experience that a good school can have strong, supportive values, which can increase motivation and reduce trouble within the school and, importantly, outside it as well. That is a central point in the debate.

Youth justice is a controversial area of public policy. The key policies inevitably require to be assessed over the medium to long term, the challenges are complex and there is no magic wand to wave, but youth offending has too often been the subject of political gesture and tokenism—the victim of the spin doctors, whose influence we can see every time that a politician calls for tough or robust policies. However, we all know that the challenge lies not in sounding the toughest and chasing the easy headlines, but in tackling crime in our communities with policies that work.

There is a vital law enforcement and process aspect to that: a more visible police presence on the streets and in our communities is hugely important. A few weeks ago, at the cost of a night's sleep, I had the opportunity to go round Glasgow city centre with the police from Stewart Street police station. It was the night after the European football match in Manchester, so it was a bit quieter than usual, but I was impressed by the way in which Strathclyde Police had been able to concentrate resources on making the streets safe at a time of huge pressure—as the pubs and clubs spilled out—and by its proposals to reduce the number of senior posts and divert resources to community policing, all of which the public will welcome.

From my time as Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, I recognise the point that the Conservatives make in their amendment about pressures on the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration. However, as deputy minister, I found that the system was being clogged up by unnecessary referrals that achieved nothing. They were largely neglect referrals, which—contrary to the position when the system began—now constitute two thirds of referrals. Eighty per cent of them did not go to a hearing and did not need to go to one; the issue was to ensure that services were in place to tackle those children's neglect or address their need for support. I tried to set in place mechanisms—which, I think, the current Government has continued—to reduce such referrals and allow the SCRA to concentrate on the cases in which its intervention was necessary.

At the end of the day, youth offending will not be solved by law enforcement alone; it will be tackled by dealing with the basic causes of crime and antisocial behaviour, which will change lives. Those causes are often linked to terrible family backgrounds, fractured families and communities, intergenerational challenges of drug and alcohol addiction—a point that Willie Coffey made—and a lack of employment and life skills.

The Liberal Democrat amendment adds another dimension: empowerment and working with young people. However, it also challenges the SNP Government to give substance to the fine words of its motion and recognise the part that young people—who are often the principal victims of youth crime—can play in developing and implementing policy. In that context, I note how irrelevant and damaging is the SNP proposal to raise the age for obtaining off-sales alcohol to 21. It risks alienating decent young people, who should be our principal resource in achieving a culture change in the challenging and central issue of alcohol abuse.

Unusually—probably uniquely—the Government motion sets the right tone and balance. The problem of youth crime is exceptional, not endemic. Most young people are a credit to their parents, schools and communities; some go off the rails and can be hauled back, but there is a hard core who present more complicated and endemic problems for which we need more specific, better targeted and earlier interventions of all kinds. Pauline McNeill spoke about the way in which gangs can provide substitute support structures for young people who do not get support at home. That is an interesting point that we should consider.

The minister said that the test of policy is the impact and outcomes for young people, and he is absolutely right. The debate should now be based on research and evidence. It should use and extend the Scottish crime survey, as the Liberal Democrats suggest, and use our knowledge of the importance of early intervention. It should sharpen our ability to identify children and young people who are in trouble and our ability to provide frameworks for them that will strengthen their resilience, give them the life skills that empower them, help them to make the most of the huge opportunities that life should provide and steer them away from the nihilistic desire to cause damage or disruption, which causes much damage to communities. That would be of huge benefit to them, the victims of crime, damaged communities and the future of Scotland.

This is an important debate and I am pleased about the quality of the speeches that have been made in it.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

It is the responsibility of Government to ensure the safety of citizens in their communities and in their everyday lives. In recent years, many Scottish citizens have felt unsafe in their communities, because of the increasing problem of youth crime. That is hardly surprising: figures show that, under the previous Scottish Executive, the number of persistent young offenders increased by 19 per cent after 2003-04.

The people of Scotland should not have to deal with the effects of youth crime. We should not have to deal with everyday aggression and foul language on public transport. We should not have to deal with broken glass, graffiti and litter in our town centres. We must stop the effects of youth crime and make our towns and communities safer places to live. We must find a way to change the situation and return a feeling of safety to all our citizens, young and old alike.

My party and I—and, I am sure, everybody in the Parliament—are not looking to demonise the young people of Scotland. The vast majority of them are a tremendous asset to our nation, and they are helping Scotland to grow and flourish. However, it is important not to overlook those who engage in illegal, disruptive and antisocial activities.

There are two aspects to the debate. First, there are the sanctions that are available to deter and punish those who commit crime. Secondly, we must examine the circumstances that cause our young people to turn to crime in the first place.

On 26 March, I lodged a question concerning the number of parenting orders that had been given out in the previous year. Much to my surprise, I was told that no parenting orders had been given out during the previous 12 months; what is more, I was told that no parenting orders had ever been given out.

Parents need to be responsible for their children. If we are to reduce the occurrence of youth crime, we must provide the means for parents to help their children, as well as showing parents that they are accountable for their children's actions. It is imperative that we support parents and put responsibility back in their hands. I believe that the greater use of parenting orders will help to curb youth crime and make Scotland safer.

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

Does the member accept that many parenting problems are addressed by moving towards parenting orders without formally issuing them? Parenting orders might not have been issued, but that does not mean that action has not been instigated through social work departments and other relevant authorities to ensure that appropriate steps are taken. Rather than judging the effectiveness of such orders by the number of them that have been issued, does he accept that we should be ascertaining whether there has been an improvement in the families concerned?

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Police officers in my constituency, who deal with many of the issues that we have been discussing today, feel great frustration at not being able to use the powers that parenting orders might put at their disposal. That is their practical experience.

If we are to stop youth crime, we must tackle its underlying causes. Only then will we be able to see real change in youth crime figures. While we must focus on the programmes that are already in place, such as parenting orders, we must also focus on and find ways to reverse the effects of social breakdown. We must focus on the family, on the environment and on the communities where our children are growing up. That point was made by a number of members, including Nigel Don and Mike Pringle.

I remind the Parliament of David Cameron's recent speech on youth crime. In it, Mr Cameron stated that we must fight youth crime on three fronts: the response of the courts; the response of the police; and the response of society. We need to act lower down the scale and focus on the family. We need to curb crime and target criminals before they start to commit crimes that deserve prison sentences. We need to focus on creating a strong family and community atmosphere in order to target at-risk youth and curb crime before it starts. That can happen only if we give the courts and children's panels the ability to punish youths in a way that will leave the biggest mark and effectively deter them from committing crimes in future.

In 2000, the Westminster Government gave judges the power to disqualify youth offenders from holding or obtaining a driver's licence. That is a good example of a non-traditional sanction, and we should consider it.

We must also focus on the effectiveness of our police. Robert Peel once said:

"The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it."

Like Mike Pringle, I draw the Parliament's attention to the experience of New York. Between 1992 and 1996, New York city halved its murder rate by focusing on more minor crimes. When the communities saw minor crimes being prosecuted, there was a noticeable reduction in crime overall. A focus on stopping youth crime at an earlier stage will help the citizens of Scotland to feel safer in their everyday lives. Bill Butler and Mary Mulligan also made that point.

We have consistently argued for more resources and disposals to be given to children's panels, enabling them to intervene more effectively—and, crucially, at the earliest possible opportunity. Those disposals could include the introduction of weekend and evening detention, community service, supervised attendance orders and drug treatment and testing orders.

