Scottish Parliament, 26 November 2009

428 contributions from 90 members. The official report.

Official Report 26 November 2009

Local Government Finance Settlement

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a statement by John Swinney on the local government finance settlement. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interruptions or interventions.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

My statement to Parliament will cover three areas: I will set out the terms of the provisional local government finance settlement for 2010-11, I will confirm the business rate poundage levels for that year and I will announce the outcome of the review that I initiated last year of the distribution methodology for the local government settlement.

The local government finance settlement is an important element of our relationship with local government, which is set out in the concordat. We are now into the third year of the concordat. The key elements of that agreement, including the single outcome agreements that are now in place with every community planning partnership in Scotland, focus the work of national and local government on delivering for all our communities.

As part of the concordat, we are delivering on our commitment to increase year on year local government's share of the Scottish budget, despite the tightest financial settlement since devolution and the further cuts that have been imposed on the Scottish budget by the United Kingdom Government, and against the backdrop of the deepest economic downturn for a generation. I am pleased to be able to report to Parliament that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has been consulted on the terms of the settlement and that it agrees that it is a fair settlement for local government in the current extremely difficult circumstances.

The draft 2010-11 budget document that was published on 17 September confirmed our spending plans for the third and final year of the current spending review period, including the headline allocations for local government. Today, I can announce the provisional funding allocations to individual local authorities for 2010-11. Copies of summary tables that contain the key information in my statement are available at the back of the chamber.

The strength of our partnership with local government has allowed us to work closely with COSLA in moving towards the shared goal of doing all that we can to mitigate the impact of the global recession. The measures that we have jointly taken include capital acceleration, the provision of additional resources to allow councils to freeze their council tax levels, and the removal from many thousands of small businesses of the burden of paying business rates.

The total support for local government in 2010-11 will amount to £12 billion. In total, over the three years of the spending review, we will provide local government with £35 billion. Under the previous Administration, local government's share of the Scottish budget was declining; we have halted that decline. Local government's share of the budget will increase from 33.4 per cent in 2007-08 to more than 34 per cent in 2010-11. The total for next year would have been £174 million higher, had it not been for the cut in funding of around £500 million that has been imposed on the Scottish budget by the UK Government. Local government has worked with us in agreeing to accept its fair share of that reduction.

The total funding package of £12 billion includes revenue and capital funding. Within that total, our support for revenue will amount to £11.1 billion in 2010-11, which represents an increase in funding to local government of £308 million, or 2.9 per cent on 2009-10 levels. Among other things, that revenue funding makes available a further £70 million to enable councils to extend the council tax freeze for a third year, continues the removal of, or reduction in, business rates for the smallest businesses in Scotland and increases from £31 million in 2009-10 to £39.5 million in 2010-11 the provision to sustain the additional 1,000 police officers in our communities, which we promised in the concordat.

There are a few other changes to the local government budget that I can confirm since the draft budget was published. First, the addition to the settlement of about £5 million includes additional funding to support local authorities in improving waste recycling and landfill diversion performance, and to make further progress on the journey towards becoming a zero waste society.

Secondly, we have agreed with COSLA, police authorities and fire and rescue authorities new arrangements for a more transparent funding mechanism for pensions. Although the new arrangements change the way in which pensions are managed and accounted for, there is no change to the benefits that those schemes provide for police and fire officers. From 2010-11, the financial support for police and fire pensions will be paid directly by the Scottish Government to police and fire authorities. The pension funding will still be part of the overall support that we provide to the local government family, but the new arrangements will transfer the risk arising from the inherent variability of pension costs to the Scottish Government, where it can be better managed, which will provide greater certainty about pension costs, and give authorities a greater incentive to ensure good practice in managing ill health and injury.

The capital funding element for local government amounts to £0.9 billion for 2010-11. That takes account of the earlier acceleration of £100 million of capital expenditure by councils from 2010-11 into 2008-09 and 2009-10. The accelerated funds have enabled local authorities to maintain capital programmes that would otherwise have been at risk, which has helped to offset the downturn in the value of councils' capital receipts from the sale of assets, and has enabled councils to bring forward a wide range of projects, many of which are being delivered by local contractors.

As part of our economic recovery plan, local government also agreed to release from its capital budget, in both 2008-09 and 2009-10, £20 million to support affordable housing. That £40 million is being returned to councils in the 2010-11 capital budget allocation.

As I announced earlier, we have been working with COSLA to prepare a scheme whereby local authorities will be able to apply for consents to borrow to help them to meet the costs of settling equal-pay related back-pay claims. It will allow them to apply for consents to borrow in 2009-10 and 2010-11 in order to enable them to spread the exceptional costs that will be incurred over a number of years. Borrowing is, of course, not a panacea. Councils will still need to meet the cost of such borrowing, but the scheme will help them to manage the impact of that substantial one-off cost. Following consultation with local government, the terms of the scheme have been formally issued, and applications from councils by 30 November have been requested. We will process the applications as quickly as possible.

Councils across Scotland are already wrestling with how they can best protect services in their areas. Some tough choices will have to be made, depending on councils' individual circumstances, but it is clear that the cut that has been imposed by the UK Government is being felt by councils right across Scotland. Had our budget not been cut, council budgets would have been £174 million higher; there is a lot that councils could have done with that extra £174 million. The cut will impact on different councils in different ways, but we will work with local government to deliver on our shared commitment to protect and improve services, and we will make progress on delivery of the national and local outcomes that are set out in the single outcome agreements.

Members will recall that I initiated a review of the existing needs-based grant distribution mechanism last year. That review, which was undertaken jointly with COSLA, was completed in September this year. Commentary on the issue has suggested that the distribution mechanism is unfair, that it is biased in favour of a few councils, and that there should be a cap on the level of funding that one council receives in comparison with another. Although I am alert to those competing views, I have focused my consideration on the facts and the evidence in the report from the joint officer review group, whose membership included COSLA and a cross-section of local authority directors of finance.

As part of the agreed remit of the joint review group, COSLA invited all 32 local authorities to identify and evidence potential anomalies across the range of indicators that are used in the needs-based distribution methodology. Following consideration of councils' responses, the review group's report concluded that there were no genuine anomalies that needed to be addressed in the medium term for the next settlement. It said that

"the existing indicators were considered to be reasonable and generally a fair indication of need and"

recommended that they should "be retained unchanged." The report made a number of further recommendations to inform distribution of resources. It said that a more fundamental review of the distribution process will be needed once the way forward is clearer on future local and national taxation systems, single outcome agreements have bedded in and the future impact of the medium to long-term financial situation is clearer. It also said that there should be a business-rates incentivisation scheme and that further work should be carried out to develop options for the implementation of such a scheme from 2011-12.

COSLA set up an all-party distribution task group, which consisted of elected members, to consider the work and final report of the joint officer review group. All the final recommendations in the report were agreed by the distribution task group and were formally accepted at a COSLA leaders meeting on 25 September. Having carefully considered the group's report, and in the light of its findings and the views from COSLA, I confirm that I accept all the recommendations in it. Those recommendations will be implemented in time to inform the next local government finance settlement, which will cover the 2011-14 period. A copy of the full report is available at the back of the chamber and in the Scottish Parliament information centre.

Business rates are a key issue for our business community. As part of our economic strategy, we made a commitment that we would not allow the poundage for business rates to rise above what it is in England during this parliamentary session. I confirm that the rate for 2010-11 will remain in line with that in England—it will be 40.7p for 2010-11. The poundage supplement that is paid by larger businesses will be set at 0.7p, which is, again, in line with that in England. My announcement confirms the lowest national poundage ever set for Scotland. Of course, the fact that we have again matched the English poundage rate means that, following revaluation, we expect that the rates burden on businesses in Scotland will be significantly lower than it would otherwise have been. We have estimated that the benefit to Scottish businesses will be worth some £220 million in total in 2010-11.

The regular five-yearly revaluation of business rates will take place in 2010, and the Scottish assessors will shortly release detailed information about the new rateable values. I confirm that all existing relief schemes, including the small business bonus scheme, will continue in 2010-11. I am considering the impact that the 2010 revaluation will have on rates bills across sectors and relief schemes, and I want to ensure that it will have no unintended consequences for the operation of the reliefs that we provide, and on which many businesses rely. I am specifically considering the proposal for a transitional relief scheme, and am looking in detail at the impact of revaluation across all sectors. In doing so, I will need to take into account the UK Government's pre-budget report and whatever emerges from our own budget process over the coming weeks. I will confirm the outcome of my deliberations as soon as I can, including the thresholds for the various existing rates relief schemes, such as the small business bonus scheme.

However, I reassure members that the revaluation is not about raising tax revenue, but about achieving a fair distribution of the tax burden. The overall result will be that we will not raise a penny more in income in 2010-11; indeed, we will raise less. As I have already said, businesses in Scotland will see a saving that will be worth almost £220 million in total as a result of our policy to match the poundage rate in England.

In conclusion, the provisional allocations that I have announced to Parliament continue our commitment to further increase the share of the Government's overall budget that goes to local government. We will work together to continue our focus on sustainable economic growth through targeting our investment to support households and business communities throughout the whole of Scotland.

The budget allocations include a further £70 million to enable local authorities again to freeze council tax. I hope that all local authorities will take up that offer and deliver a much-needed boost for hard-pressed families in these tough times.

I recognise that councils face a number of competing pressures on their budgets for 2010-11, which is why, through our partnership, we will work with local authority leaders to deliver on our shared commitments. The dialogue with our partners will continue as we look ahead to the challenges for 2011-12 and beyond.

In line with our economic strategy, I am delighted to have confirmed that, for 2010-11, the Scottish Government has again delivered on our commitment to businesses that we would not allow the business rate poundage for to rise above that in England during this parliamentary session. Today marks the start of the normal consultation period with local government on the provisional allocations. I will bring the final figures to Parliament as part of the local government finance order early in the new year.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. We have until exactly 10 o'clock for questions. We must then move on to the next item of business.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I thank the cabinet secretary for providing an advance copy of his statement and I welcome his decision to pay the financial support for police and fire officer pensions directly from the Scottish Government. We look forward to seeing more details about that.

I had hoped that the cabinet secretary would have surprised us and shown that he had been listening to individual local authorities, voluntary sector bodies and service users, but he has, regrettably, confirmed what we all know: that he proposes to deliver a bad deal to local government. His failure to take us any further forward on transitional relief and tax incremental finance will also perplex the business community.

Mr Swinney's statement clearly reinforces the fact that he intends to be responsible for an assault on local government finances at a time when his own budget is growing by £600 million. No amount of bluster and assertion can disguise that. The statement underlines the reality that, during a time of recession, when local authorities should be getting their fair share of increased Scottish Government resources in order to protect local services, Mr Swinney has decided to pick their pockets.

In the face of increasing reports about the scale of local council cutbacks and public anxiety about the extent of impending service cuts, does the cabinet secretary genuinely believe that local authorities have been provided with the resources that they need to meet the Scottish Government's manifesto commitments? Does he seriously continue to expect that all local authorities will be able to deliver his commitment on a council tax freeze next year when they are faced with having to cut services because they have been underfunded by the Scottish Government? Faced with COSLA's "fury"—I am quoting COSLA—at his proposals for funding teacher retirements, and the widely held view among local councillors that the real problem for local government is the Scottish Government, does he believe that the concordat has been exposed for the con that it is and that his statement marks the beginning of the end of the concordat as it currently exists?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

First, I welcome Michael McMahon to his new post, in which he will speak on behalf of the Labour Party on local government issues. I look forward to having as fruitful a relationship with him as I always had with his predecessor, and to my encounters with him. I also welcome his comments on police pensions. The move to remove uncertainty for local authorities is sensible.

I was, however, a bit surprised by the sudden deterioration in the tone of Michael McMahon's remarks on what the statement represents as a deal for local government. The Scottish Government is delivering an increase in the share of the Scottish budget that goes to local government. I had thought that the Labour Party would welcome that—although perhaps I should not have thought that because, of course, the Labour Party presided over a falling share of the Scottish budget going to local government. We all know that that is the case. That share went down from 2003-04 until the Scottish National Party Government came to office. In the first settlement that I presided over, the share of the budget that went to local government started to go back up again. Therefore, Mr McMahon does not have a leg to stand on in making the accusation that he has made.

The second point that Mr McMahon raised was about whether the deal is good or bad for local government. I was interested in a press statement that he released—it could have been his inaugural press statement—around 1 November. In that statement, which appeared in The Sunday Times, he said that

"The SNP Government is ripping off"—

where have we heard that before?—

"local councils by £270 million."

Mr McMahon's acid test will be whether he lodges an amendment to the budget bill that would give £270 million more to local government in Scotland. If we see such an amendment from Mr McMahon, we will consider it. Of course, he will also have to say which health board and what other services he would take the money from.

The Government has changed the relationship between local Government and national Government. We co-operate with local government on shared objectives, and will continue that work. As I said in my statement, we have put in place the resources to fully fund a council tax freeze. I encourage local authorities to decide to do exactly that.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. The Conservatives certainly welcome the council tax freeze, even if nobody else in Parliament seems to.

In his statement, the cabinet secretary referred to

"a more fundamental review of the distribution"

funding formula

"once the way forward is clearer on future local and national taxation systems, single outcome agreements have bedded in and future impact of the medium-term to long-term financial situation is clearer."

Will that be in this century or the next? Is it surprising that the review identified no major anomalies in the distribution funding formula, when it did not specifically examine deprivation, rurality and three other major indicators? Is the cabinet secretary surprised that COSLA has concluded that no change is appropriate?

I welcome what the cabinet secretary said on business rates incentives, and I hope that he closely examines the proposals that the Conservative party made earlier this year. On the vexed issue of transitional relief for business rates, will he ensure that whatever his decision, he will minimise the distortion in the business community? Will he ensure that Scotland's business rates system is competitive with that in England?

The most important issue is the timescale. It is understandable that the cabinet secretary is waiting to see what horrors come out of the pre-budget report. However, to wait until the end of the Scottish Government's budget process, as he suggested we do, would mean that we may not have any clarity on the issue until the end of January, or even early February. It is important, whatever decision is taken, that businesses have clarity sooner rather than later. I ask the cabinet secretary to confirm the precise timescale, and to specify whether or not we will have to wait until February next year for an answer.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am surprised by Mr Brownlee's comments on the funding distribution review. The key elements of the joint review were to

"review the validity of the existing"

needs-based "indicators and" distribution

"methodology to ensure that the whole process"

is as "equitable" as possible.

I do not see how one could read those words and not believe that there had been a comprehensive assessment of the appropriateness of the distribution methodology.

I understand Mr Brownlee's point about business rates. As I said in my statement, the Government estimates that the benefit to Scottish businesses from the decisions that we have taken on the business rate poundage is of the order of £220 million in 2010-11. I think that that will be warmly welcomed by the business community, and it confirms our manifesto commitment that we would not set a business rate poundage that is higher than that in England. That was not, of course, the record of our predecessors.

We will ensure that decisions are taken as swiftly as possible in relation to the application of revaluation and any questions of transitional relief. I said in my statement that I want to consider all the complexities of those questions in the context of the pre-budget report and the arrangements around our budget in Parliament. I will reach a conclusion as soon as I possibly can.

The decisions do not necessarily have to wait until February: I want to be in a position to take decisions earlier, but I must retain flexibility to consider all the different factors that relate to transitional relief.

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

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement.

Why has the Government not published a floor for those councils that are receiving a low percentage increase from the previous year? In his 2007-08 statement, the cabinet secretary indicated that floors would exist for 2010-11, including a 2.5 per cent minimum uplift. Does that exist for this year? There was no mention of it in either his statement or the documentation that he provided.

Last year, the cabinet secretary's statement said that he was taking into consideration all aspects of accelerated capital, and he gave a percentage difference of capital uplift. Why is there no mention of capital uplift in his statement today? The figures that he has provided show a 10 per cent cut in year-on-year terms, which is the biggest cut since before devolution.

The Government estimates that its decisions on business rates will mean a £220 million benefit for businesses. Is that lost revenue for authorities? On what basis did the cabinet secretary come to the figure of £220 million? No other information has been published today. If he has calculated the benefit, he must have all the data from the assessors at his disposal. Why, then, has he not published a transition scheme or even proposals for one today? The UK Government announced proposals in July for a transition scheme. Why on earth is the Scottish Government only now considering a scheme that businesses need to know about in order to plan ahead for the next financial year?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In the spending review, we set a floor for the local authority settlement, which has remained unchanged during the current spending review period. The floor was agreed with COSLA as part of the arrangements around the settlement. It is clear that capital acceleration has an impact on the capital budgets; we cannot accelerate capital expenditure and then have to claw it back without seeing a difference in the numbers—that is rather elementary arithmetic.

Mr Purvis asked about the basis for the calculation of the figure of £220 million that I gave in my statement. If the Government had set business rates on the same basis as England, the poundage would have been approximately 44.3p. However, we did not do that, so we are delivering a major boost to businesses to the tune of £220 million.

Mr Purvis asked finally about transitional relief and made a comparison with the situation in England. There is, of course, a fundamental difference, in that there is a statutory obligation in England to have a transitional relief scheme, whereas that is not the case in Scotland. I want to ensure that we examine all the issues around the revaluation to ensure that, in the context of the current economic climate, we take decisions that properly apply changes in relation to the revaluation of business rates in a fair and effective manner that is not detrimental to the development of the Scottish economy.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We move to open questions. A considerable number of members wish to ask questions and, if we are to fit them all in, questions and answers must be as brief as possible.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I welcome the cabinet secretary's statement. Has he held any discussions with COSLA on the efficiency savings targets? Will the Government continue the established principle of allowing local authorities to retain the money that is identified from efficiency savings, rather than return to the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration's practice of top-slicing that money from local authorities' budgets?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Government took a decision in the spending review to enable local authorities, for the first time, to retain their efficiency savings, and I am glad that we did so. Local authorities have delivered on—and even exceeded—the expectations in efficiency savings, and I welcome their commitment to that. We certainly have no plans to change the arrangements whereby local authorities retain the efficiency savings that they realise.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Glasgow City Council's capital budget has been halved, from £206 million to £103 million. That is a greater reduction than there has been in any other local authority's budget. Will the cabinet secretary explain why there is such an acute reduction in Glasgow's finances? The Government already stands accused of ripping off Glasgow; is this budget further evidence of that? Why is the city with the highest levels of deprivation taking the largest hit with regard to the reduction in its capital budget?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The level of funding for citizens in Glasgow puts the council, along with Argyll and Bute Council as the other mainland authority, at the very top of the list of local authorities that get the largest support per capita for local authority services in Scotland. It is clear that there is an impact on the capital budgets because of changes in relation to the acceleration of capital expenditure; I made that point in my answer to Mr Purvis. If we accelerate capital expenditure, we have to claw it back.

The other factor is that local authority capital budgets have had to take some proportion of the reductions in budgets that have been applied by the United Kingdom Government that Pauline McNeill supports. It demonstrates the hard impact of the UK Government's budget decisions on the budgets of individual organisations throughout Scotland.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

What principle lies behind the revaluation of business rates? How many businesses are expected to benefit from that? Can the cabinet secretary tell us more about the contribution that it might make to Scotland's wider economy?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The detailed information on the number of businesses that are affected is still being worked on to ensure that I have the most accurate picture of the impact of the business rates revaluation. The principle of the revaluation is to take account of the value of individual business premises and the change in circumstances that can take place over a five-year period, such as enhancements and developments that might surround such premises. That is at the core of the independent valuation that our valuation personnel undertake. The Government will consider that carefully as we look at the application of any review of relief schemes that are in place, the thresholds that apply or any wider transitional relief scheme.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

The cabinet secretary has committed to a proportionate share of reductions across all portfolios. However, as the £128 million end-year flexibility has been allocated to the national health service capital budget, local government takes almost half of all reductions. Will the cabinet secretary rectify that situation and prevent local government from carrying the can for other Government spending decisions? Will he dispense with the illusion that he is on the side of local government, when he gives with one hand and takes back with the other?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

All I can say to Mr McCabe is to quote from Councillor Graeme Morrice, COSLA's finance spokesperson, who I am sure Mr McCabe would agree speaks on behalf of local government. On the budget settlement that I announced on 17 September, Councillor Morrice said:

"We see from today's announcement that our partnership with the Scottish Government has secured that position and a fair settlement for local government under difficult circumstances has been achieved."

Those are not my words; they are the words of COSLA's finance spokesperson. They stand as testament to the fact that the Government has delivered on its commitment to put in place a rising share of the budget for local government in Scotland. That is what we said we would do and that is what we have delivered. We have countered the declining share that was presided over by my predecessors from the Labour Party.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The cabinet secretary has previously refused to be drawn on whether there should be a local government pay freeze, saying that that is a matter for councils to negotiate with the unions. However, does he believe in the concept of a payroll freeze, so that any increases that are negotiated have to be accommodated within a fixed budget for pay? Given that pay is far and away the biggest component of local authority spending, has his settlement been predicated on that, or on any other, pay assumption?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Pay will clearly be a significant issue for all areas of the public sector in the forthcoming years. I have made it clear that pay settlements must be affordable in the difficult climate in the period ahead, and we will ensure that that will be the case in the pay remits for which ministers are responsible. For local government, negotiations take place between local authorities and the trade unions, and it is entirely up to those parties to have those discussions. The Government has no role in the negotiations, other than when it is part of the pay negotiation machinery—for example, on teachers' pay.

On public sector employment, I have made it clear to members, including in committee to Mr McLetchie, that I expect employment in the public sector to fall in the coming years. That is an inevitable consequence of the tightening financial climate in which we operate. However, in taking forward that reality, the Government will work to protect the delivery of front-line services, which is an essential part of what our local authorities do throughout Scotland.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Several councils will feel let down by the cabinet secretary's refusal to modernise an outdated allocation system. To compound that by refusing to countenance the distribution of previously ring-fenced money via the supposedly fair distribution formula is a further insult. Does the cabinet secretary accept my view that it is absurd on the one hand to agree that the preferred option for distributing any new funding should be the agreed distribution formula, while on the other hand to say that the preferred system should not be used in the future to allocate existing ring-fenced moneys more fairly? As Aberdeen City Council—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I must hurry you, Ms McInnes.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

As Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council have been allocated the lowest-ever share of local government resources, which part of the concordat will they be exempted from delivering on?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In the distribution review, a process has been gone through to examine the details of the distribution arrangements. I cited for Mr Brownlee the details of the remit, which is available for members to see. The process has involved all local authorities, and they have had the opportunity to submit information. That has been considered by the joint review, and the arrangements have been agreed across the board in local government. I have accepted the recommendation.

I simply point out to Alison McInnes that, as part of the settlement that I have announced today, Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council will receive increases in their budgets of 3.41 per cent and 3.44 per cent respectively.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It is clear that cuts are on their way to local government in future years—UK cuts with a Labour axeman. We have heard that local authorities are considering a move to shared services and other reforms to deal with those cuts. Does the cabinet secretary agree that local authorities must consider any changes carefully and that the local authority in the city that I represent, Glasgow, and other local authorities should commit to having no compulsory redundancies?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Doris raises an important point about the progress that can be made on sharing services as part of managing the financial strain that we will face in the years to come. The local authorities in the Clyde valley area and in the south-east of Scotland—in Edinburgh, the Borders, the Lothians and Fife—have been co-operating on a number of shared services projects. We welcome that co-operation, which is exactly the right course of action. It is not for Government to dictate the details of those shared services, but we encourage an intensification of the pace of activity to ensure that local authorities play their part in addressing the difficult and challenging circumstances that we will face in the public finances while delivering effective services to people in our communities.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Despite the £600 million more in the Scottish budget, local government is facing a year of cuts because of the financial settlement. What does the cabinet secretary say to local authorities that are forced to freeze their council tax to ensure that they receive a share of the £70 million that has been allocated for that but which find that they still have to make cuts and outsource essential services?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I would refer the local authorities to the comment that I mentioned from Councillor Morrice, with whom Mary Mulligan will be acquainted. He said that local government has achieved

"a fair settlement ... under difficult circumstances".

We all understand that the public finances are in a very different situation from previously. Local government would have been in a worse situation if the Government had not reversed the trend that the previous Administration imposed on it of reducing its share of the Scottish budget. Thank goodness that the Government came into office, changed the trend and gave a better deal to local government in Scotland.

I reiterate that, if Mary Mulligan is concerned about the volume of the local government settlement, she, like Mr McMahon, has an opportunity to change the budget and to allocate—

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

It is your budget.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr McNeil shouts from a sedentary position that it is my budget. I am absolutely crystal clear that it is my budget—

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

You are responsible.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I know that I am responsible. We could continue the running commentary, but we would be here until midnight at this pace, because I can keep talking for a long, long time.

If Mary Mulligan and Mr McMahon—I do not know whether Mr McNeil is in the same boat—want to increase the resources that are available to local government, they know what the rules are. They know that they have to lodge an amendment that would take money away from other public services, such as hospitals, to give them to local government. That is the choice. We have made a choice and given local government a larger share of the budget than it received under the previous Administration. That is the settlement that is delivering for local government in Scotland.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that a 45 per cent difference between the lowest and highest rate support grants for mainland authorities is distinctly anomalous? Does he agree that the more fundamental review of the distribution process that he announced this morning should be open, transparent and independent of COSLA?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I understand Mr Adam's point, which he has made to me on many occasions. However, we have to go through a process of examining the evidence, which is what the distribution review has done. It has come to its conclusions, which I have considered. I appreciate that the outcome may not be the one that everyone wanted, but it is an outcome that delivers the appropriate stability for local authority finance in a difficult climate, and that is the basis of the decision that the Government has come to.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Talking of taking money away from local government, why has the cabinet secretary taken £34 million from the capital budgets of local government as its share of the £129 million reduction in the NHS capital budget—a share that is fully covered by end-year flexibility money? On 25 June, the cabinet secretary said that

"the Government will have sufficient resources on deposit at the Treasury to make good that shortfall".—[Official Report, 25 June 2009; c 18948.]

If he could make good that shortfall in June, why is he now ripping local government off by £34 million?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I return to the quote from Councillor Morrice, that

"a fair settlement for local government under difficult circumstances has been achieved."

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Answer the question.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I will come to Mr Whitton's point; I am simply giving him a bit of background to allow him to think carefully about the questions that he asks.

Mr Whitton asked why local government is taking a share of the capital reduction that we can meet from end-year flexibility. Mr Whitton will be aware that local authorities do not contribute to EYF; they may retain in reserve any resources that they do not utilise. It is therefore equitable that the EYF should be available to the areas of the budget that the Government supports. It is the Government's resources—and not the resources that are allocated to individual local authorities—that go into EYF.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I share Derek Brownlee's concerns about the time that it might take to have a final review of the distribution of funding formulae. Taking up the point from the previous question, is there room in the 2010-11 spending plan or in the current end-year flexibility for a little pump priming for exceptional projects of benefit to the whole country, which of course have to be located in one local authority area?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Glasgow? Excellent.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I am thinking of another.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The point that I make to Margo MacDonald is one that I have made to Parliament on a number of occasions. The public finances will be under acute pressure in the years to come. It will be a real challenge to take on further projects when the Government is having to take difficult decisions about supporting existing projects. Those are difficult challenges to wrestle with. We will consider all of those issues as part of the budget process—they are issues of significance that the Government must address in all that it does.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Why is the cabinet secretary ripping off Edinburgh with a cash reduction of £36 million? Since he will mention capital in his answer, why is the revenue increase for Edinburgh approximately 1.7 per cent, when he said that the revenue increase for Scotland as a whole is 2.9 per cent?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In Edinburgh's case, the figures that have been made available do not take into account Edinburgh's share of the transfer of the management of development funding, which is a housing grant—it also applies to the City of Glasgow, which is relevant to Pauline McNeill's question. For example, last year Glasgow received £83 million of TMDF money. Those allocations, which are yet to be made, are material to the distribution of resources.

What happens in relation to revenue funding is that the various streams of funding are considered, the floor level of funding is applied, and specific grants are added on top. That is how we arrive at the calculations that are in the settlement, which have all been agreed with local government in Scotland.

Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5177, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill.