Restoring the family is an important step in reducing youth crime. We need to give families the necessary support and help to allow them to feel more responsible for the actions of their children. We need to continue to focus on stopping social breakdown both through social enterprise and by making it easier for voluntary organisations to obtain funding to use to help young people in the way that is needed.

I believe that the youth of Scotland are a valuable asset. We want to hear what the youth have to say, but we also see the need to curb the youth crime that is caused by a very small minority. We need to focus on making Scotland a better place to raise children, ensuring that they reach their full potential. Curbing youth crime will make Scotland safer for all its citizens. I support the amendment in Bill Aitken's name.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

We in Labour have supported, and will always support, young people who want to be rehabilitated and play a positive role in their local communities. That was the case when we were in government, and it is the case now that we are in opposition. In government, we delivered youth courts—I will come back to that subject later. We were specific about where to place funding in the youth justice system. In 2004, Cathy Jamieson, the then Minister for Justice, announced a package of more than £35 million for the youth justice fund, and we introduced initiatives such as youth courts and the provision of places for young people in restorative justice projects. Not only did we talk about youth justice; we delivered.

I welcome the minister's commitment to operation reclaim, which was mentioned by my colleague Bill Butler. The project, which has been operating for some years in my constituency, was instigated after the murder of Firsat Dag in Sighthill. The minister recently visited my constituency and met a large group of young people—I understand that they had been advised that they would be meeting a famous football star rather than a famous football supporter. The minister welcomed operation reclaim. The project's ethos is not just about dealing with offenders but about ensuring that young people have an alternative to offending in the first place. It is made up of a wide range of young people from different territorial areas within Glasgow.

However, we in Labour have to say that there are currently no tangible proposals for tackling youth crime that are anywhere near as specific as those of the previous Executive. Some members might disagree with the strategy of the previous Executive, but at least there was a specific strategy; very little in the way of specifics is provided in "Preventing Offending by Young People". I would be happy to take an intervention from the minister if he wishes to confirm that point, or he may wish to comment on it in his summing-up speech. We need to be specific.

It has been 13 months since the Government was formed—we are 410 days on—and we are still in consultation or discussion-paper mode. We are still having debates in the Parliament. That is simply not good enough.

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

Paul Martin knows that I would be happy to mention specific measures that we have introduced. However, does he accept the key findings in the report by the Auditor General that was published last autumn? The report says that

"the impact of this activity ... is not yet demonstrated",

despite the extra funding and the

"earlier commitments made by the Scottish Executive."

The report also mentions "the limited progress made" over five years.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I always welcome key findings from the Auditor General, but I also welcome key findings by my constituents, who welcomed the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. They welcomed the fact that local police officers would have legal remedies at their disposal. The time for the database of excuses is over; it is time for enforcement and action in our local communities. I welcome feedback from people in local communities on their real-life experiences.

Our amendment calls for the

"further rolling out of youth courts".

I ask the minister, in his summing up, to be specific about the Government's future plans for youth courts. The Labour Party is committed to the principle that we should have a more focused and specialised approach to the delivery of youth justice. We know that victims find their involvement with the youth courts to be a much more positive experience because the system gives them the opportunity to see the perpetrator being dealt with more quickly and effectively. The youth courts give professionals in the youth justice system the opportunity to work together to ensure that young people understand the impact of their crimes on the victim, and the youth courts also allow more effective disposals to be enforced.

I move on to an issue that many members raised. I do not often disagree with Cathie Craigie but I will do so today. It is valuable to reiterate that a large majority of young people in our communities are a credit not just to themselves but to their parents, and they will play a valuable role in Scotland's future. That goes without saying.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

For the record, I point out to my colleague that I agree with his comments. The point that I wished to make, as we are discussing youth justice, was that only a small minority of young people find themselves having to come before our courts or our justice system.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I need not say anything else. The point has been well made.

The youth justice system must not ignore the genuine concerns of communities that have to endure the actions of those who persistently reoffend. In many communities, young offenders have been given second, third, fourth or fifth chances—or more—to reconsider their activities. In the real world, police officers regularly complain that it is a waste of time to arrest perpetrators in the first place because there is a lack of parental control. As John Lamont said, we must ensure that parents are accountable. The vast majority are, but some are not.

That is the situation in the real world, and those are the concerns of our local communities and police officers. It is okay for us, in our comfort zone, to raise the issues and to discuss the strategies and the glossy discussion documents that are churned out by our civil servants, but we have to strike the right balance between the rights of the offender and our local communities' right—which we will always respect—to live in peace and harmony.

Some members sought to make excuses for persistent offenders, sometimes by citing poverty as a reason for offenders' behaviour. I do not believe that poverty is an excuse. I know many families in my constituency who do not have significant means at their disposal but who are an absolute credit to the local community. I know of many persistent offenders whose parents have significant economic means at their disposal, so I do not believe that poverty is an excuse, as many academics claim.

Our amendment mentions the need for resources to allow youth services and the youth justice system to be effective. The minister will be tired of Labour members calling for the necessary resources to be available to ensure that strategies are enforced, but he can look forward to many more calls for clarity about the Government's financial plans. The Government has been in power for 410 days and it has had plenty of time to mull over its financial plans. We want action on the issues. I call on members to support Pauline McNeill's amendment.

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

It is sad that there has been no media presence during the debate, which has been excellent. The debate was opened by my colleague the Minister for Community Safety, and the tone and tenor that he set were followed in the main—notwithstanding Cathie Craigie's speech, which was, from the outset, rather begrudging and churlish.

As Robert Brown said, we have heard a number of excellent speeches—not simply from members on the SNP benches, such as Christina McKelvie, Sandra White and Willie Coffey, but from others. Robert Brown was right to praise Hugh O'Donnell for the points that he made, and Bill Aitken gave a measured and temperate speech, perhaps somewhat belying the image that he is cultivating in some of our tabloid papers. His excellent remarks added to the debate.

Bill Butler gave an excellent speech, with which I concur whole-heartedly. The Government makes no apology for reiterating that the overwhelming majority of our kids are good kids who are a credit not simply to themselves but to their parents, their communities and Scotland. We should always remember that. However, a small minority of young people are difficult and dangerous. Some of them have a group of peers who hang around with them, and, as Bill Butler said, they can become a real nuisance to our communities. We must not forget or ignore those young people—we must challenge them. The Government makes no apology for stating that and continuing to ram home the message.

I have said previously that Mr Martin has never knowingly praised a child in the chamber, but he—rather begrudgingly—also recognised that the majority of young people are a credit to themselves and their parents. I say to him that, if the Government has achieved nothing else, it has changed the tenor and tone of the debate on youth justice and child offending. Where are Hugh Henry and Johann Lamont when we need them to come along with some "hang 'em high" or "whip 'em" views? The fact that the debate has changed is fundamentally a good thing for Scotland.

Bill Butler was correct to say that we cannot ignore bad behaviour. I say to Mr Martin that I accept that poverty is not an excuse for offending. It was not an excuse in past generations, when poverty was even more endemic than it currently is, and indeed when it was probably much harsher. The 1920s and other hungry and lean times spring to mind. Other countries that have far worse poverty do not have the level of offending or antisocial behaviour that we have.

However, we cannot ignore the clear correlation between those who offend and those who come from areas of deprivation, or the correlation between those who have poor life chances and little hope or expectation of employment or gainful opportunities in society and those who get into crime. As Willie Coffey said, we must seek to tackle the three Ds of drink, drugs and deprivation.