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

I begin by thanking members of the Justice Committee and their clerking team for their work in preparing the stage 1 report, which was published a couple of weeks ago, on the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill. The bill includes provisions on more than 80 topics. In the time available this morning, I can cover only some of the key parts of the bill, although I am sure that many parts will get a mention during the debate.

Tackling the scourge of serious organised crime in our communities has been one of the Government's top priorities. That is why the serious organised crime task force was established. We are determined to tackle those who take part in serious organised crime at all levels, from the generals at the top, to their lieutenants, down to the foot soldiers and the fixers who turn a blind eye to the illegal dealings of their clients.

We welcome the committee's strong support for the intentions underlying the serious organised crime provisions in sections 25 to 28. Equally, we recognise the concerns expressed by the committee and others about the definitions contained in some of those sections. Although some consider that the definitions are too wide, by its very nature, serious organised crime is wide ranging and evolving. From trafficking and peddling drugs that bring misery to our communities, to lower-level but high-volume crime, serious organised crime comes in many forms. That is why the definitions may have to be wide ranging.

In his stage 1 evidence, Chief Constable Stephen House of Strathclyde Police said:

"If we tighten ... too much we will miss issues and new crimes. Criminals might even exploit the definition to ensure that activity does not fall within the definition of 'serious organised crime'".—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 26 May 2009; c 1906.]

We need to keep one step ahead and be able to anticipate the next form of criminality. However, the definitions need to be appropriate, and we are continuing to consider them with a view to lodging amendments at stage 2.

The scope of the "failure to report" offence in section 28 has caused some concern. Let me be clear: we are not trying to criminalise people who inadvertently discover during the course of their employment that another person may be involved in serious organised crime. Equally, however, we are clear that the offence must capture those people in professional occupations who knowingly contribute to and profit from the ends of serious organised criminals or who are used as fixers. The law should come down hard on them, and that is why section 28 is in the bill.

Following the work of Lord Coulsfield's independent review, the bill includes provisions that will establish a statutory regime for disclosure of evidence in criminal trials. That statutory regime is crucial, as it will provide certainty for all those involved in the court process about which arrangements should be followed in that important area and will help to uphold justice for all.

We are pleased that the Justice Committee is generally content with the shape and content of the disclosure provisions. However, concerns have been expressed that some provisions are too complex and that others are too detailed. Although we want provisions that provide certainty and clarity for practitioners and accused persons, it is not our intention to impose an unnecessary burden on the police and prosecutors or to create an inflexible system. Disclosure is a simple duty to understand but a complex subject for which to legislate. Attempts to set out the duty in a simple form often miss critical elements. That said, we accept the concerns that the provisions are too complex, and that is why we will seek to amend the bill at stage 2 to simplify the provisions and to ensure that they are both comprehensive and well understood.

The bill takes forward our manifesto commitment to establish a Scottish sentencing council, which will have the power to develop sentencing guidelines to help to improve consistency, transparency and public confidence in sentencing. We are pleased that the committee expressed support for our aim to improve consistency in sentencing and recognised the need to tackle the poor public perception of sentencing. People have the right to understand why a particular sentence has been given in a specific case. We believe that the sentencing guidelines that the sentencing council produces will help to improve public understanding of, and therefore public confidence in, our justice system.

In the evidence that was taken at stage 1, there was much support for the creation of a sentencing council from a number of important criminal justice organisations. We believe that it is important that representatives of broader society sit on the sentencing council and that the council takes into account the views of others who have a role in the administration of criminal justice. The stage 1 report sets out the concerns from some quarters about the impact of the sentencing council on judicial discretion. We regard the council and its guidelines as a resource for the courts, but we are giving further consideration to the committee's thoughts on how best to achieve our aims while maintaining the independence of the judiciary.

The bill provides a tough new community payback order sentence as a replacement for a number of existing community penalties. The community payback order will require offenders to repay communities for the damage that is done by offending and will help to tackle reoffending rates with quick justice. The stage 1 report supports the creation of the payback order. We welcome that conclusion, which acknowledges the facts about the effectiveness of community sentences versus short prison terms. It also reflects the public view, given that 84 per cent of people in Scotland think that community sentences are a good idea for minor crimes.

However, the committee expressed some concerns on the matter in its stage 1 report. It asked us to consider whether we have the terminology of "payback" right. The Scottish Prisons Commission was clear—as we are, and as we think the committee is—that payback to communities should be the focus of our community justice system.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I entirely accept the cabinet secretary's point, but does he accept that the important rehabilitation element of the community payback order is not entirely captured in its name?

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

For the first time, we will be able to provide for that in up to 20 per cent of an order. That is a significant indicator that we recognise that, although one aspect of an order has to be for the person to pay back for the harm done, we must also tackle the root problem of their offending, be that literacy problems, drug or alcohol addiction, or any other matter that the sheriff regards as relevant. We believe that we have struck the right balance in ensuring that people atone and are punished for the crimes that they commit; equally, as a society, we seek to assist offenders to tackle their underlying problems.

We see the importance of ensuring that the terms that we use accurately reflect the activity that the new community sentence will involve and that they do not create confusion. We will consider that further before stage 2.

The committee's report highlights the need for additional resources to make the community payback order work. We recognise that, and we have provided significant extra funding for community service both this year and next year, to make the system tougher and tighter. The new funding will also help to provide for the transition to the new regime. As for the calls for the new sentence, when it is in place, to receive more additional funding, we have set out our budget for the next financial year and we have already provided extra resources. We absolutely share the Justice Committee's conclusion that the new sentence must be adequately resourced; that will be our priority.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

On funding, given that there has been no movement in the community justice service line in the budget, what lines will the cabinet secretary cut in order to fund his policy of scrapping short sentences?

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

We are not creating the problems of cutting budgets. That comes from Westminster, and we have to address the consequences. As Mr Kelly knows, we are sitting down with the Association of Directors of Social Work and the community justice authorities, which are involved in front-line services. They are saying that it will be difficult but that they are satisfied that they will manage. Perhaps he should have more faith in the staff who work in community services and local government, rather than continually disparaging them.

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

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

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

Not at the moment.

Alongside the community payback order, the bill proposes the introduction of a statutory presumption against the imposition by the courts of prison sentences of six months or less. We read the stage 1 evidence and the committee's conclusions on that proposal with great care, and we found nothing that explains why some members of the committee oppose it. Many witnesses presented the committee with evidence that demonstrated the limitations of short custodial sentences. All members of the committee accept the evidence, as articulated in the stage 1 report, that

"short prison sentences do not normally achieve much by way of rehabilitation",

that they have

"limited effect as a deterrent",

and that any respite that they provide for victims and communities

"is only for a limited period".

We agree with all that.

The Sheriffs Association gave evidence that short prison sentences are the only appropriate option in some circumstances, and that, in particular, custody must be an option for breach of a community sentence. We agree, and the bill acknowledges that point and contains safeguards that address it. Let me be clear that courts will still be able to impose sentences of less than six months. There will be no statutory bar to that.

However, the committee's report gives several reasons to support the presumption against short prison sentences. David McKenna, the chief executive of Victim Support Scotland, which speaks up for those who suffer from crime and whose lives are blighted by it, said just last week:

"as an organisation we supported the introduction of robust and timeous community penalties for offenders in non-violent, non-serious cases, so we're a bit disappointed that the committee has taken the decision not to support this proposal within the bill ... Certainly we hope that they can be assured that this will work for Scotland, because I think this is a golden opportunity really to take a radical and new view of how we deal with crime in our communities, making it better for communities but more importantly making it better for victims."

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

When we talk about timeous community sentences, it is not the case that only a fraction of community sentences start within the seven-day target set by the cabinet secretary? When Victim Support Scotland gave evidence to the committee, it said that there should not be community sentences for, for example, serious offences, violent offences and assaults, yet the cabinet secretary's presumption against custodial sentences will apply to indecent assault, assault, and two thirds of convictions for knife crime.

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

There are two points there. First, Richard Baker criticises the time lag. That is the current system, which we inherited from him and his predecessors. That is why we are bringing in measures to improve the system and to address questions of timing. If he is critical of the system, that criticism should lie at my predecessor's door.

Secondly, I remind Richard Baker that we are talking about a presumption. In cases in which a sheriff believes that it is appropriate for respite care to be given, that a breach has occurred, or that no other sanction can be applied, we will fully support that sheriff in their decision. Richard Baker should perhaps think about supporting those who speak for and represent victims, who have been speaking out about what will really change things.

Members should remember that the status quo is not working. We inherited the revolving door, and communities are blighted as a result. For that reason we have established a broad coalition, from the former First Minister Henry McLeish, to the Scottish Prisons Commission and people such as David Strang, down to David McKenna. Yet some members of the Justice Committee have been unable to follow where the evidence led.

Members agreed that the priority for prison should be dealing with offenders who commit such serious acts that no other form of punishment will do. Committee members acknowledged that short prison sentences are of limited usefulness, but that specific instances may arise in which a short prison sentence may, nonetheless, be the only option. Committee members followed exactly the same path of reasoning as the Prisons Commission did, and as we have done in making the proposals that are set out in the bill. Therefore, why do some members of the committee and of the Parliament not support the presumption against short prison sentences?

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

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

I am sorry; I must make some progress.

No good reason was found to stand against the presumption, and we call on the members concerned to support that important provision.

Sections 58 to 60 make changes to the operation of the system that allows the retention of forensic data in the justice system. The forensic data working group has made good progress with developing a list of relevant sexual and violent offences committed by children that will trigger retention of forensic data under section 59. It is important that we get those provisions right, so careful consideration must be given to them. As requested by the Justice Committee, we aim to provide a draft list of the relevant offences before stage 2. GeneWatch UK submitted stage 1 evidence to the effect that DNA samples should be destroyed once DNA profiles have been obtained. The forensic data working group is considering the issue. In considering the retention and use of forensic samples, we are determined always to strike the correct balance between the rights of individual citizens and the need to keep communities safe.

This is a licensing as well as a criminal justice bill. In it, we are implementing the recommendations of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 task group and are modifying a number of provisions in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 to reduce costs, shorten process times, remove unintended barriers and close loopholes.

A number of provisions in the bill give rise to a need alter reserved legislation, and we are working with United Kingdom Government departments so that a section 104 order, under the Scotland Act 1998, can be made at the appropriate time.

The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill is a comprehensive bill that shows this Government's ambition to help make Scotland a safer and stronger land, and to change the status quo, which is clearly not working.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I call Bill Aitken to speak on behalf of the Justice Committee.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

It is with pleasure, compounded with relief, that I present the Justice Committee's stage 1 report on the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill. The relief is caused by the fact that a long, complex and convoluted experience is now at an end. My pleasure is formed from my belief that we have produced a fair, balanced and measured report on what is undoubtedly a complex and far-reaching piece of legislation.

It is a measure of that complexity that the committee required 24 meetings to deal with the bill, taking evidence from well over 50 witnesses. They included the Lord Justice General, the Lord Justice Clerk, the Sheriffs Association, senior police officers, voluntary groups, academics, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General. We also heard from local authorities, licensed trade representatives and, of course, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. I put on record the committee's appreciation for those who gave of their time so willingly and for the innumerable written submissions that we received. All were carefully considered and appreciated.

Before I deal with the content of the committee's report, I also thank the members of the committee. My colleagues applied themselves with typical commitment and professionalism. I thank the clerking team, led by Andrew Mylne and Anne Peat, who kept up with the demands that the committee made of them—and with the frequently unreasonable demands of the convener.

Many of the measures in the bill are non-contentious and represent a valuable contribution to the modernisation of the law. Other aspects are controversial. Perhaps the most difficult issues to deal with were those that caused concerns across party lines, on which I hope there will be some movement before stage 2.

The controversy is largely restricted to part 1 and relates to sentencing. There might be no meetings of mind at the end of the process, but the divisions between us are perhaps less significant than some might think. The committee was lukewarm, it is fair to say, on the proposal that the bill needs to state the purposes of sentencing, as its purposes and principles are well established, nor does that proposal sit comfortably with the proposal that sentencing guidelines will be issued by the Scottish sentencing council.

It is easy to see the Government's direction of travel in relation to the sentencing council, which has perhaps been formulated in response to a public perception of inconsistency in sentencing. The committee was not convinced that clear, objective evidence exists to substantiate that perception. There is an inevitable tension between such a council and the principle of the separation of powers, and the committee could not form a consensus around how that tension could best be addressed. A majority of members took the view that sentencing guidelines developed by any sentencing council should take effect only after formal endorsement by the appeal court; an alternative suggestion was that, if there is to be such a council, its composition should have a judicial majority. I think it is significant that, when he gave evidence to the committee in Alloa, Henry McLeish, downplayed the significance of a sentencing council, stating that he had "no strong views" on how it should operate.

The issue of community payback orders was not particularly controversial, and the committee broadly supports the creation of such orders, which should simplify and strengthen the current range of community sentences. The committee was firmly of the view that the orders must be adequately resourced. We found it difficult to be satisfied as to whether sufficient funds have been or will be made available for them. The level of take-up of the orders will be closely linked to the views of sentencers as to their effectiveness, and their effectiveness will be related to whether there is adequate funding.

The committee was strongly of the view that if CPOs are to gain credibility among the general public, victims of crime and, most important, offenders, there must be immediacy, with the order enforced on the day of sentence or as soon as possible thereafter. Justice delayed is justice denied—and justice that is ineffective.

The issue of short custodial sentences is of course highly controversial, but let me state, in a typically consensual vein, that, as the cabinet secretary said, the committee unanimously accepted that short-term prison sentences do not normally achieve much by way of rehabilitation. The majority view—albeit on the basis of my casting vote—was that the Government's proposals in that regard were totally unacceptable. I might have more to say about that later, but I am constrained by the role in which I am speaking. Significantly, the weight of evidence among academics was in favour of the Government's proposals, whereas members of the judiciary, who actually work in the courts, tended to take the opposite view. The issue has somewhat further to run.

In relation to the difficulty with the operation of the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007 regarding monitoring after early release, the proposals in the bill come under the heading of good intentions, although there will clearly be practical difficulties and resource implications. We reckon that the Government has probably got it about right.

Finally on part 1, one would have thought that the view that drink is not a mitigating factor when it comes to sentencing was unanimous. Most members of the committee found it curious that the Government felt a need to codify that principle in statute.

Having dealt with the issues that are probably the most contentious, I turn to the proposals regarding serious and organised crime, on which the committee strongly supports the Government's underlying intentions. Let no one doubt that the police, prosecutors and politicians are determined to do everything possible to hit the drug barons and their criminal associates hard. The bill is extremely well intentioned, but the committee was not certain that some of the detail was right.

There are difficulties, with which the cabinet secretary has dealt to some extent, around the definition of "involvement" and "directing", on which further dialogue is necessary. We are also concerned about other definitions, such as what is meant by "serious and organised crime". We have asked the Scottish Government to re-examine the extent to which it would be possible to tighten the definitions. The committee is keen to play its part in attempting to find a proper way forward.

Another issue of non-political, general concern relates to the age of criminal responsibility. We accept that Scotland is not in line with other jurisdictions, but, at the same time, there has to be some protection against the activities of the very small minority of youngsters who can do pretty serious things. Section 38 was the subject of long and anxious consideration. We have been unable to form a settled view on whether 12 is the appropriate age threshold for someone to be deemed capable of committing a crime or to be liable to prosecution. Before we proceed, we need to get some assurances from the cabinet secretary that there is a sufficient range of disposals in the children's hearings system for children under the age of 12. The committee would welcome further dialogue on that matter.

The retention of samples is a controversial issue. The committee agrees that it is sensible to enable fingerprint and other forensic data to be subject to the same European convention on human rights-compatible retention regime as DNA.

However, we are less certain whether it is appropriate to extend those provisions to those who are offered alternatives to prosecution. Appropriate thought does not appear to have been given to the proportionality of such a measure, bearing in mind the minor offences that are likely to be involved. That requires further examination.

The retention of DNA and other evidence, particularly from children and persons who have not been convicted of significant crimes, raises issues under article 8 of the ECHR. Once the Government has had time to absorb the committee's report, we would expect it to report to us to advise us what progress has been made with the forensic data working group, particularly on whether a draft list of offences is required. I have taken some encouragement from what the cabinet secretary said earlier.

Part 4 relates to evidence. The issue of witness statements and, in particular, the provision that will enable a civilian witness to look at their statement shortly before giving evidence troubled a number of committee members and we could not formulate a consensus on it. The legal profession and the judiciary shared our doubt, so we ask the Government to look at the issue again.

On the requirement for the spouse or civil partner of an accused to give evidence, although the Government's measures are undoubtedly well intentioned, we draw to its attention the evidence that the committee took and ask it to consider whether, in retrospect, what it proposes is the most satisfactory way forward.

There are a number of other sensible measures, such as the proposal to increase the age of jurors to 70. However, the provisions on disclosure in part 6 caused considerable anxiety. The rationale was fully understood, but there were concerns about defence statements being made available to the Crown. The committee was not persuaded that there is merit in the proposal to make defence statements compulsory in solemn cases, as that could prejudice important principles of justice, so perhaps the Government will give its justification further thought. There was a view that the disclosure provisions should be kept as simple as possible, as was highlighted in the excellent report by Lord Coulsfield, who provided valuable evidence.

The bill also deals with licensing, on which there are important provisions. It is unfortunate that the length of the criminal justice aspects of the bill preclude an exhaustive examination today of its licensing aspects, although that can take place in due course. Most of the licensing measures are common sense. However, I draw to the Parliament's attention the committee's concerns under a number of headings, such as the provision of antisocial behaviour reports to licensing boards and the committee's view that a sledgehammer was being used to crack a nut in respect of the charging of, or potential costs to, non-commercial groups for obtaining licences for charitable events.

Some events that councils require to license will require the council to expend a considerable amount of money in ensuring that everything is in order. The most obvious example is that of a rock concert, which would involve building control, environmental health and other council services. However, small events such as sales of work or flower shows—such events are familiar to many members of the Parliament—do not require the same level of council input. Perhaps the Government could look again at the matter, because, undoubtedly, there is a possibility that the good intentions of very well-intentioned people who work for charities could be frustrated if the costs that are involved become prohibitive. We cannot have charities suffer because of overtight regulation.

Other aspects of licensing are worthy of consideration, such as the definition of "fit and proper person". We are not totally relaxed that the law as it is at present is exactly the way forward, so perhaps some work could be carried out in that respect.

It would be wrong to suggest other than that the criminal justice provisions dominate the bill. Some aspects are good; some are, to my mind, capable of being improved, but the legislative thought process around them is entirely satisfactory and they would receive the approval of the majority of the Parliament; and others, such as the provisions on short periods of imprisonment, are bitterly controversial. In a conciliatory manner, I ask the cabinet secretary to look again at that issue. It may well be that Victim Support Scotland and other bodies took a differing view from half of the committee, but the committee has got it right and is speaking on behalf of the majority of the people of Scotland. As I said, I will have more to say on that later.

I hope that the Parliament will accept that a great deal of time and effort has gone into the preparation of the report, which will provide an informed basis on which the debate that will take place over the next few months can proceed.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I congratulate the Justice Committee on its stage 1 report on the bill and I congratulate the convener on his self-restraint in presenting it. Given the breadth of the bill, the committee has had a lot of ground to cover. The Scottish National Party's supposed flagship bill on law and order involves many exercises in consolidation and proposals that are technical in nature. Like others, I will not have time this morning to cover all the issues in the bill.

However, the proposal to legislate for a presumption against custodial sentences of six months or less is significant, because it is unworkable, unfunded and unjust. I am fulsome in my praise for the committee's report, because it was right to reject that proposal. It has often been said that the intention is that minor offenders should not be placed in custody—indeed, the cabinet secretary referred to that this morning. However, it is clear that that presumption will not apply simply to minor offenders but to all sentences of under six months, which would include 40 per cent of those convicted of indecent assault, 85 per cent of those convicted of assault and two thirds of those convicted of knife crime. That sends out entirely the wrong message on this key area of crime. It will not do anything to make our communities safer, which should be the focus of the bill—I am afraid that it is not.

There is a false debate about whether the measure in itself will reduce reoffending. We, too, want to reduce reoffending and we believe that community sentences have an important role to play in that, but reoffending rates are higher for those who are sentenced to prison because—alas—by the time that somebody receives a prison sentence, they have normally already received several other disposals. Almost by definition, a person who is given a prison sentence is a repeat offender. Putting offenders who would otherwise be in custody back in the community will not make communities safer. We should be clear about the consequences that that might have. Scottish Women's Aid has said that the presumption could

"have a negative impact on women, children and young people experiencing domestic abuse."

The cabinet secretary's argument that offenders will be sentenced to robust community payback programmes is fantasy. It is on his watch and not ours that community sentences are—sadly—losing public confidence. He referred to a survey in which 84 per cent of respondents said that they wanted community sentences as alternatives, but the same surveys show that people are losing confidence in such disposals.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Is Richard Baker in favour of the short custodial sentences that are normally imposed on women who fail to pay a fine that is incurred for soliciting? Would he continue such measures?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I certainly take on board Margo MacDonald's point. The Equal Opportunities Committee has reported on a range of issues in relation to women offenders and we will certainly consider that committee's proposals carefully.

I am afraid that the current state of community sentences cannot be ignored. One third are breached and a fraction start on time. Even those who agree with the cabinet secretary's proposal on six-month sentences say that it must be properly funded yet, in the next three years, a black hole of some £66 million to provide the additional community sentences would result from the proposal.

We believe in the staff who deliver community sentences—they do a fantastic job—but the cabinet secretary is not resourcing them adequately. He says that he is increasing the available funding, but we know that the community justice budget is at best flatlining—as James Kelly said—and that the cabinet secretary has used unidentified underspend to say that he is supporting the funding in the financial memorandum. His calculations do not add up. That is a recipe for disaster that will push an overstretched community sentencing system to the point of collapse. All those who will be responsible for delivering the greatly increased number of sentences expressed concern to committees about funding. To be frank, the cabinet secretary has done no more than dismiss their concerns.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I will leave aside the resource argument, which we all accept is important. Does Richard Baker accept in principle that a move away from short-term sentences, which do not work and cost huge amounts of money, is desirable? I do not see what option he is presenting.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

We oppose the presumption against short-term sentences in principle. We want more community sentences, but the resourcing issue cannot be escaped from—to be fair, Robert Brown does not try to do that. When the financial memorandum is scrutinised—Mr Purvis was good at doing that in committee, along with Labour members—the inescapable point is that the funding simply is not there. Everybody has said that, if the Government believes in the proposal, the investment should come first, but the investment has not been identified, even though the Scottish Government's budget is increasing—of course, the cabinet secretary failed to refer to that.

We believe in robust and effective community sentences. That is why we pioneered drug treatment and testing orders, why we now propose the use of alcohol treatment and testing orders and why we first proposed the community court in Glasgow. In England and the USA, that model provides swift and effective community justice in which we can have confidence. Despite everything that the Government and the cabinet secretary have said about community sentences, the Scottish Government prevented the pilot community court from proceeding, although the Parliament voted for the pilot. Nothing else demonstrates so well the muddled thinking behind the bill and behind the presumption against short-term sentences.

If we are to look towards more and better community sentences, investment must come first. The cabinet secretary says that we cannot continue to spend money on prisons, but his officials told the Finance Committee that the proposals in the bill would not save a penny in the prison system. Front-loaded funding is needed, but the cabinet secretary is not providing that.

We will not support the failure to act effectively to tackle violent crime. We have proposed and will pursue a policy of mandatory minimum sentencing for knife crime. We still have some 3,500 charges of possession of an offensive weapon each year and higher violent crime rates than England has. That is why it is time to send out the clear message that if someone carries a knife, they will go to jail. Communities want tougher action to improve their safety, but the bill proposes that fewer people should go to jail for carrying a knife and that two thirds of the people who are convicted of such offences should not go to jail. The lack of action on knife crime in the bill is another unacceptable failure.

We support some measures in the bill. We do not oppose the sentencing council per se, but we have listened to the Lord President and others and believe that it should have a judicial majority, that a mechanism for it to report to the Justice Committee should exist and that it should have a narrower remit and reduced costs. The council should not have to take account of the prison population—it should have a clear and unadulterated focus on what is just in sentencing.

We will not oppose the change to the age of prosecution for children, but the Lord Advocate might need to retain the right to pursue a prosecution in exceptional serious circumstances. We will listen to views on that point and consider the detail of changes in the children's hearings system, which we still await.

We do not oppose the rebranding of community sentences, but rebranding is of course useless if the resources are not provided to make the sentences work and we are concerned about the detail of the proposed changes. For example, the Sheriffs Association's submission to the Justice Committee says that, under the proposals, no penalty would in effect be imposed for breaching supervised attendance orders. Normally, the penalty is additional hours, but as the bill sets an upper limit of 300 hours for orders, a subsequent breach would have no effect on those who have been sentenced to such an order. That requires to be addressed.

Scotland should not be left with weaker laws on DNA retention than the rest of the United Kingdom has. The report of a serious case only yesterday showed that DNA profiles can be an invaluable tool in detecting and preventing crime.

The proposals on tackling serious and organised crime are positive, but I understand from the financial memorandum that they will apply only to some two cases a year.

The reality is that—sadly—the positive proposals in the bill are far outweighed by the negative. Given the committee's rejection of the Government's proposed presumption against short custodial sentences, and to provide the opportunity for amendments to be lodged to make the bill effective in tackling violent crime, we will allow the bill to progress to stage 2. However, the reckless presumption against six-month custodial sentences and the Government's unwillingness to take action on knife crime are lines in the sand. If they are crossed in the final stages, we will not support the bill. Labour will always, always put the safety of our communities first.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The bill is complex and epic in the proportions of what it covers. The Justice Committee is to be congratulated on its efforts to scrutinise the bill. Many provisions are not contentious and will simply tidy existing procedures in the criminal justice system. We welcome most of those.

The journey to reach the stage 1 debate has been interesting. I am sure that we have all read the many consultation papers in anticipation of the Scottish Government's bill. I remember clearly the debate on the Scottish Prisons Commission's report in September last year, when we discussed in depth the recommendations to reduce the average prison population to 5,000 and to scrap sentences of six months or less in favour of community supervision sentences. As members have done today, I expressed then my concern about where that approach to custody would take us. Despite what the cabinet secretary said today, I am disappointed that the Scottish Government has not heeded those concerns and dropped the proposals from the bill.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I want to make progress.

As I said, we welcome some proposals in the bill. For example, we welcome the moves to crack down on the use in prison of personal communication devices, such as mobile phones. I recently visited several prisons and I was struck by the problems that communication devices present to our Scottish Prison Service. Prisoners share the hand-held phone device but have their own SIM cards, which makes detection harder. The use of communication devices in prison enables prisoners to continue their criminal activities as before. My colleague Ted Brocklebank will consider that in detail later.

We warmly welcome the extension of the upper age limit for jurors. That will bring the law of Scotland into line with that of the rest of the United Kingdom and will create a bigger pool of jurors on which the Scottish Court Service can draw. I anticipate that David McLetchie, who has campaigned hard on the issue since 2005, will have something to say on the matter in his speech.

I will spend some time focusing on the sentencing provisions in part 1, particularly the creation of community payback orders, and the presumption against short periods of imprisonment or detention. We welcome the creation of CPOs, which will help to simplify the current range of community sentences, but the Government must ensure that CPOs are not only adequately resourced, as the Justice Committee pointed out, but properly enforced.

Last year, 35 per cent of community service orders were not completed successfully and 35 per cent resulted in a breach application. With statistics like that it is not unsurprising that the public do not have much faith in community sentences, let alone the criminal justice system. The Scottish Conservatives are not anti community sentencing. Believe it or not, we do not want to see more people locked up in prison. We want to stop offending and, more particularly, reoffending. We believe that community sentences can play an important part in our sentencing regime. However, if they are to work, they must be rigorously enforced and complied with.

We have called for the creation of a community court in Glasgow. Such a court would ensure that justice was served and was seen to be done, and it would give offenders every opportunity to make positive choices, change their lives for the better and get out of the vicious cycle of persistent offending. It is therefore disappointing that the Scottish National Party Administration has rejected the setting up of a community court in Glasgow.

It should be remembered that imprisonment serves four functions in our society: to protect the public, to deter, to punish, and to rehabilitate. I accept that a sentence of six months or less may not give an offender access to the full range of rehabilitation facilities that someone who is imprisoned for a longer period can access.