Contrary to what Mary Mulligan suggested, we were happy to support a great deal of the legislation that came from the previous Administration. We recognise that there is a role for ASBOs, and indeed for criminal antisocial behaviour orders, or CRASBOs. However, we live in a world of limited choices, and if we choose to put in £7 million to achieve 14 child ASBOs at a cost of £500,000 each, we do so at the expense of not being able to put more resources into youth football, youth rugby, the arts, including drama, and leisure.

We must ensure that communities are not blighted. ASBOs have recently been used against several youngsters in Craigmillar in my constituency, and I support the authorities in doing that. However, we do not live in a world of infinite resources and we have to ensure that we get the bang for our buck. An ASBO can cost £500,000, but perhaps a bit more street football would take some youngsters out of crime.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Does the minister accept that part of the expense is the support that is provided before young people receive ASBOs? Does he agree that the money is well spent if it deters children or young people from getting further into trouble?

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

As I was saying, we were happy to support many of the measures that were introduced. It is the way in which those measures are used and where they are targeted that is the issue. That is why the tenor of the debate has changed, not the policy.

Where we criticise the previous Administration—in particular, Labour members and their colleagues south of the border—is on its record on child poverty and early intervention. At the start of the millennium, we are the largest oil and gas producer in the European Union. Oil is $139 per barrel, so this country should be richer than ever; yet, under a Labour Government from 1997 to 2008, a fifth of children have been living in poverty. One in five Scottish children now lives in poverty—Labour members should hang their heads in shame.

We recognise that, as Mr Butler correctly said, we must challenge bad behaviour. People must take responsibility for their behaviour. Society is fed up, and the Government is ramming home that message. It is not good enough for someone to say, "It wisnae me; it was the drink." Oh yes, it was them. It is not good enough for someone to say, "I don't have anything to do." They are free to make choices. We must challenge individuals about their behaviour.

Equally, we must remember—although Tony Blair seemed to forget this—that responsibility is a two-way street. We must give respect and responsibility to our youngsters and ensure that all our communities—especially those that were marginalised, disenfranchised and impoverished by the previous Administration—are given opportunities.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Labour members would say that we have done a lot to tackle poverty. We agree with you on some points, but how are we to judge the Government on the intangible measures that you seem to be putting forward? There is a feeling that you are going to backtrack from your policy of counting the number of persistent offenders. Can you clarify whether that is the case? We were prepared to be judged on what we did. How are we to judge the Government's progress on law?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I remind members to address their questions and answers through the chair.

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

I remind Ms McNeill of the outcomes of the concordat. I had an interesting and enjoyable meeting with Councillor Harry McGuigan, a Labour Party member from North Lanarkshire. We discussed matters and had a shared agenda. Whatever Ms McNeill may think, Labour councils and Labour councillors do not want to make Scotland a less safe or more lawless place; they seek to work with us to make our communities better, safer and stronger. Mr McGuigan is more than happy to continue to co-operate, as is Councillor Pat Watters. This is another instance of internal Labour Party grief that you should sort out yourselves.

With regard to the points that were raised by Bill Aitken, we believe that the children's hearings system should be reviewed, and we have undertaken to do that. It has passed the test of time, but it is struggling to cope with the volume of cases because of changes in our society. We must, as Fergus Ewing and Robert Brown said, ensure that the system focuses on the cases that need to be dealt with, with others perhaps being addressed in different ways. We believe that the children's hearings system is secure but that it needs to be reviewed.

On youth courts, we see Labour's obsession with laws. We supported youth courts in opposition and we support them in government but, as the old saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat. There are other ventures. Have Labour members been to West Lothian to see the system that operates there? Have they seen how the system that is based in Drylaw police station in Edinburgh is working out? We do not need the formal structure—the bricks and mortar of a court—and the expense that goes with it. By freeing up sheriffs' time and embedding a procurator fiscal in with the police, we can ensure that the same service is delivered.

As a Government, we are about delivering outcomes, not about being seen to be doing something when we are not achieving anything. As I said at the outset, we are delighted to propose the strategy, and we have changed the tenor of the debate. It might not trip off Mr Martin's tongue, but we make no apology for saying that we believe that our kids are good kids. We will challenge the small minority who are out of control and ensure that they face punishment and make reparation to their communities for the harm that they have done. We are making Scotland safer and stronger. Whatever Labour members may think, this country is going forward and getting better.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures have been put in place for the residents of Braemar, following the relocation of the community ambulance to Ballater, to ensure that the Scottish Ambulance Service meets its 75 per cent target for responding to category A calls within eight minutes. (S3O-3829)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The Scottish Government and the Scottish Ambulance Service are fully committed to achieving by March 2009 the national target of responding to 75 per cent of category A calls within eight minutes.

The residents of Braemar are covered by an accident and emergency ambulance that operates on a 24-hour basis in the upper Deeside corridor. The resources are located within the local area, in line with demand patterns. In addition, a variety of local health service unscheduled care providers are working together to sustain and improve access to patient services.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The cabinet secretary should be aware that the community ambulance is now 17 miles away, which means that it is impossible for it to get to Braemar within eight minutes, so the target of responding to 75 per cent of emergency calls within eight minutes will not be achieved for anybody in the Braemar community. A solution would be to place one paramedic in a car in Braemar, in addition to the ambulance in Ballater. Will the minister consider that as a practical solution to the problem?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I am more than happy to consider any practical suggestion, and I give Mike Rumbles an undertaking that I will do so. As he rightly points out, the ambulance is based in Ballater, which is midway between Aboyne and Braemar. There were problems with the previous arrangements, of which I am sure that Mike Rumbles is aware. The new arrangements provide, for the first time in upper Deeside, a full-time, 24-hour service that does not rely on on-call arrangements. The number of paramedics and technicians remains the same. In addition, there will be three ambulance care assistants.

As Mike Rumbles will also be aware, the new arrangement was introduced in April and there is a commitment to review it after six months. I am sure that the kind of suggestion that Mike Rumbles has made today will be considered in that context.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it shares my concern that many employees of Norwich Union's Dundee call centre will be unable to accept the company's proposals to transfer their jobs to Perth. (S3O-3801)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We are concerned about the impact on Norwich Union's staff in Dundee. Scottish Development International will work closely with the company to ensure that there is the minimum of disruption for the staff who are affected by the restructuring.

From the early discussions, I am aware that Norwich Union is doing everything that it can to retain its skilled people, for example through offering travel packages. I am also encouraged by the good employment climate in Dundee. Other companies have already been in touch with Norwich Union about opportunities for staff who cannot accept Norwich Union's relocation plans and who would prefer not to relocate or make the longer commute to work.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

In offering an enhanced package to encourage workers to relocate to Perth, Norwich Union has recognised the high level of skills of its Dundee workforce. The best way to ensure that those skills are not lost to Dundee's economy is for another company to take over the Dundee call centre with its trained staff. Will the minister agree to work with Scottish Enterprise Tayside, Dundee City Council and Norwich Union to ensure that the call centre is marketed, in the hope that it can be taken on as a going concern?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We have spoken to Norwich Union, which has advised us that it recognises that it may prove challenging for some people to move offices. We understand that it takes approximately 25 minutes to travel from its office in Dundee to its office in Perth. It will obviously take longer for people to get from their homes to Perth and back. However, the company will investigate ways in which it can help its employees with their travel arrangements. It wants to reinforce the message that it is keen to retain all its skilled workforce.