However, as important as rehabilitation is—and I believe that all people need to be given an opportunity to make positive changes in their lives—it is not the only purpose of imprisonment. Prison is also to deter people from reoffending; to show them that their behaviour is unacceptable to society and that the consequence of their actions is for them to lose their liberty for a set time as a punishment; and to protect our public and give them respite from a persistent offender or someone who is deemed to be a risk.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

If one visits Polmont young offenders institution, one finds that 91 per cent of the young offenders have been there before. That does not say much for the deterrence argument. What is the member's comment on that?

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

We need to understand why they are repeat offenders and why we are not using their time in prison to rehabilitate them more effectively. The argument that short-term sentences are not working is not a reason for abolishing them completely. Those sentences should be more effective as a deterrent.

Short-term sentences offer sheriffs and judges the option of dealing with persistent offenders who continuously breach community sentence orders by giving them a short, sharp shock to ensure that they do not reoffend. They also provide respite to communities that are blighted by the actions of the accused. Short-term custodial sentences will always be a necessary part of any summary justice system. Judges and sheriffs do not send people to jail lightly.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

It is respite care, now.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Respite care!

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I hear members querying my reference to respite. A number of my constituents rely on short-term sentences to provide them with respite from the blight that individuals cause to their communities. Members should not underestimate the effect that short-term sentences can have on our constituents across Scotland.

The licensing parts of the bill also require further consideration, particularly their impact on charitable organisations and community groups. The Justice Committee convener mentioned that point. Recently, like other members, I received an e-mail from the Church of Scotland Guild voicing its concerns about the effect that the bill would have on their events and activities. Many local groups run small fairs, coffee mornings and other events at which they invite local businesses to display goods. They also run rallies and ask local bookshops to provide a bookstall during the event. Although the group does not make a profit on many of these occasions, the new licensing measures will require the procurement of a licence. Local authorities will have discretion over charging, but there are concerns that groups in different parts of the country may be treated differently—which could lead to inequality and unfairness—and that having to get a licence may mean that they will not put on such events in the future. That would be unfortunate for not only the groups, but the local, mostly independent shops, which may suffer a negative impact.

In addition, the Scottish Sports Association voiced concerns about the impact that the bill would have on its ability to promote sport throughout Scotland. The SSA noted that the bill would make it unviable for sport clubs that work on a not-for-profit basis to continue to promote their activities or raise funds. Many of the funds that clubs receive from the sale of goods to the public are accrued in relatively small amounts. If they are required to obtain a market operators' licence for such fundraising activities, it is clear that the situation may become unviable. We should encourage and not punish clubs that are being proactive in the pursuit of additional funds. The SSA also believes that the measure will act as a deterrent to volunteering. Without the work of many thousands of volunteers, many sports clubs would not survive. Those sports clubs provide coaching, competition and youth development opportunities to local communities. We should help to facilitate such community involvement.

In September, the Scottish Government published "On your marks... Get set... Go: A games legacy for Scotland", in which it stated its ambitions for Scottish sport in the preparation for and years beyond the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. It speaks of a partnership between the Government and groups such as the SSA in delivering those sporting objectives in the community. How can the Government truly support such statements if it then places additional controls and financial burdens on clubs that are working to promote sport throughout Scotland?

We must recognise the effect that the bill could have on charities and community groups in the hope that we will not hinder their ability to continue to do good work in their local communities.

The Scottish Conservatives will vote for the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill tonight at decision time, but we look forward to seeing the amendments at stage 2 that I am sure will be lodged and which we hope to support.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I commend Bill Aitken, the Justice Committee convener, on his comments on behalf of the committee. I do not always agree with him, but on this occasion I agreed with pretty much every word that he said.

The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill is long and complex, with many separate and largely unconnected strands. As we have heard, some of its proposals are highly contentious. It is a tribute to my colleagues on the Justice Committee that we were able to produce a report that was the subject of only one formal vote. I say that given the differences of emphasis or expertise in the committee membership. That consensus gives added power to the broad themes of the stage 1 report. I hope that the Government will listen and respond appropriately—indeed, the cabinet secretary indicated that he will do so.

I will indicate the Liberal Democrat position on some of the central issues. This stage 1 debate is taking place in a different financial climate from that which pertained when the Scottish Prisons Commission reported and the bill was conceived. That must influence our approach. We must ask whether particular proposals are essential or just useful.

I say immediately that the Liberal Democrats are clear in principle that those most important sections that aim to reduce short-term prison sentences and replace them with tough, speedy and effective community sentences are absolutely vital and must be properly resourced. Frankly, aiming to reduce such short-term sentences is a no-brainer. The public is funding prison places at up to about £40,000 a year per prisoner. Some prisons are housing minor criminals in grossly overcrowded conditions from which they routinely leave worse than when they went in, the underlying causes of their offending not having been addressed and the family or employment supports that are key to their rehabilitation having been fractured.

The public are equally entitled to know that the punishment that is meted out by the state is the most effective possible in stopping their local community from being troubled by violent disorder, vandalism, the consequences of alcohol or drug addiction, and repeated crimes of dishonesty—all of which cause huge annoyance, worry and fear to law-abiding citizens. The Government must adequately fund community payback orders if the public are to have confidence in such measures. In fairness to the cabinet secretary, he has responded specifically to Liberal Democrat concerns on the issue by providing an initial sum of £2 million and a further £5.5 million over two years to bring existing community sentences up to scratch. Despite what members have said in the debate, I know from my visits to community justice authorities that the money is having an effect: sentences are being speeded up and sharpened up.

However, we all know that the quality of different projects is patchy and that, in moving to the new form of community orders, it is a fundamental challenge to ensure that they are started immediately, managed and supervised with both skill and authority, and allowed not just to produce visible payback to the local community, which is hugely important, but to turn around the offender. As the Justice Committee said, the presumption against short-term sentences will lead to basic costs increasing by 10 or 20 per cent, according to the Government's estimates—about which there are issues. There will also be additional costs for the Scottish Court Service and for the voluntary sector bodies that will be involved in delivering the new CPOs. The conditional requirements that will often accompany the orders may require drug or alcohol addiction treatment, mental health treatment or literacy support, all of which cost money.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

Does Robert Brown accept the evidence of Government officials to the Finance Committee that releasing prisoners on short-term sentences will not save any money from prison budgets?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I do. There will be longer-term savings, if we get CPOs right, but achieving short to medium-term savings will be a challenge. That is why bridging finance is an important issue in this area, as in so many others. Community justice authorities gave evidence that the unit cost figures that were used to calculate the costs of community orders may not be adequate. Liberal Democrats are clear that current resource levels will be inadequate and that the Government will need to find additional resources if the new CPOs and, more particularly, the presumption against short-term prison sentences are to be more than tokenistic and are to make the substantial difference to crime levels that we believe they are capable of making.

Liberal Democrats offer a partial way forward—to apply the presumption only to sentences of under three months, at least in the first instance, which would reduce the organisational and financial pressure. However, there is a difference in a broad sense between the pattern of crimes attracting sentences of less than three months, which looks more like that of those attracting community sentences at present, and the pattern of crimes attracting sentences of three to six months, which tend to look more like more serious crimes. As other members have said, why, for goodness' sake, does the SNP not rethink its lamentable and short-sighted decision to abandon the Glasgow community court project—one of a growing number of projects that have not been properly assessed but have been binned by ministers who are too often hung up on administering the smack of firm but, in this instance, inadequate Government decision making?

I will say a word about the opposition on this general issue from Labour and the Tories. With respect, I say to Richard Baker that resource is a smokescreen for Labour—as he indicated in his response to my intervention, they are against the changes in principle. They operate on the principle that no press release should go out and no new policy should be announced that does not say that they want tough penalties or tough action, which implies that the only respectable sentence for any crime is to lock up the culprit and throw away the key. That used to be the preserve of Tory conferences, which rapturously received demands for the restoration of the death penalty or bringing back the birch. Since 1997, however, new Labour has positioned itself in such a way that no one can outdo it on being tough on crime. I say to Richard Baker and the Labour Party that the difference is that they know that short-term sentences do not work but are desperate to give the impression of ceaseless activity in fighting crime, to ensure favourable headlines in the tabloids—not least those owned by Rupert Murdoch, new Labour's erstwhile but, it turns out, fair-weather friend. Richard Baker knows that demands for tough action on crime are a political spin-doctor's invention and substantially irrelevant to the real issues that we face in fighting crime.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Mr Brown's accusation that we are seeking support from Rupert Murdoch is behind the times and gives the lie to the outrageous politicking of his statement, which is entirely wrong. Does he accept not only that we pioneered community sentences when we were in government with the Liberal Democrats but that we have looked for further alternatives to custody during this session, including alcohol treatment and testing orders, which we have pressed for in the context of the bill? The member's statement was extremely unfair and misrepresented our position.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I pay tribute to Richard Baker for some of the policies that he mentions, but I am making a general point about positioning, right down from the Labour Government in London to Labour members in the chamber.

It is no coincidence that about 80 per cent of young children of five or six who come before the children's panel as being in need of care and protection are back before the panel or the court at the age of 16, 17, or 18 for offending. One third of those entering prison are assessed as having an alcohol problem on admission, and 50 per cent as having a drug problem. If they do not have a drug problem when they go in, they are pretty likely to have one when they come out. Sadly, no less than 70 per cent have some form of mental health problem, with huge proportions having literacy or numeracy challenges. I mentioned the Polmont young offenders institution to John Lamont. I do not know what sort of percentage he requires to be persuaded on these matters, but 91 per cent seems pretty high to me.

I want to take a sideways glance at the issue of women in prison. Staff at Cornton Vale tell me that their main job is to try to rebuild shattered and fragile lives, to make up for the devastating fact that women are taken away from their children and homes and that their self-respect is at rock bottom, their mental health fragile and the likelihood of a suicide bid high. To all intents and purposes, those women are there mostly for their protection rather than for that of the public. It is not obvious that we are too soft on their crimes—in fact, it is totally clear that society has failed those women, that life has been extraordinarily tough for them and that there is a high chance that their children will be among the next generation of offenders.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I cannot at this point—I am heading towards the end of my speech.

In my view, the £1 million annual running costs of the proposed Scottish sentencing council are not justified in the present climate. It could be a useful body; however, if the cabinet secretary goes ahead with the proposal, he should for goodness' sake pay heed to the judiciary's justified concerns and square the circle by having the council's proposals, influential as they will be, endorsed or amended by the appeal court, to ensure that there is separation of powers.

I conclude with a brief word about children. We need to sort out the age of criminal responsibility, in line with the report of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. We must also look at DNA issues, in the way that the Justice Committee recommended. The children's hearings system was not set up to deal with legal issues of that kind, and it is almost impossible to define the cut-off point between serious and not serious crimes. The number of cases would be modest, and many would go to the sheriff anyway for a finding on the referral. Such cases should be referred or should go to the sheriff.

This is an important bill, but a great deal of work remains to be done to get it right. We expect to see our concerns addressed as the bill proceeds. For many people, failure creates despondency, aggression and more failure. The high challenge for the bill is to help to break the cycle of failure, to support the work of the violence reduction unit, early intervention and diversion from crime, and to build a system in which reoffending rates are not 91 per cent in Polmont or 75 per cent in prisons generally and the current 42 per cent for community sentences is bettered by as much as possible. That is the prize. If we succeed, our country and society will be much the better for it. Alas, we cannot say that for the position advanced by Labour and the Tories in the teeth of the majority of evidence that witnesses gave to the Justice Committee. They have generations of abysmal failure of so-called tough policies on crime to explain away. Liberal Democrats members will support the bill at stage 1 tonight.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I add my thanks to the many witnesses who provided evidence and to the committee clerking team for all its hard work.

I start with two proposals in the bill that have received particular attention. The first is the presumption against short custodial sentences—the one issue on which the committee could not agree a position. Four members voted in favour and four against. The vote displays why that proposal will feature heavily at stage 2 and, no doubt, at stage 3.

In my view, the arguments in favour of the proposal are overwhelming, whereas the arguments against do not stack up. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the current policy has failed. It has been tried for years and has had little or no impact on turning people away from a life of crime. In fact, many people argue—in my view, cogently—that the exact opposite is the case and that short custodial sentences are a door into, rather than out of, a life of crime.

Despite some people's attempts to cloud the issue, the bill proposes not the abolition of short custodial sentences but a presumption against them, with the judiciary retaining the freedom to impose such sentences where they are necessary and appropriate. Inevitably, it will be for the chamber to take a view on the matter at stage 3, as the 50:50 split in the committee reflects the diverse views that are held across the chamber.

I turn to the proposal for a sentencing council. I believe that we need a body to provide the courts with guidelines on sentencing and that the current arrangement is no longer the best way of dealing with the matter. As Robert Brown mentioned, there was a difference of opinion in the committee on judicial independence in the context of a sentencing council. I do not believe that we would be going far enough if we set up a sentencing council whose recommendations must then be approved by the court. That would not move us on particularly far. If there have to be changes to the bill, we should look at the make-up of the council and discuss whether there is a case for it to have a judicial majority.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

On the £1 million funding for the sentencing council, does the member agree that, in these difficult economic times, some of that money would be better used to fund community payback orders?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

James Kelly lays a false choice before the chamber. Of course it is important that we achieve value for money from our investment in this area—the committee made that point in its report—but it is not a straight choice between the two options as he suggests.

A judicial majority on the sentencing council might strike the right balance between maintaining judicial independence and providing us with a body that will introduce robust guidelines on sentencing.

I turn now to DNA retention and the committee's conclusions at paragraph 372 of the report. A trend in recent years has been the increasing use of non-court disposals or direct measures such as fiscal fines. However, one of the unintended consequences of that trend has been that if two people commit an identical offence, receive an identical charge and both have their fingerprints and DNA taken, they can end up with two different outcomes. The person who chooses to go to court and is found guilty of the offence has their DNA and fingerprints retained, but the person who accepts the offer of a direct measure does not have their DNA and fingerprints retained. There is no justification for the difference and, as I have indicated to the cabinet secretary and the committee, I intend to lodge an amendment to close what I believe is an anomaly in the current rules.