The key consideration is that it is not a redundancy situation at this stage, and we expect to be involved in helping any staff to move forward. We have been advised that Norwich Union will hold staff meetings on the issue. If, subsequently, it informs us that a number of staff are unwilling to relocate, we expect to be involved in finding a way forward for those staff either through relocation or through finding alternative employment in the area. At this stage, however, it is too early for that, and I do not expect SDI to be involved just yet. As the situation develops, we can be depended on to do everything in our power to optimise the situation for the staff of Norwich Union.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action is being taken to improve services for patients who have suffered a stroke. (S3O-3789)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

We remain on track to achieve our target of a 50 per cent reduction in premature deaths from stroke by 2010, taking 1995 as the baseline. The Scottish stroke care audit, which monitors performance against the NHS Quality Improvement Scotland stroke standards, shows that our national strategy has achieved significant improvements in nearly all hospitals admitting people who have had an acute stroke. However, stroke remains one of the clinical priorities of NHS Scotland. The consultation on our revised coronary heart disease and stroke strategy will help to identify the further areas of improvement on which we should concentrate in the next few years.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In a recent debate on the Ambulance Service, I raised the issue of the optimum time of 90 minutes for getting a stroke patient to hospital for a scan to determine the type of stroke and to get a clinical diagnosis to provide thrombolysis treatment, if appropriate. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing replied:

"all paramedics are trained to deliver thrombolysis."—[Official Report, 22 May 2008; c 8893.]

However, the British Medical Association, the stroke unit at Raigmore hospital and Professor Wootton at last week's meeting of the Health and Sport Committee all confirmed that a stroke patient has to be scanned and seen by a card-carrying stroke physician prior to treatment. Administering thrombolysis without that could cause a catastrophic bleed. Will the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing now confirm that paramedics are not trained to deliver thrombolysis to stroke patients, to ensure that there is no misunderstanding of the situation?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I assure Mary Scanlon that there are circumstances in which a paramedic delivering thrombolysis will be essential for the patient, and paramedics are trained to give that emergency treatment.

Mary Scanlon rightly talks about the need to improve stroke standards. The most recent audit of stroke standards as measured against the NHS QIS standards was conducted in September last year. As I said, it showed significant improvement in hospitals across the country, but improvements are still needed in some areas. One of them was identified by Mary Scanlon: the time taken to get stroke patients admitted to stroke units. Indeed, some issues were raised in Mary Scanlon's area of NHS Highland, and a number of actions are being worked on there to ensure that services improve.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Preventing strokes is far more important than treating them. Stroke requires urgent treatment, but if we can keep the number of strokes down, we will not need that treatment. What measures is the Government taking to prevent strokes, so that such treatment will be required less frequently?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Ian McKee raises an equally important point. As in many other areas, prevention is as important as cure, if not more so, which is why the Government emphasises the prevention of ill health as well as the treatment.

The revised CHD and stroke strategy will have a part to play in showing what more we need to do to aid prevention. Of course, the Government's work in areas such as smoking prevention, reducing alcohol misuse and improving diet is extremely important in helping to prevent such illnesses, as opposed to simply treating them, as we have traditionally done.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to support the regeneration of Barrhead. (S3O-3861)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Regeneration proposals for Barrhead are being developed by East Renfrewshire Council and other local partners. That reflects the recent reforms to the enterprise networks, which saw responsibility for local regeneration pass to local authorities.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

The council is pressing ahead with the regeneration, but it is looking for essential Scottish Government support for two projects in particular: a new Barrhead high school and a direct connection to the M77 motorway from Barrhead. Is the minister aware of the growing clamour in the town for a Government statement on financial support for the Barrhead high school? On a more practical note, will the minister undertake to reconsider the case for expanding junction 4 on the M77 to provide a direct link to the motorway network?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As Mr Macintosh is aware, I made some remarks a few weeks ago during the debate on the Scottish futures trust that made it clear that the Government is keen to take up East Renfrewshire Council's initiative to be involved in the further development of the Scottish futures trust proposal. I imagine that the development of Barrhead high school is one of the candidate projects that the council would be keen to discuss with the Government. During that debate, I indicated that I would be happy to discuss the issue with the local authority. I have now received correspondence from Councillor Fletcher, the council leader, and I will take forward the discussions.

I will examine the issue of the direct connection to the M77 and, if I consider that further action can be taken to advance that project, I will take it. However, I make it clear to Mr Macintosh that our substantial capital investment programme is already under way under the auspices of the Government's infrastructure investment plan, and the Government must prioritise those developments.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what proposals there are to improve the flow of traffic at the Inveramsay bridge, near Inverurie, on the A96. (S3O-3780)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Transport Scotland's strategic transport projects review is examining the longer term needs of Scotland's national strategic transport network. That includes consideration of the A96 as part of the transport corridor between Aberdeen and Inverness.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for his response, although it is what I expected.

When I raised the issue of the Inveramsay bridge with the previous Liberal Democrat-Labour Scottish Executive, Transport Scotland's response was that the traffic delays were insignificant. However, when I recently met representatives of the local farming community, it was made clear to me that concern is growing about the bridge's impact on the north-east's economy. Given the increasing numbers of people who commute to Aberdeen along the A96, there is now a real sense of urgency that action must be taken to address that bottleneck. Does the minister agree that this is a real problem? Will the Scottish National Party Government undertake to find a solution to it within the current parliamentary session?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I have heard much of what the member has mentioned from a number of sources. I have asked Transport Scotland to consider the removal of all traffic lights on all our trunk roads in rural areas throughout Scotland. That is why some work is being done on the A82.

The A96 at Inveramsay bridge has traffic lights. I have had engineers visit the site and make preliminary assessments of possible solutions. That is being actively pursued by the constituency member for Gordon, and I am in regular discussion with him on the subject.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in increasing police numbers in Strathclyde. (S3O-3845)

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

I welcome Strathclyde joint police board's endorsement of Chief Constable Steve House's plans to increase the force establishment from 7,200 to 8,000 by 2011—an increase of 800 officers. I welcome Strathclyde joint police board's endorsement of the force's plans to recruit 864 officers this year. Across Scotland, that means that well over 1,500 officers will be recruited this financial year, which is the highest ever level of recruitment, and more than double the level we inherited from the previous Administration. I also welcome Strathclyde joint police board's announcement last week of an extra 600 dedicated community police officers recruited and deployed across the west of Scotland within one year.

All that demonstrates that, despite inheriting the lowest recruitment levels since devolution, and record numbers of officers being eligible to retire, we are well on track to meet our commitment of 1,000 additional officers available in our communities.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I thank the minister for his response, and I am sure that he will want to thank the community planning partnerships in Glasgow, which between them will contribute towards the cost of 100 of those officers. It is not all thanks to the Government, I am afraid. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

When new officers are being deployed in Strathclyde, will the minister consider the needs of the communities into which they are deployed? Will he look at the times at which they are deployed and, if necessary, address any issues with shift patterns, so that officers are on the beat when they are required, not at times of the day when there are fewer problems?

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

First, I will clarify the points that my colleagues made from a sedentary position. Our record financial investment in local authorities as a result of the historic concordat has allowed Glasgow City Council to spend its money wisely and as it sees fit. We are glad that it has done it in that way.

A lot of the matters relating to shift patterns are operational matters and are within the domain of the chief constable. They require to be discussed with representatives of all ranks, and in particular with representatives of the Scottish Police Federation.

Ms Ferguson makes a valid point. We as a Government are committed to ensuring that we not only recruit an additional 1,000 new officers but seek to retain valuable experienced officers in our communities, which is what communities want. We are also committed to ensuring that we deploy officers appropriately and wisely. I am happy to do whatever is necessary to encourage and facilitate that. However, chief constables in Strathclyde and elsewhere are on the case. I am happy to work with them, but the issue that Ms Ferguson raises fundamentally is an operational matter.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will next meet representatives from BEAR Scotland. (S3O-3783)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Staff from Transport Scotland have regular meetings with BEAR Scotland. The next meetings will be next week, on 24 and 25 June.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I again draw to the minister's attention a serious problem that is affecting the A7 in my constituency. Due to a landslip, there have been traffic lights a few miles south of Hawick for a year and a half. The A7 is a major trunk route through the Borders and many of my constituents are concerned by the apparent lack of progress at the site and the inconvenience caused by the lights. Many drivers are simply ignoring the lights, which is causing a serious safety issue. When the minister next meets BEAR Scotland, will he ask it to accelerate the work to repair that important route through the Borders?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member will be aware that landslips present significant challenges to the road network and the rail network in Scotland. Increased numbers of landslips are one of the impacts of climate change that we are already seeing.

As I said in answer to an earlier question, it is my intention that we do not have traffic lights on rural trunk roads. As the member said, we have had traffic lights at Branxholme for a year and a half. We are, of course, looking at the ground conditions as well as at what requires to be done in relation to the road itself. I believe that we are making reasonable progress, and the member can be assured that we will discuss the matter with BEAR whenever we meet it.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what meetings it has had since May 2007 with the south east of Scotland transport partnership and Fife Council to discuss the possibility of upgrading the Redhouse roundabout and what meetings it has planned with them on this issue in the future. (S3O-3837)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Transport Scotland officials met Fife Council on 21 April 2008, when a range of transport planning issues was discussed, including the Redhouse roundabout. No meetings are planned with it on the issue in the future.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister will be aware that congestion around the Redhouse roundabout in the morning and afternoon rush hours can make travelling a misery for people throughout the south-east Fife area. Does he agree that, along with the Leven to Thornton rail link, upgrading the Redhouse roundabout is a top priority for people in Fife? Will he outline potential funding sources for making the upgrade of the Redhouse roundabout a reality?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am sure that the member is well aware of the strategic transport projects review, which is looking at many of our conurbations and the major transport corridors between them. We will be taking that review forward over the summer and we will report on it later this year. I understand that Fife Council is looking at the rail link between Levenmouth and Thornton as one of its strategic objectives and that it also has concerns about the Redhouse roundabout. We will, of course, take account of both those issues.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

Is the minister aware that, although the Redhouse roundabout upgrade is important, the number 1 transport priority in Fife is the reopening of the Leven to Thornton railway, and that Fife Council has already allocated £2 million to help it to go ahead? I ask the minister to bear in mind Fife's transport priorities when he or his officials meet SEStran and Fife Council officials.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I congratulate the administration in Fife Council, of which the Scottish National Party is part, on putting a significant sum of money aside for the rail link for the first time. That is a welcome move towards enabling the project to get serious consideration from this Government.

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-897)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Today, I want to raise issues on behalf of Scotland's pensioners. Last autumn, the First Minister repeatedly reassured us that the free central heating programme was safe in his hands and that means testing was not on the agenda. I would be grateful if the First Minister would listen to these words. As of 22 May, the Scottish Government has instructed Scottish Gas that it can progress applications only from "specified categories." What does the First Minister have to say to pensioners whom he has now excluded from the free central heating scheme?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am not sure how much in command of the subject Wendy Alexander is, but she is quoting from the announcement that the Deputy First Minister made in Parliament a few weeks ago. In that statement, not only did Nicola Sturgeon provide reasons for the move, she pointed out that, thanks to the record of this Government, a record number of installations have taken place in the past year.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

On a factual point, there has not been a record number of installations, so I look forward to a correction being made. The number was only for the private sector, not the total scheme, and was fewer than we achieved in a number of years.

There was no answer given to the key question. On central heating, the First Minister said that there was a review and that the scheme was safe in his hands. However, we have ended up both with means testing and with pensioners being excluded.

And there's more. This week, without so much as a press release on the terms of reference from this rather publicity-hungry Government, the Scottish National Party has now started reviewing pensioner travel. How can pensioners in Scotland have confidence in the outcomes of a review when the membership, the remit, the terms of reference and the timetable are apparently all secret?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Before we get on the buses, let us have a look at the central heating scheme.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Oh! So he has got the answer now.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I think that Andy Kerr should be worried about the answer, because not only has there been a record number of installations, the public sector scheme had dried up altogether under the Labour Party. Furthermore, a range of stakeholders back what the SNP is doing to help Scotland's pensioners.

On buses, Wendy Alexander asks about our review, but it is not our review; we are carrying on what the previous Government said it was going to do two years ago. I am looking around the chamber for Tavish Scott, who is my secret weapon. I might have to quote him in absentia. On 15 March 2006, Tavish Scott said:

"The first two years of operation of the scheme will be critical in building up the evidence base for future reflections on the scheme."—[Official Report, 15 March 2006; c 24046.]

We are carrying forward the previous Administration's commitment to conduct a review. The one difference between the approach of this Administration and that of the previous Administration is that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change has already said that we are not changing the eligibility for old people and disabled people in the scheme.

Will Wendy Alexander stop scaremongering? The old people of Scotland have trust in the Scottish National Party.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The First Minister should be very careful. He has not given us an answer to the question why he promised Parliament that there would be no means testing for pensioners but has now introduced it.

The pattern is that the First Minister reviews, then reassures and then lets pensioners down. If there is no cause for concern about this secret review—[Laughter.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I ask the First Minister to guarantee Scotland's pensioners that he will make no changes to the time of day that pensioners can travel—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

No change.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

—the distance that can be travelled—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

No change.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

—or the number of journeys that can be undertaken.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

No change.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Let us get back to the central heating scheme. The pensioners of Scotland know two things. First, there have been a record number of installations under this Government. Secondly, people look at the newspapers and see the possibility of a further 40 per cent hike in their energy costs, thanks to a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is accumulating an additional £500 million in offshore windfall, but who will not lift a finger to help the industries, the pensioners or the families of Scotland. We are the only oil-rich country in the world that is suffering from fuel poverty.

I move on to the buses. The review is so secret that Tavish Scott announced it in 2006. The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change has made it clear that there will be no change to eligibility for pensioners or disabled people under the scheme. They will have a great deal more confidence in Stewart Stevenson than in Tavish Scott.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I regret that the First Minister has not given an answer to this question: are the times of day, the distance that can be travelled or the number of journeys under consideration?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

No.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. The First Minister, and nobody else, will answer the question.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

If the First Minister is offering a guarantee, he has to forgive Scotland's pensioners for reserving judgment, given that six months ago he gave a similar guarantee on central heating. There is also growing pensioner concern about the local income tax. In the run-up to the election, SNP ministers said that, under SNP proposals,

"There will be no ifs or buts, no means test"

and that pensioners

"will simply have nothing to pay."

Not content with conning parents and students, the SNP is now attempting to con Scotland's pensioners. Will the First Minister confirm that, under his plans, more than 400,000 Scottish pensioners will receive a local income tax bill? Yes or no?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Let us get back to the variety of subjects that Wendy Alexander has raised. Memorably, she said that change is what she does. As far as eligibility for the pensioner and disabled scheme is concerned, there will be no change from the SNP.