One of the other issues that caused debate in the committee was the age of prosecution versus the age of criminal responsibility, as other members mentioned. The bill seeks to raise the age of prosecution to 12 from the current age of eight, while retaining the age of criminal responsibility at eight. That means that children between the ages of eight and 12 could no longer be prosecuted through the criminal courts. Although the change is long overdue, I do not support the proposals from some outside the chamber to raise the age of prosecution to 13, 14, 15 or even 16, neither do I support the idea that we should change the age of criminal responsibility. There are cases of children below the age of 12 who are clearly capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong and who have committed crimes for which they must take responsibility. Therefore, I am content to support the position that is outlined in the bill.

I will mention briefly two other matters in the report. The first is serious organised crime. I realise that some people are concerned about some aspects of that area of the bill, in particular section 28, on failure to report serious organised crime. We must take a robust line on the matter as any gaps that we leave will be exploited by the very people with whom we are trying to deal. That is what happens at the moment. I recommend that members read the evidence on the matter that was provided to the committee by the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General.

My final point relates to the proposal to allow non-invasive post mortems, to which paragraphs 645 to 651 refer. Although it is not a part of the current bill, I raised the matter with the cabinet secretary and the committee and asked questions of the Lord Advocate when she gave oral evidence. We also received written evidence about it from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities. Therefore I ask that, if possible, we get a definitive response in the summing-up today to the questions raised about the possible use of non-invasive post mortems in Scotland and, in particular, to the question whether a change in legislation is required.

I ask all members to support the bill at decision time.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Before I call Bill Butler, I remind members that speeches should last five minutes rather than five and a half minutes.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

As deputy convener of the Justice Committee, I place on record my sincere thanks to the committee's clerking teams past and present, the Scottish Parliament information centre and the many witnesses who gave invaluable evidence to the committee.

There is no insurmountable difference between Labour and the Government on several measures in the bill that merit support, such as those on serious organised crime, voluntary intoxication by alcohol, people trafficking and the upper age limit for jurors. However, given the voluminous nature of the bill, I will confine my comments to some of the more controversial aspects of part 1 where no agreement has been found.

One of the most worrying aspects of this putative act is the Government's proposal to introduce a presumption against six-month sentences other than in exceptional circumstances. The production of a coherent penal policy that leads to a safer and stronger Scotland is the aim of all members across the chamber; it is certainly central to the creation of a rational system of criminal justice.

A sensible and resilient penal policy must be capable of delivering several objectives: an improvement in public safety; the delivery of condign punishment when necessary; the protection of victims' and communities' interests; and a contribution to reducing reoffending and promoting rehabilitation. Those are desirable outcomes, but determining how we achieve all or any of them is where this serious debate must focus. I say to Robert Brown that these are complex and difficult areas of policy to which no easy answers or soundbite solutions exist. One of the most difficult questions is not only how we strike a rational balance between custodial and community sentences but how we develop consensus on the symmetry between punishment and rehabilitation that is acceptable to people in our communities and recognised by them as being workable.

I remain profoundly dissuaded of the Government's policy to end six-month or shorter sentences other than in exceptional circumstances. Such a legislative change would send out entirely the wrong message to the public.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

No, thank you.

Pace the cabinet secretary, sentences of less than six months are not imposed on fine defaulters alone but cover, for example, those who push class A drugs in our most vulnerable neighbourhoods, some of which I represent. Such sentences cover housebreakers who leave behind a trail of damage and heartache and common fraudsters who prey on the old and weak in our communities. Such sentences also cover thugs who employ physical violence that can leave innocent passers-by hospitalised and, in some cases, permanently disfigured. Such a policy would be a serious misjudgement. Although it would not forbid sheriffs from imposing such sentences, it would unnecessarily restrict the scope within which the judiciary may act in cases where the safety of the public—our constituents—is paramount. I sincerely hope that the Government will think again before stage 3 about this controversial and ill-judged provision.

The other side of the equation is community disposals. If such disposals are to gain the confidence of the Scottish public, they must be visible, have immediacy and be resourced properly. I remain troubled as to whether community payback orders will be funded adequately. I have no problem with the principle of CPOs because, as my colleague Richard Baker said, they are a rebranding of the alternatives to custody that were introduced by the previous Labour-led Executive in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Mine is a genuine worry about the £66 million black hole that is echoed by the Finance Committee, which notes that it has not

"received any evidence to allow it to understand whether the estimated update of CPOs, of between 10 and 20 per cent, is accurate or whether this figure is likely to increase year-on-year, along with the cost implications."

I hope that the Government can provide comfort on that concern before stage 3 because it is not a cover; it is a serious concern and worry that we have on the Labour side of the chamber.

Labour will support the bill at stage 1 but, unless the Government thinks again about the matters that I mentioned, among others, we on these benches will not vote for the bill at stage 3. I hope that the Government has the wisdom to retreat and preserve the parts of the bill that are worth preserving.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill gives the Parliament an opportunity to take Scotland closer to being the safer, fairer country that we all want to live in. I welcome the wide-ranging consultation by the Scottish Government on the various aspects of the bill and the thorough scrutiny that was carried out by the Justice Committee. I made submissions to both the Government and the committee on aspects related to the legislation and will return to that shortly.

I endorse the general principles of the bill, as well as the wide range of specific measures that will help to tackle so much of the crime and its consequences that blight too many of our communities.

I am particularly interested in how the bill will affect the youngest members of our society. The Government is right to use the bill to reinforce the importance of ensuring that younger children who offend will continue to be dealt with in the hearings system and will be held, when that is necessary, in secure accommodation and not in adult courts or prisons. The approach is important, because it protects the rights of young people and meets their needs appropriately. It also has the effect of minimising contact with adult criminals and thereby reducing the risk of reoffending.

However, it is not just young offenders who are affected by the justice system. The children of adults who commit offences are also affected by sentencing decisions. Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People published the report "Not Seen. Not Heard. Not Guilty: the Rights and Status of the Children of Prisoners in Scotland" in February 2008, and in June that year the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee discussed issues that were raised in the report with the then commissioner, Kathleen Marshall. In the report, the children of offenders were described as

"the innocent victims of their parent's offending".

That sums up the situation in which so many of those children find themselves.

In 2002, a report by the Scottish Prison Service, "Making a Difference", revealed that about 13,500 children in Scotland had a parent in prison. Families Outside, a Scottish charity that works with families who are affected by imprisonment, points out that, given the rise in the prison population since 2002, the current number is likely to be significantly higher. Kathleen Marshall said:

"At least as many children are affected by the imprisonment of a parent as are looked-after children in Scotland".—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 25 June 2008; c 1257.]

Each case gives rise to costs of alternative care arrangements, problems for the parent when they try to get their children back after serving a custodial sentence and wider societal costs of depriving a child of a parent. Children who have a parent or primary carer in prison often exhibit regressive behaviour, such as bed wetting, or display emotional and behavioural problems. Families Outside noted that even having a parent who is remanded in custody can have a disproportionate and negative impact on a child.

The SCCYP has highlighted a ruling by the Constitutional Court in South Africa, which introduced child impact assessments, to be carried out by lower courts at the point of sentencing. Earlier this year, I was privileged to hear more about the system when I attended a moving lecture by one of the members of the court, Justice Albie Sachs. I congratulate Tam Baillie, the current children's commissioner, on organising the lecture, which made a powerful impression on everyone who attended. Justice Sachs quoted from the judgment that he had given in the case S v M, in which a woman who would otherwise have been jailed was kept out of jail because of consideration of the rights of her three sons. He said:

"Every child has his or her own dignity. If a child is to be constitutionally imagined as an individual with a distinct personality, and not merely as a miniature adult waiting to reach full size, he or she cannot be treated as a mere extension of his or her parents, umbilically destined to sink or swim with them ... the sins and traumas of fathers and mothers should not be visited on their children."

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice is familiar with the issue, because he kindly met me and other interested parties to discuss it. Other members will be aware of the issue, thanks to the helpful briefings that Action for Children and others provided in advance of the debate.

I make it clear that I am not advocating that convicted criminals who are also primary care givers should not be properly punished. Any person who poses a threat to the public should be incarcerated, whether or not they have children. Nor am I suggesting that it is always in a child's best interests not to lock up their parent or carer. In my submission to the Justice Committee, I argued that imprisoning low-level offenders who have children has a wider social impact as families are broken up. If we punish such offenders in the community, justice will be served and Scottish society will not have to deal with the long-term social consequences of family breakdown. I hope that the approach will also break the cycle whereby the children of prisoners are more likely to offend.

The presumption against short-term sentences will help to achieve that outcome to some extent, but there might also be a role for the Scottish sentencing council, which the bill will establish. In my submission to the Government's consultation on the sentencing council, I suggested that, when the council is established, it might review the effectiveness of social inquiry reports, which can be carried out as part of the sentencing process, and consider whether a specific family impact assessment should be carried out whenever an offender has caring responsibilities for children or other dependants. I hope that the cabinet secretary and the Government will consider my suggestion as the bill continues through the parliamentary process.

I hope that there will be support for the bill in the Parliament and I look forward to supporting it at decision time.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Like other members, I pay tribute to the people who assisted the Justice Committee in preparing its report—I am a member of the committee, so I will take the credit that is going.

It is important that I say at the outset that although I agree with aspects of the bill, a number of areas cause me great concern. I have time to highlight only a few areas. To enshrine in law a presumption against short sentences is wrong and would send the wrong message. In the view of many of my constituents and many other people throughout Scotland, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is not taking his position seriously. In the words of someone to whom I spoke at the weekend, he is "having a laugh" at the expense of communities throughout the country.

This is a serious matter and, if the Government will not take it seriously, the Parliament must do so. If the cabinet secretary thinks that scrapping sentences of six months or less will send the message that the SNP minority Government wants to tackle criminality and protect the public, and if the Government believes, as it seems to do, that people who are convicted of serious crimes should avoid a prison sentence, the Government is way out of touch with the Scottish public. The cabinet secretary quoted all sorts of organisations and academics in his speech, but I can quote the Mrs Smiths who live round the corner, who think that if someone has committed a serious crime, a custodial sentence is necessary.

Short custodial sentences work—there are examples of that in my constituency. If the cabinet secretary really believes that prison is a skoosh, he should bring to the Parliament measures to address the issue, rather than a stunt that will reduce prison numbers by leaving dangerous criminals on our streets.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

No, I am sorry. I do not have time.

The sentence should fit the crime. If a judge or sheriff considers that a prison sentence of six months or less is appropriate, the sentence should take place and the judge's time and court time should not be further taken up by report writing to explain the decision.

The Liberal Democrats should come off the fence. If they do not think that short sentences work, why are they prepared to compromise with the Government and talk about minimum sentences of three months? They should get their act together, stop judging other members and make a decision.

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

Will the member give way?

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

On the Scottish sentencing council, I am not convinced that the bill will change anything. There is a perception of inconsistency in sentencing. The committee was disappointed that it could gather no hard evidence on the issue, but what did come to light was the difficulty of gathering measurable evidence. Dr Cyrus Tata, from the centre for sentencing research at the University of Strathclyde, cautioned us against drawing direct inferences from bald statistics that do not take account of possible differences in the cases that come before different courts. He cited a range of studies that provide evidence of inconsistency as well as consistency and said;

"The overall picture is rather like a bell curve, with a lot of consistency and some variation."—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 2 June 2009; c 2012.]

The bill would require the sentencing council to include in its sentencing guidelines

"an assessment of the likely effect of the guidelines on ... the number of persons detained in prisons or other institutions".

That is unbelievable. Are we saying that sentences and punishment in Glasgow, for example, should be decided not on the basis of whether they fit the crime but on the basis of whether Barlinnie prison happens to have a space? I do not have time to say more, but I ask the cabinet secretary to listen to the warning bells that Dr Tata sounded in that regard.

On licensing, the proposals in section 125 would have serious financial and administrative consequences for charitable and voluntary organisations. The policy memorandum to the bill is silent on the matter. There is not a word on why the Government thinks that change is necessary, and questioning of the cabinet secretary brought the committee no information on why section 125 is necessary. If section 125 is not amended, it will have a disastrous effect on the ability of charities and community groups to engage with and serve the public through fundraising events such as gala days. The cabinet secretary is unwilling to take responsibility for the change that he promotes but passes the buck to local authorities, leaving a real chance of differences being created all over the country. It is not acceptable to leave that hanging in the balance. We must make changes to the section and I inform the Parliament that I intend to introduce amendments to protect the status quo.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

As my colleague John Lamont already indicated, there is much in the bill to criticise. I will not waste the opportunity to do so later, but I will start on a more positive note by considering section 68, which deals with the upper age limit for jurors. I welcome the proposal to increase that limit from 65 to 70 years of age. It is a measure for which I have campaigned since July 2005 when the matter was first raised with me by my constituent Mrs Campbell, who wrote:

"Dear Mr McLetchie I wonder if you might be interested in ... progressing in the Scottish Parliament, a 'niggle' that arrived in the post this morning! I received a notice for potential jury service"

in Edinburgh sheriff court

"but unfortunately as now aged 67, I am 'too long in the tooth' ... but as I am now retired, I have at last the time and interest and maybe even some experience of 'life' to be able to serve if selected. ... why cannot jury service age be raised to at least 70?"

I took the matter up with Cathy Jamieson and then her successor, Mr MacAskill. Although it has taken more than four years, I am very pleased that the change will be enacted with, I hope, all-party support—even though, ironically, it will come too late to give Mrs Campbell an opportunity to serve. The age limit of 65 is long out of date and fails to represent the demography of Scottish society. Indeed, it is only one of many examples of age discrimination that still exist in our law.

Raising the age limit in Scotland to 70 will bring us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom and correct the long-standing and glaring anomaly in our justice system that judges can serve on the bench until they are 73 years of age, but a person who is over 65 cannot serve on a jury. Increasing the upper age limit for jurors will also increase the pool from which people are selected for jury duty by a further 200,000. That is important at a time when the court service finds it increasingly difficult to maintain a sufficient juror pool to fill our 15-member juries in Scotland.

I point out that it would be possible to have no upper age limit at all—as is the case in many jurisdictions—and move to a system in which anyone over 65 could serve but could choose not to do so. That is the system that is advocated by Help the Aged and Age Concern. Perhaps we may have an opportunity to debate the issue at stages 2 and 3.

Section 17 provides for the highly controversial presumption against short sentences. Like other members, I was sorry and angry to learn earlier this week that the number of incidents of domestic violence recorded by the police had risen by 8 per cent in the past year to 53,681. It is surely a particular concern that there was a 39 per cent increase in the number of incidents in which the victim had previously been abused. Last week, my colleague Bill Aitken discovered from a parliamentary answer that a mere 12 per cent of the 5,029 people who were convicted of domestic violence in 2007-08 received a custodial sentence, 19 per cent received a community sentence, 39 per cent were fined and 29 per cent were admonished. So much for zero tolerance; it is more like zero sentencing.

If there was ever an argument for short-term sentences, those figures surely provide it. A sentence of six months—or even three—can be long enough to give the victim of domestic violence a welcome respite and the opportunity to make a break from the past and create a new home and life for her and her family if that is her wish. Richard Baker was right to draw our attention to the comments of Scottish Women's Aid on the proposed presumption because this week's figures show that many women are trapped in a vicious cycle of abuse and are given no assistance by a criminal justice system that puts their abusers back in their homes.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I am sorry, but I must finish this point.

I am afraid that the SNP's proposed presumption against short sentences would make the situation worse not better. There are many instances in which a short spell in custody serves as a respite to a community, person and family. When judges and sheriffs sentence convicted criminals, they take into account the wider picture. They do not send offenders to prison just because they can do so; they send them to prison because it is just to do so. Justice is in the title of the bill, but I am far from convinced that it is in all the content.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

If we are passionate about reducing crime and making communities safer, we need to cast a cool eye over the evidence and dispassionately decide what will work and what measures will bring about lasting change in our communities instead of resorting to populist, primitive, Old Testament views of justice. Justice requires proportionate punishment, but punishment alone does not work. By necessity, we need to focus on the control, change and care of offenders. The bill is an attempt to strike the correct balance.

In many regards, the tide has begun to turn, with more police, recorded crime being down by 11 per cent over the past two years, cashback for communities—or, as one of my constituents describes it, cashback from crooks—and the fact that we now have a serious organised crime task force. However, if we are to secure real and lasting changes, we need to make some bold decisions.

It is time to show some leadership and courage. Often, in such debates within and outwith the Parliament, there is much talk about who is tough and who is soft in the rather macho world of politics, but I put it to members that the soft ones are those who take the easy and lazy option: those who opt for political expedience and pander to the right-wing reactionaries as opposed to taking tough decisions and showing leadership in tackling real concerns.

One of the things that the McLeish commission demonstrated is that political factors often have more influence on high imprisonment rates than crime does. I would think that that would be a good, solid reason for a sentencing council. I would also think that a sentencing council would have a valid role in, and be a sensible vehicle for, introducing some good, robust guidelines on knife crime and domestic violence.

Women offenders have already been mentioned. Why is it that, since 1997, the women prisoner population has risen by 90 per cent? Have women all of a sudden become more bad? I diplomatically suggest that it may have something more to do with how the judiciary views women and women who offend. Therefore, society needs to have some say in how sentencing is operated.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Is Angela Constance aware that the percentage of convicted women offenders who are given custodial sentences is completely out of sync with that for male offenders? Women do not get sent to prison for serious crime to the extent that men do.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

Mr Aitken knows that I am no fan of benevolent paternalism in that many of the issues that women offenders face are exactly the same as many of those that the poor young white men in our prisons face, whether mental health or illiteracy. I am no statistician, but I would be interested to know whether Conservative members support the Equal Opportunities Committee's work on women offenders, led by Margaret Mitchell. Perhaps the Conservative party could address that in its closing speech.

I support the Scottish Prisons Commission's view that prison should be used wisely and sparingly. We have a misplaced confidence in prison. As Stewart Maxwell said, it is counterproductive and, as Robert Brown said, it disnae act as much of a deterrent. I commend the Government and the cabinet secretary for showing leadership in the bill and not being feart to lead the way and lead the debate.

I want to raise three issues, but I suspect that I will have time to raise only one of them, which is the proposal to raise the age of prosecution instead of raising the age of criminal responsibility. In my view, that just does not go far enough and is therefore not in keeping with the bill's ambition. While unruly certificates will be gone and children will be remanded in local authority care in secure units and not prisons, I note the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland's concern that the proposal may not meet our international obligations. I agree with my colleague Aileen Campbell that children are not mini-adults.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should finish now, Ms Constance.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

I will finish on that point.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call Rhoda Grant. You have a very tight five minutes.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will address the changes to non-harassment orders in section 15 of the bill, which I do not think anyone has dealt with yet. I very much welcome section 15, but I feel that it does not go far enough. Many victims of abuse would benefit from a non-harassment order, but we can see from the financial memorandum that that disposal is seldom used. In 2006, 24 non-harassment orders were granted; in 2007, the figure was 23; and in 2008, there was a slight rise to 29. Contrast that with the figure that David McLetchie quoted of 53,681 cases of domestic abuse reported to the police—that shows a lamentable level of intervention by our courts.

When I visited Australia and New Zealand in October, I met people and agencies that are involved in combating domestic abuse. I was impressed by the seamless support that they give. I was especially surprised to see how much it was driven by the police and the justice department. In Australia, the police have powers to put in place a 24-hour injunction without the support or agreement of the victim. The injunction is formalised in court, and justice officials support the victim through the process and ensure that the court hearing occurs prior to the injunction being spent.

There is also real recognition of the damage that is done to a child who is brought up witnessing domestic abuse. Children, too, have access to the injunctions in their own right and can seek them with the support of children's services. However, children's services can apply for an injunction on the child's behalf without their agreement. The abuser can then be removed from the home and resources can be put in place to support the children and the non-abusive parent.

The victim does not need to take any action and is not responsible for their own protection: the state is. That protects them from retribution, but it also takes into account the distinct nature of domestic abuse. It is the only crime I know of where the victim can be complicit in covering up the crime. That is because, by the time a recognised offence takes place, the victim has been undermined to the extent that they almost accept what is happening to them. The abuser ensures that the victim's confidence and self-esteem is slowly undermined; only then does the physical abuse start.

In this country, we prosecute only the physical abuse; there is no offence that covers the mental abuse. That means that, when the relationship becomes violent, the victims often blame themselves. In many circumstances, they also feel unable to exist outside the relationship, so they tend to become the best witness for the defence. That is why Women's Aid puts so much emphasis on building a victim's confidence and self-esteem. Only after that has happened are they able to take steps to protect themselves and their children. We put the onus on victims to protect themselves; that does not happen with any other crime of assault, far less with crimes against property.

The bill amends the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to enable the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to apply for a non-harassment order against a person who has been convicted of crimes involving harassment. The order is not a conviction in itself, but it guards against future harassment. A breach of the order is a criminal offence, which can be punished by up to five years in prison. An order can be applied for where there is evidence of a course of conduct, involving convictions for harassment. It cannot therefore be applied for unless there has been at least one previous conviction for harassment and the current incident before the court has also led to a conviction.

My reading of section 15 is that the amendment of the 1995 act lowers the barrier from "harassment" to "misconduct towards the victim". However, it is not clear from the bill or the explanatory notes what offence would encompass "misconduct towards the victim" and whether it would be prosecuted or lead to a conviction. However, it is clear from the guidance that a previous conviction is still required, albeit for a lesser charge. The change also makes it easier for evidence of previous convictions to be presented to the court, but that does not remove the need for a previous conviction. It removes the requirement for a course of conduct amounting to harassment, but leaves the requirement for a course of conduct regarding "misconduct towards the victim", which will have to lead to a criminal conviction. It is ludicrous that, in this most difficult of crimes to prosecute, a course of conduct is required. If an offence has been committed, a non-harassment order should be granted; one offence is one too many and any future recurrence should be prevented.

I ask the Government to lodge amendments at stage 2 that would give greater protection.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

You must close, please.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The state needs to protect all victims of crime.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am grateful to members for ensuring that we finished that session on time. The debate will continue this afternoon.

Question Time — Scottish Executive

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I repeat last week's message from the Presiding Officers: in order to get more members involved in question time sessions, brevity is the watchword.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will try to comply, Presiding Officer. [ Laughter. ]

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with ScotRail regarding rail services to and from Stranraer. (S3O-8627)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Transport Scotland is part of the Scottish Government and meets regularly with Network Rail and ScotRail in the normal course of business to discuss a range of matters, including development of rail services.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am relieved to hear that. The minister will be aware that rail fares to Stranraer are disproportionately more expensive than fares to other stations on the line closer to Glasgow. A 60 per cent increase in mileage compared with the Girvan journey costs more than 100 per cent more in rail fares. Does the minister agree that that very much discourages rail passenger traffic to Stranraer? Will he undertake to raise those issues with Transport Scotland and ScotRail the next time he meets them?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is the case, of course, that there are different rail fares and different rates per track kilometre across Scotland. Some of the differences are sufficiently large to merit further investigation. Some 58,000 people travel to Stranraer each year, particularly to connect with ferry services. The service is therefore an integral part of our overall transport infrastructure. I will certainly pursue that with the rail company and Transport Scotland.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

To ask the Scottish Government what measures it has taken to enhance economic growth through planning procedures. (S3O-8607)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The economic recovery plan update that was published last month set out the steps that we are taking to ensure that the planning system continues to contribute to increasing sustainable economic growth. We continue to work with planning authorities, agencies, the development industry and others to ensure that commitments made to support planning reform are delivered.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I am aware that the average time that is taken to deal with planning applications has been significantly reduced. What further measures can the cabinet secretary take to reduce that even more?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Government shares a clear recognition with our partners in local authorities and the agencies that act on the Government's behalf of the importance of considering planning issues in a timeous fashion. I was very pleased to report that we are now at a position where 80 per cent of written planning appeals submitted to Scottish ministers have been dealt with within 12 weeks. That compares with 27 per cent in 2008-09 and 6 per cent in 2007-08. We are therefore able to see clear improvements in the timetable for considering such matters.

I will obviously continue to explore the issue with local authorities. On Monday, I met the heads of all the planning departments of Scottish local authorities and our agencies to identify further measures that we can take to ensure that the planning system delivers efficiently for the economic recovery.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

In relation to this question, I point members to my entry in the register of members' interests.

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the council of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health's decision to establish an administrative region in Scotland. (S3O-8622)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

While it is an operational decision for the council of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health to establish an administrative region in Scotland, the Scottish Government continues to work closely on a number of key issues with the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland as an acknowledged representative body for environmental health in Scotland.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The minister will no doubt be interested to learn that the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland's annual general meeting last week produced near-unanimous support for a resolution expressing disappointment and concern that the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, which covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland, has decided to set up an administrative region in Scotland. Does she agree with REHIS that the CEIH has engaged in an unnecessary and provocative act in formally establishing itself in Scotland? Does she agree that the motivation for such a move has little to do with member support but is instead a clear attempt by the CEIH to usurp REHIS, which is the Scottish body for environmental health?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

As I said, the matter is an operational decision for the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. It would not be appropriate for me to speculate on the motivation for opening such a branch in Scotland. As I said, the Scottish Government works closely with the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland as the acknowledged representative body for environmental health in Scotland on the delivery of important environmental health policies and parliamentary consultations. I do not expect that position to change.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 4 is from Cathy Peattie, who appears not to be in the chamber. Members will be aware of my disapproval of that, not least because Dr Ian McKee has an extremely good supplementary question, which I am now unable to get him to ask.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what work has been carried out by Transport Scotland on its public transport strategy in and around the Forth. (S3O-8647)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The strategic transport projects review recommendations that were announced on 10 December 2008 included a number of interventions relating to public transport enhancements in and around the Forth. Since then, the Scottish Government has engaged with interested stakeholders on the development of a public transport strategy to consider opportunities for taking forward those interventions in support of the Forth replacement crossing.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

The minister stated in his letter to me dated 24 September that

"Transport Scotland is currently developing a strategy for public transport in and around the Forth",

which I understand will include looking at the proposed park-and-choose schemes at Halbeath and Rosyth. When will the results of that study be made available?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Intervention 8 in the STPR refers to park-and-choose facilities at Halbeath and at Pitreavie near Rosyth. I recently met Councillor Russell Imrie and colleagues from the south east of Scotland transport partnership to discuss a wide range of issues relating to public transport interventions around the Forth replacement crossing. We will continue to work with SEStran and others to ensure that such interventions complement the Forth replacement crossing project, the bill for which was recently published.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to maintain and improve bus services in the light of recent decisions by bus companies to withdraw commercial services from many communities. (S3O-8605)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Scottish Government is committed to promoting the use of bus services in Scotland. We are taking forward a number of initiatives with local government partners and bus operators to maintain and improve bus services.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am grateful to the minister for the Government's commitment to bus services in Scotland. Is he aware that a recent package of bus service cuts by a major commercial bus operator in the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport area resulted in the need for a subsidy to maintain minimum socially necessary services that was equivalent to 6 per cent of SPT's annual subsidy budget? What steps will the Scottish Government take to ensure that bus services are maintained? Specifically, what assistance can the minister give to Strathclyde Partnership for Transport?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Despite the £500 million cut in the funding available to Scotland—which, as the cabinet secretary said in his statement this morning, would have meant a £170 million cut for local authorities—funding for local authorities will rise by 2.9 per cent compared with last year. It is of course for local authorities to determine how they spend their money, but in the light of that significant increase and the higher proportion of the Scottish Government's overall budget that is now available to them, I hope that local authorities will take the appropriate action.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Is the minister aware that some bus operators are cutting services in the Borders and Penicuik because of loss of revenue due to the Edinburgh tram works? Does he share my concern that Borders buses are excluded from Edinburgh bus station on the same basis, with the result that passengers and drivers are literally left out in the cold at Waterloo Place, where they lack security and facilities? Does he agree that that should not continue?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I was not aware until now that such bus services are excluded from Edinburgh bus station. I plan to meet the leader of City of Edinburgh Council in the very near future to discuss a range of issues of mutual interest. I will also seek to raise that issue at that time.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

In view of the apparent inability of commercial operators to provide stable bus networks in my constituency—and, given Ms Grahame's question, in regions throughout Scotland—will the Scottish Government consider granting powers to public transport authorities to resume directly operated bus services?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

An interesting power that has not yet been exercised—which Glasgow City Council is pursuing—is statutory bus partnerships. In support of that, we have recently published guidance and advice that will be helpful to authorities that wish to take that route, which is available. The appointment of a senior bus development officer is already making a difference to the capability to support bus services across Scotland. I think that, in the first instance, those two ways forward are likely to deliver early and most useful successes.