I move on to local income tax. The majority of Scotland's pensioners welcome local income tax with open arms, just as they welcomed the council tax freeze that the Scottish National Party introduced. [Applause.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

It is not just Scotland's pensioners who support local income tax. Just a few weeks ago, a poll showed overwhelming support for local income tax among the population of Scotland: among Tory supporters in Scotland; among Liberal Democrats, who of course support a local income tax; among the Scottish National Party, which supports fair means of taxation; and—by a significant majority—among Labour Party supporters. If Wendy Alexander cannot even scaremonger among her diminishing band of supporters, what chance has she got of scaremongering among the pensioners and students of Scotland?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-898)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There has been deep concern throughout Scotland about the tragic outbreak of Clostridium difficile at the Vale of Leven hospital. Our thoughts are with all the families who have been affected by that lethal infection. In 2003, when MRSA levels increased by 4 percent, the then shadow minister for health and community care, Nicola Sturgeon, said:

"It is up to the Health Minister to ensure that superbugs are kept to a minimum and that patients enter Scotland's hospitals to be treated not infected".

She went on to add:

"These figures highlight that so far the Minister has failed".

We are now dealing with a much worse situation, caused by Clostridium difficile and the consequent death toll.

In November the Scottish Government announced a range of measures, including surveillance monitoring for C difficile. Will the First Minister undertake to publish this afternoon details of the incidences of C difficile in every hospital in Scotland this year?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I will publish all information on C difficile and other hospital-acquired infections as soon as the statistics are available.

The most recent comparative statistics for England and Wales and Scotland suggest that there is a serious situation in Scotland, which is why we have increased the budget so massively—to £50 million over the next three years, compared with annual expenditure of £5 million in the past.

We acknowledge the extent and seriousness of the problem and the heartbreak of affected families and individuals. We also acknowledge that the problem can undermine the very heart of confidence in the health service. For all those reasons and because of the suffering and anxiety that has been caused, I undertake to publish all information as quickly as it becomes available.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The disquieting aspect of the First Minister's response is that there is so much that we do not know. How can we tackle a problem when we do not know where it is or how serious it is?

One thing is clear: the tragic outbreak at the Vale of Leven hospital arose because of a basic lack of hygiene practice on the wards. Five years ago, Ms Sturgeon was right to say that

"patients enter Scottish hospitals to be treated not infected".

Does the First Minister agree that we need to restore in every ward and hospital in Scotland a clinical presence such as a supersister, who is a visible point of authority and is empowered to enforce the application of robust hygiene standards? That could make the difference.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The equivalent post in Scotland is, of course, the charge nurse. Annabel Goldie will know that only a few weeks ago the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing announced a review of the functions of charge nurses in Scotland, precisely to address the range of points that Annabel Goldie made.

In 2006 the monitoring system was set up to enable more accurate and immediate assessment of hospital-acquired infections. I do not think that any member will dispute that that was a good system to set up. A real question that must be asked in the light of the tragic circumstances at the Vale of Leven hospital is whether the fact that the monitoring system clearly did not work in that hospital reflects a defect in the system or a defect in Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board's particular surveillance system. I am sure that the commission of inquiry will answer that key question, because the answer will tell us whether structural change in the monitoring system is required or whether change in the individual health board is the key.

I undertake to ensure that all the information is in the public domain as quickly as possible, including the information that we have, and are getting, from the retrospective exercise that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board is undertaking.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-899)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Will the First Minister say what advice is currently being given to patients and relatives on the life-threatening nature of the C difficile bacteria? What guidance is given on the hygiene steps that people must take?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Nicol Stephen will know, action was taken by the action teams on 21 May to enforce better hygiene standards, and inspections of the hospital have been made. A great deal of effort has gone into getting across not just to affected patients and their relatives but to the general population, the message about the importance of hygiene in hospitals. As we know, in many cases hospital-acquired infections originate outside the hospital, and are transmitted in the inevitable and welcome visits of people to the hospital. As Nicol Stephen also knows, substantial efforts have been made in the past and even more substantial efforts will be made in the future. We have increased the budget so massively not just to help control infections but to fund the information campaigns that are necessary.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I wonder whether the First Minister heard a radio interview this morning with the daughter-in-law of a patient who died at the Vale of Leven hospital. She said that no one explained that C diff could result in a patient's death and that she had been given soiled clothing to take home with no instructions on how to deal with it. Why is that acceptable? Is the life-threatening nature of C diff still being concealed from some patients and relatives? Is expert advice on hygiene being given to all of them?

Patients and relatives throughout Scotland are anxious and confused, and rightly so; after all, we go into hospital to get better, not worse. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has launched an inquiry into the causes of the current outbreak, but patients and their relatives need help and examples of really poor practice need to be stopped now. Will the First Minister tell us what advice is being given today to patients, and what expert advice on hygiene is being sent to our hospitals right now?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I heard the interview. I do not believe that the situation is acceptable, and that aspect is being looked at and will have to be improved substantially.

Having watched and read the statement yesterday by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, I do not think that anyone who has listened to the debate can be under any illusion whatever about the seriousness with which she is taking not just this issue but the range of issues that have arisen from it. We, as a Government, were aware of the situation when we so massively increased the budget for controlling hospital-acquired infections. Such infections have not just arisen in the past year or even in the past few years, but have been a steadily growing challenge, and our country and health service have to meet it. Certainly, information on, and disclosure of, the full extent of the seriousness of C difficile must be given to patients and relatives.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

On 14 February, a Scottish Government official attended a meeting with the Department of Health to discuss the United Kingdom Government's new infection guidelines covering C difficile, which were published in January. On returning, the official urged the Scottish Government to issue new guidelines. In the light of the scale of the mortality at the Vale of Leven hospital—a staggering 30 per cent—why, some five months after that meeting, do we still not have any guidance on C difficile in Scotland? Why, when the Scottish Government was advised by Health Protection Scotland on 14 May of deaths from C difficile in Aberdeen royal infirmary, Stobhill hospital and the Vale of Leven hospital, did it only press-release the incidents at Aberdeen and Stobhill and remain silent on the Vale? I am sure that the First Minister agrees that clarity on this serious matter is of the utmost importance.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As the constituency member well knows, the information about the cluster at the Vale of Leven hospital came to light on 21 May. Moreover, what came to light at that time was not what was cited yesterday about six cases and four deaths; the information then was about six cases, three of which were linked to the Vale of Leven. That is why action was taken then. Of course, the retrospective exercise has revealed the full horrific extent of the problem in the Vale of Leven hospital.

Officials in the health directorate are aware of developments in England. Since then, work has been carried out on advice that is specific to Scotland, which will—because of the seriousness with which this Government takes hospital-acquired infections and, in particular, C difficile—be published as quickly as possible.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the First Minister say why the Government did not call in the plans for Caltongate, given that the area is central to Edinburgh's status as a world heritage city? The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is to meet to discuss the danger that the development might pose to that status.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The proposal was returned for decision and determination to the City of Edinburgh Council because we believe that it is well placed to judge the city's development and direction.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

In welcoming the settlement of the Shell oil tanker drivers' dispute since my question was framed, I ask the First Minister what contingency plans are in place to deal with the consequences of any possible future disruption.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Your question is not exactly as written, Mr Neil, but I will hand it over to the First Minister.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We welcome the announcement that the threat of a second strike has been lifted and that restocking arrangements are at normal or above normal levels. I thank Scottish motorists for their patience and restraint over the past few days and I acknowledge the excellent work of the emergency services and others in ensuring that the supply situation in Scotland was managed with the minimum of inconvenience to the people of Scotland.

I assure members that contingency arrangements are in place to manage the local consequences of any future disruption to fuel supplies and to ensure the prioritisation of essential services. A national emergency plan for fuel is also available for use in exceptional circumstances—but those circumstances would need to be exceptional for it to be used substantially. The Scottish Government liaised closely with local responders and the United Kingdom Government during the recent events. Our on-going resilience activity will build on those arrangements to ensure that any lessons that are identified are addressed and implemented.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for that detailed reply. For the longer term, given that we have had two disruptions to oil supplies recently, are there any lessons to be learned on how the companies and employees might settle their disputes before they reach the point that they reached on both those occasions?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I think that every member of Parliament would agree that jaw-jaw and settlement of negotiations before striking would be infinitely preferable to the difficulties and—more than inconvenience—the potential disruption to the wider economy and to essential services that are threatened during such disputes. The fact that we have managed substantially to avoid that inconvenience and disruption is a tribute to the extraordinary amount of effort that was put in in the local area committees around Scotland.

In the past few days, the resilience room committee has met 11 times to supervise arrangements around Scotland. Such planning takes up a dramatic amount of the time of local authorities, police and other services. Therefore, I certainly agree with Alex Neil that it would be infinitely preferable if such arrangements—however well rehearsed and however well utilised they may have been in Scotland—were not necessary because workers and management were able to settle their differences before strike action as opposed to after it.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the First Minister whether sufficient funding will be found to maintain existing entitlements for pensioners and disabled people under the national concessionary travel scheme between now and 2011. (S3F-922)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The previous Administration, as we discussed earlier, agreed that there should be a review of the free bus travel scheme for older and disabled people. That review began on 17 June and ministers will consider the outcome towards the end of this year. As the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change has made clear, the Scottish Government has no plans whatsoever to increase the qualifying age for concessionary fares on buses and will not consider such an increase as part of its review of the scheme. Around 1.1 million older and disabled people currently benefit from the scheme.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The answer that pensioners and disabled people want to my question is yes.

Will the First Minister ensure that the criteria for the review of the national concessionary travel scheme are made public, so that people can see in black and white what the Government's intentions are? Bearing it in mind that funding for concessionary travel has been scaled back in real terms, will he ensure that any shortfall in funding for concessionary travel will not be made up by fare increases for adult and child passengers who pay for their journeys? Such a form of indirect taxation would be unnecessary and unacceptable.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes—we will be delighted to make the review criteria public because that will be the most effective answer to the disgraceful scaremongering on the issue by Des McNulty and others.

Des McNulty should have some command of the subject—the review was announced two years ago by the then Minister for Transport, Tavish Scott—and should be aware that, due to low take-up in the young persons scheme because that scheme was not particularly good, funding for concessionary fares for disabled and older people is rising not only in nominal terms within the overall budget for the scheme but in real terms. Year on year, we expect that, on average, perhaps £10 million a year more will be spent than in the current calendar year.

Given that Des McNulty now has that information, and although it is awkward to the campaign that is taking him out of obscurity, away from parliamentary questions and into the light of day, will he join me in welcoming the fact that we are publishing the criteria for the review and that we can give an absolute commitment to older people and disabled people in Scotland that we will maintain the scheme and that there will be no change to the eligibility criteria?

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To avoid confusion, will the First Minister say whether the outgoing Government made adequate provision for continuation of the national concessionary travel scheme?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The outgoing Government's sole contribution to the scheme was to say that there would be a review. That was what Tavish Scott said. When I was criticising earlier—which I regret was in Tavish Scott's absence—I noticed that I even got nods of assent from the Labour benches. I am afraid that the outgoing Government did not indicate its on-going commitment to the scheme. It said what Tavish Scott said in 2006. Therefore, given the budgetary commitments that the present Government has made and the assurance on publishing the eligibility criteria, can we perhaps come to the conclusion that the disabled and pensioners of Scotland will be a lot safer on the bus with the Scottish National Party than they would have been with the Labour and Liberal parties?

If the Labour party is anxious, as I am, about the present pressures on public transport, perhaps its members will have a word in the ear of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the £5 billion man, who is raking in excess oil revenues, but without a scintilla of concern for the pressure on the pensioners, families, industries and—yes—on the public transport and bus operators in Scotland.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the First Minister what action is being taken following the publication of the report, "Lessons for Mental Health Care in Scotland". (S3F-914)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government welcomes the report, as the Minister for Public Health has already indicated. We have written to all health boards and local authorities to ask them to consider and take forward the report's key recommendations on the management of risk in relation to suicide and homicide by people with mental illness.

One of the headline issues in Professor Appleby's report is the link between alcohol and drug misuse and homicide. Members will be aware that, last month, we announced the new national drugs strategy, "The Road to Recovery: A New Approach to Tackling Scotland's Drug Problem", with a great deal of support from Mary Scanlon's party, and that this week we launched a consultation on an approach to alcohol misuse in Scotland, with substantially less support from Mary Scanlon's party. In December 2007, we published "Mental Health in Scotland: Closing the Gaps—Making a Difference", which specifically addressed the issues around service provision for people with mental illness and substance misuse problems, which were the primary focus of Professor Appleby's excellent report.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

If the First Minister is looking for our support, he will perhaps answer my question positively. During the six years of the study, about 5,000 suicides were recorded in Scotland and 500 murders. In the Highlands, many young men who were at risk of suicide never got beyond their local general practitioner or the repeat prescriptions for antidepressants. Will the First Minister take action to improve early intervention and to shorten waiting times for people with mental health problems to ensure that they can remain in work and at home with their families, and that they receive the appropriate treatment when they need it?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I acknowledge Mary Scanlon's work on the issue over a long period. As I said, we have written to the health boards and local authorities on Professor Appleby's review and we are asking them to consider his recommendations, including the ones that Mary Scanlon supports so strongly, and to report back to us. We are taking the issue seriously.

We are also considering the extent to which, on consideration, mental illness and aspects connected with it could for the first time be brought into the waiting times guarantee. The Minister for Public Health gave an interview on that point earlier this week.

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

The First Minister will be aware that there are no local outcomes or national priority outcomes for child and adolescent mental health services, that there are no structures in place to collate centrally waiting times for accessing those services, and that there is no accurate picture of transition services between youth and adult services. There is often an arbitrary cut-off at the age of 16 for young people who receive such services.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Ask a question, please.

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

Will the First Minister take specific measures in response to Professor Appleby's report to correct some of those aspects, so that young people who have complex needs receive child and adolescent mental health services before they need to access adult mental health services?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As I said, we are taking the report extremely seriously. I will write to Jeremy Purvis to provide him with as much information as possible on the issues that he raises. Members should have no doubt that we take the recommendations in Professor Appleby's report extremely seriously and intend to implement them.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I hope that you will take this point of order in the constructive way in which it is offered and recognise that my occasional experience of ministerial and First Minister's question time over recent years allows me to say that protection of the integrity of question time is paramount.

There have been a number of occasions in recent years when the subject matter for questions that have been lodged in writing for ministerial or First Minister's question time has been overtaken by events in the course of the week. On those occasions, members have withdrawn their questions and, if the matter was appropriate and topical, the Presiding Officer has asked them to ask a supplementary question at another point during question time, so that they can put across the point that they wished to make. With all due respect, Presiding Officer, that would have been appropriate today. It is wrong under the rules—not just in practice—that members should be allowed, when asking it in the chamber, to change the content of a question that has been lodged in advance in writing.

I hope that you will reflect this afternoon on what has happened and ensure that new advice is issued to all members from the chair, so that the practice that I have described is not allowed. In the future, members should withdraw questions that must be changed and ask to be allowed to raise the issues concerned at another point during question time.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I take the point of order in a constructive manner and thank Jack McConnell for it. Today the member concerned was given the option of withdrawing question 4, but was within his rights to choose not to do so. I will reflect on what Jack McConnell has said for future occasions.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Europe, External Affairs and Culture

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We continue to believe that the common fisheries policy does not serve Scotland well. We welcome the fact that the rejection of the Lisbon treaty by the Irish people presents another opportunity to prevent the extension of exclusive EU competence over the conservation of marine biological resources, which entrenches the discredited policy.

At the joint ministerial committee on Europe on 17 June, I urged the United Kingdom Government to make that competence a red line issue in any renegotiation of the treaty. In the meantime, we shall, as always, take every opportunity to increase national control over fisheries policy, as we did successfully at the December agriculture and fisheries council with the new conservation credits scheme.

An independent Scotland would, of course, be far better placed to conduct such negotiations.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I asked the question because my colleague Karen Gillon and I have been asking a series of questions of both the minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment. In his foreword to his quotas consultation, the cabinet secretary says that

"The Scottish Government is seeking to withdraw from the CFP."

However, as Ms Fabiani has revealed, that is not something that it can do.

Was the minister consulted on the wording used in the quotas document? In the light of her previous answer, does she think that it is appropriate for official Government documents to say that the Government is attempting to do something that it is clearly not competent to do?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is entirely competent for a Government always to let people know what is best for the country that it is governing. It is clear that Scottish opt-outs from the CFP should be possible, because member states of a similar size to Scotland—nation states with the right to determine their own futures in Europe—have successfully managed to negotiate opt-outs from particular elements of the European treaties. I suggest Denmark as a good example, as it has four opt-outs.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

With John Scott on Royal Highland Show duties, I felt that it might be safe to pose a supplementary question on fishing.

Does the minister agree that in 1974 the UK ceded to the European Economic Community control of fisheries, rather than sovereignty over UK waters, and that it would be perfectly legal for a national Government to withdraw from the CFP? Of course, as the minister is aware, that national Government would be the UK national Government.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The sad thing for Scotland is that the UK Government does not stand up for Scottish fishing interests. Indeed, it tried to entrench the position even further by refusing to negotiate the exclusive competence out of the Lisbon treaty—on which it refused even to have a referendum.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister will be aware that Bridget Prentice, a minister in the UK Ministry of Justice, has allocated the extra MEP to the West Midlands. She will also know that Luxembourg, with six MEPs, has the same voting power as Scotland will have. Does she agree that it is indefensible that landlocked Luxembourg, with a population the size of Edinburgh, can vote on fishing and the common fisheries policy while Scotland cannot?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Yes, I agree—it is ridiculous that that is the case. Let me also put it on record that the Scottish Government objected to Scotland's representation in Europe being reduced by one MEP.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Does the minister believe that the statement that

"The Scottish Government is seeking to withdraw from the CFP"

is compatible with both her obligations as a minister for Europe in a devolved Administration and the Scotland Act 1998?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Sorry—I did not catch the entire question. Could the member repeat it?

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Does the minister believe that the statement that

"The Scottish Government is seeking to withdraw from the CFP"

is compatible with her role and devolved responsibilities as a minister for Europe and the Scotland Act 1998?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We will continue to press the Government of the United Kingdom, which is currently the member state, to withdraw from the common fisheries policy in the interests of Scotland, which has the vast majority of the UK's fisheries.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to engage the wider business community in the strategy for international development. (S3O-3785)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Sustainable economic development is of course an important element in tackling the underlying causes of global poverty, which we recently discussed in detail at a European and External Relations Committee meeting. We recognise the important role that the wider Scottish business community can play and is ready to play in achieving that aim. For example, the Scottish Government has supported the Scotland Malawi Business Group to facilitate links between the business community in Scotland and Malawi. Our new international development policy and the funding guidance that will be published shortly encourage inclusion of the private sector.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Following our exchange at the European and External Relations Committee, will the minister confirm that she will seek imaginative solutions to reach beyond the national business organisations, in whose affairs many businesses of all sizes choose not to participate, and that she will energise companies and their employees, many of whom are willing to become involved with specific and practical projects in support of international development? Will she agree to use clear and non-contradictory language in promoting such projects?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We want to make best use of the broad spectrum of specific skills and expertise that the business community offers. The new funding guidance will proactively encourage applications from the private sector that demonstrate relevant expertise and which will enable the sharing of expertise. Of course, that will not be for a private company's profit. I do not have time to go into the many examples of how we are proactively encouraging such activity. A natural progression in an international development policy is to move from engagement with schools, colleges, universities, churches and other institutions to the business community. We have excellent examples of that.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Would the greater economic freedom that would arise from independence help the engagement of our business community with the strategy for international development?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

An independent country that has the identity and strength that independence brings is naturally better placed to link with any initiatives in the world.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will be responding to the report of the BBC trust into the coverage of news across the United Kingdom and, if so, in what terms. (S3O-3781)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We are studying Professor King's report to the BBC trust and we strongly support the report's recommendations. It is clear that the BBC needs to do much more to serve its viewers in Scotland.

The Scottish Broadcasting Commission is also studying the report. It has already highlighted in its interim report on the democratic phase of its work the importance that Scots attach to television news and the fact that a majority are confused about whether items in network news programmes apply to Scotland.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Does the minister agree that one way of ensuring improved news coverage from a Scottish perspective of national, international and local events would be to have a new Scottish digital channel, which could also take on many of the regional responsibilities that ITV is trying to ditch? That could provide the core schedule for a range of television channels that were based on our major cities, which would be similar to those that are found in the United States and Canada. Does she agree that we should have such a forward-thinking digital-age solution for Scottish broadcasting rather than hark back to outdated and irrelevant notions such as a "Scottish Six"?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I refute the idea that that notion is outdated, but I agree that support is building for a Scottish digital channel. Evidence on that was given to the Broadcasting Commission and I look forward to reading its report, which will be issued in the next few months and which will address such questions.

However, that does not take away from the central point that the BBC should be fair to licence payers throughout the network. Terrestrial TV still has its place in ensuring democracy and fairness for Scotland.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to improve its contacts with other Governments and Parliaments. (S3O-3816)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Scottish Government's international framework, which was published in April, sets out our objectives for contacts with other countries. Those objectives make it clear that, in representing Scotland overseas, the efforts of ministers, the Scottish Government and the wider public sector will focus on maximising the contribution to fulfilling the Government's purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

I congratulate the minister on the positive and successful approach that she has taken so far to ensure that national and international ties and cultural contacts reaffirm that Scotland is a distinct and identifiable part of the wider world family. However, will she alert sister Parliaments and parliamentarians worldwide to the forthcoming year of homecoming, which will be excellent, and encourage everyone who wishes to come to Scotland to join us in the homecoming celebrations?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The promotion of the year of homecoming has, until now, not specifically targeted Parliaments and parliamentarians in other countries, but Andrew Welsh's idea is excellent. One way in which I would like to promote the year of homecoming is through alerting the consular corps in Scotland to the fantastic array of homecoming events that will take place in 2009. The year of homecoming is being woven into all VisitScotland's marketing; it started with the Scotland week marketing in the United States and Canada in April earlier this year and it will continue until autumn 2009. Networks such as the globalscot network and Caledonian societies worldwide are also being targeted, of course.

I thank Andrew Welsh for the work that he has always done on promoting Scotland, and I thank Angus Council, which has promoted Scotland for many years. The year of homecoming is important to us all and it is good to know that everyone in the country wants it to be a success.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

I welcome this discussion. The Parliament's Burns club discussed the same issue at its annual general meeting less than an hour ago and its members would support what has been said.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That was not a question. We will therefore go to question 5.