George (Labour, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it agrees with the City of Edinburgh Council's proposal to cut its direct payments rate to a single level per client group irrespective of individual need. (S3O-8577)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 requires local authorities to ensure that the direct payment is sufficient to enable the recipient to secure support of an appropriate standard. It is for councils to ensure that a person's needs are being met. A direct payment rate should be sufficient to purchase a service of an equivalent standard to a council-provided service. In line with our guidance, it is for local authorities to determine the direct payment rate. That ensures that local authorities can take into account local conditions and workforce considerations.

I understand that the City of Edinburgh Council will discuss the rates of direct payments at its finance and resources committee meeting next week, on 3 December.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Is the minister aware that, under the Scottish National Party and Liberal Democrat-controlled council in Edinburgh, at least 440 people have chosen to apply for direct payments to buy care of their own choice rather than to accept the new care that is being forced on them by the council? Those are some of the most vulnerable people in our community, including people with learning difficulties and physical and mental health problems. Is she aware that, although local authorities have had to recognise that adults have a right to choose their care home placement, that does not apply to care in the community? Surely the minister must accept that she must intervene to ensure that services in our capital city are provided properly, paid for properly and properly protected.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The City of Edinburgh Council's performance to date has been very positive. Currently, its number of direct payment recipients is above average and its spend is more than in any other part of Scotland. Its average value of packages is also among the highest. As I said, the City of Edinburgh Council will discuss the matter next week, but the council has decided in the meantime to carry on processing direct payments. I hope that, when the rates of payment are discussed next week, a resolution can be found that ensures that individuals can choose to access the appropriate support that they require.

In addition, I have asked my officials to have a meeting with Glasgow City Council, which I understand is operating a waiting list for direct payments. I would certainly not approve of that.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the Scottish Executive what it is doing to support public transport in the Scottish Borders. (S3O-8555)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Scottish Government encourages all local authorities to promote public transport. Scottish Government funding for bus services across Scotland is considerable. This year, that included more than £63 million for bus service operators grant and £182 million for concessionary travel. We are also providing record levels of funding to local authorities. The latest figures show that councils spent some £51 million supporting local bus services in 2007-08. That substantial outlay is intended to help the industry to drive down fare costs and to deliver other benefits.

We are also committed to developing rail services, including the £235 million to £295 million Borders rail project, which will improve public transport provision for a range of communities.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

As we have already heard, in my constituency in the Scottish Borders dozens of local bus routes will be lost to remote and rural communities unless financial support continues to be provided to the bus companies concerned. Although the minister says that considerable funding is available, the council has made it clear that it does not receive sufficient funding from the Scottish Government to help support the services in question. Does the minister acknowledge the importance of those routes? What support, in addition to that which he has already outlined, will he provide to Scottish Borders Council?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Scottish Borders Council, like councils across Scotland, has seen an above-inflation increase in funding; across Scotland, the average increase is 2.9 per cent. We are providing the funds for councils to support bus services across Scotland. It is their responsibility to do so, and they are best placed to understand local needs and to provide a local response.

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

Given that we are talking about a Borders community, there is a clear comparison between the fragile nature of the sustainability of the services in rural parts of the Scottish Borders and the situation immediately south of the border in England. Can the minister confirm that the pence-per-mile support that the Scottish Government provides for such services is identical to the level of support that is received by local authorities immediately south of the border?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The key fact that I draw the member's attention to is that, per capita, the average support that is given to bus services in Scotland is substantially higher than the average support that is given to bus services in England. I think that we give terrific support to Scottish bus services.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the trial of broadband-enabling technology will be expanded across Scotland. (S3O-8564)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government is not aware of any plans by BT to expand its trial of broadband-enabling technology to other parts of Scotland. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Can we have a bit less chatter in the chamber, please?

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister may recall that I wrote to him recently on behalf of a constituent who lives some 3 miles from St Andrews, who could not obtain quality broadband-enabling technology. Is it not a ridiculous state of affairs that despite living in such close proximity to a centre of technological excellence such as the University of St Andrews, subscribers can obtain neither quality broadband nor even an indication about when it might become available?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I understand the member's point, but I think that things are moving in a positive direction. Broadband-enabling technology will provide broadband services up to 12km from the exchange. The trials in Scotland in Dingwall and Inverness have been sufficiently successful for BT to push ahead with the technology in eight other locations across the UK. I am confident that such provision, which is entirely BT led, will go on to deliver the goods for Ted Brocklebank and his constituents.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will now vaccinate all children against the influenza A(H1N1) virus as a priority. (S3O-8566)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I announced on 19 November that the vaccination programme would be extended to offer vaccination to all children between the ages of six months and five years. The discussions that will take place over the coming weeks about future phases of the vaccination programme will take into account the latest scientific advice, epidemiology, evidence and modelling predictions about the development of the pandemic.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I very much welcome the announcement that vaccinations will now be available to children between the ages of six months and five years. I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could indicate when that programme will start and if she would explain why the vaccine will not be made available to siblings in the family.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

As I said last week, the next phase of the vaccination programme will start during December, once general practitioners have offered vaccination to those in the priority groups.

My response to the second part of Jackie Baillie's question is that Labour seems to be making a habit of ignoring expert evidence and advice on public health issues. When it comes to the health, wellbeing and safety of our children, we will continue to follow the advice and the evidence of the experts. That is what we have done all along in the vaccination programme, which has served Scotland very well, and it is what we will continue to do.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Are there any differences between the vaccination programme in Scotland and that in England?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

No.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Thank you.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We have finished slightly early, so I will take the opportunity to say that I understand that Cathy Peattie is ill. I am truly sorry to hear that, but it should not be beyond the wit of business managers to inform the Presiding Officer's office when such a situation occurs so that I do not give undue reprimands in the chamber.

First Minister's Question Time

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is First Minister's questions; perhaps I should say questions to the First Minister.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2038)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

In his manifesto, the First Minister promised to maintain teacher numbers at Labour's record level of 53,000. What is he saying now? Is he going to keep that promise?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government is investing in local authorities throughout Scotland to reduce class sizes. As Iain Gray knows, class sizes in Scotland are at a record low. I make no bones about the fact that we have been disappointed by the response of certain local authorities in Scotland—it is only some—in sustaining teacher numbers. It is of considerable interest to people throughout Scotland that Glasgow City Council, for example, is responsible thus far for a quarter of the fall in teacher numbers in Scotland over the past year.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

We have become used to the "a big boy did it and ran away" defence on teacher numbers, but the truth is that Alex Salmond made a promise, and the Scottish National Party has cut teacher numbers by 1,000. When the SNP sneaks out the latest figures tomorrow, the situation is expected to be even worse. Yesterday, Fiona Hyslop came up with a cunning plan—to get rid of 500 more teachers. With teacher numbers dropping, why is Alex Salmond planning to get rid of even more teachers?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yesterday, Fiona Hyslop came up with a plan to give young teachers a chance of a job in Scotland, which Iain Gray supports. I hope that he joins me in calling on local authorities such as Glasgow City Council to put teachers in their schools and to put the future of our young children before their fascination with prestige projects. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I have the figures for 12 SNP-led councils in Scotland, 11 of which have reduced their teacher numbers. Perhaps Alex Salmond will ensure that they put teacher numbers ahead of vanity projects.

I want our young teachers to be given opportunities, but I do not want opportunities to be created by taking 500 of the most experienced teachers out of our schools. That will cost £10 million. Will that £10 million come out of the funding for Alex Salmond's vanity projects, such as his £12 million referendum? No, it will come from councils' school building budgets. Brilliant. If teachers are got rid of, schools will not be needed. No wonder councils have "reacted with fury", to use their words. It is a panic measure. Councils and parents know that we need schools and teachers. When will the First Minister realise that it is Fiona Hyslop, not teachers, who should retire early?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Perhaps Iain Gray should listen to the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, Chris Keates, who has described Fiona Hyslop's plan to give young teachers a chance in Scotland as "extremely good news". We know that the number of teacher retirals in Scotland is not running at the level that the past and the current Administrations expected. Many people believe that the fact that people are not retiring from their jobs has something to do with the Labour Party's recession.

I have been considering a few vanity projects that we could cut in Scotland. We could cut the vanity project of our share of expenditure—£9 million every year—on the House of Lords. I see a look of anxiety crossing the face of Lord George Foulkes. I am not saying that that expenditure is all due to him; it is due to a few others as well. Cutting that expenditure would mean 250 new police officers in addition to the record numbers that we have, 290 new teachers or 320 new nurses each and every year. While we are at it, we could get rid of the Scotland Office and save £8 million a year.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I have indeed looked at third party comment on the proposal to get rid of the most experienced teachers from our schools. A "panic measure", a "desperate attempt", a "shambles" and a "disgrace": outrage has been blasted right, left and centre, and it is no wonder. Let us look at the record. More than 500 primary schools are crumbling, 70 schools are beyond repair, there are 1,000 fewer teachers—[ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

There are 1,000 fewer teachers, and probationer teachers are on the dole. Teacher training has been cut, and the new curriculum is in chaos. The broken promises on class sizes, physical education, nursery teachers and school meals have been condemned by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and by headteachers, teachers and parents the length and breadth of this country. Is Alex Salmond the last man in Scotland who thinks that Fiona Hyslop is up to the job?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I recall that many Labour senior spokesmen in Scotland do not seem to regard free school meals as a priority. In fact, if I remember correctly, Councillor Steven Purcell suggested that school meals should be cut—taken out of the mouths of children in Scotland—to pay for the Glasgow airport rail link project.

In Scotland, 100,000 pupils have been taken out of inadequate accommodation by this Government. The Labour Party has changed its position from saying that there is no school building programme to having to admit that the programme far exceeds that of the previous Administration.

With regard to Iain Gray's questions and responses, and the subjects on offer, I find it interesting that on this day of shame for the Labour Party in Scotland, putting party political advantage before the public health of Scotland featured in Iain Gray's questions. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am sorry, Presiding Officer, but it really is a case of pot, kettle and black.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2039)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future, although I watched his statement in the House of Commons yesterday.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is now clear that another of the First Minister's flagship policies—the minimum pricing of alcohol—is going to hit the buffers, because the Labour Party has finally seen the light, or found a backbone; whatever it is necessary for it to do to follow the Conservative lead. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

As it is now clear that the First Minister will not succeed with his policy of the minimum pricing of alcohol, I ask him to reconsider another area of policy—his determination to provide universal free prescriptions. We know that the Liberal Democrats, once again following my party's lead in opposing the measure, have joined our ranks in opposition to that policy. No doubt Labour will follow shortly.

Does the First Minister agree that at this time of crisis in our public finances, when delivering essential public services is proving hugely challenging, giving people like him and me free prescriptions is morally repugnant and politically irresponsible?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I will deal first with the first part of Annabel Goldie's question, on the minimum pricing of alcohol. Annabel Goldie should not be proud or pleased that the Labour Party is ganging up with the Conservatives on the issue of minimum pricing, because the weight of evidence indicates that the minimum pricing of alcohol would save lives in Scotland.

I note that the Labour Party is ganging up with the Conservatives to oppose minimum pricing just as the Conservatives have stopped ganging up with the Labour Party as far as the Calman commission is concerned—kicking it into the long grass, as the Liberals put it. The Conservatives, of course, are the long grass into which the Calman commission is being kicked.

Annabel Goldie's constant refrain that free prescriptions and having a national health service that is free at the point of need are of no interest to people in Scotland is deeply and profoundly mistaken. She should tell that to people with long-term conditions who have, through the years, suffered enormously from having to buy their prescriptions.

Those of us who believe in a health service in Scotland that is free at the point of need, with issues decided on the basis of need and clinical availability and not on the ability to pay, believe that the free prescription policy is necessary and represents the best principles of the national health service.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Many of the people in the category to which the First Minister referred already get their prescriptions free.

Last week, I raised with the First Minister the deeply disturbing issue of child malnutrition. As I said last week, one of the most important interventions for children who are at risk would be to improve the provision of health visitors. Is not supporting vulnerable children far more important than subsidising free prescriptions for me and the First Minister? I know that the First Minister and I do not agree on universal free prescriptions but, if he loses the vote for that policy in the Parliament, will he commit to using the money that is saved to improve the provision of health visitors throughout Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As I said to Annabel Goldie last week, I am interested in and concerned about the position and numbers of health visitors in Scotland, and that will be an abiding concern.

However, Annabel Goldie indicates that the issue of free prescriptions is the only thing that divides us in our beliefs about the national health service. I remind her of two things. First, there has been fundamental doubt over the years, not about the Tories' commitment to free prescriptions at the point of need, but about their commitment to free health care at the point of need. That is exactly why the Conservatives had to say that the health service was safe in their hands, because people throughout the country believed it to be unsafe in their hands. We have just passed last year's anniversary year of the national health service, the original concept of which was of a service for all that was free at the point of need. The free prescription policy lives up to that principle and will deliver it in practice.

Secondly, Annabel Goldie says blithely that many people with long-term conditions have access to free prescriptions, but many do not—that is exactly the problem. People who do not have access to free prescriptions will be extremely interested and concerned that the Tory party is reverting to type as far as our national health service is concerned.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2040)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Issues of relevance and concern to the people of Scotland.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The First Minister has made it clear that the Scottish budget faces a tough settlement and that every penny counts. Are any Scottish Government quangos or agencies sitting on reserves of unused cash?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

There are a great number fewer quangos and agencies in Scotland thanks to the Government's action. Of course, it might be that we started from a very high level of quangos and agencies, as that was the legacy of the Liberal-Labour Administration in Scotland. Thankfully, the Government has cut it.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

That was not an answer to the question that I asked. A report from the Auditor General for Scotland, which cannot come as a surprise to Mr Salmond, confirms that the Registers of Scotland quango has accumulated reserves of £122 million. Section 4 of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 says that the money can be paid to the consolidated fund if ministers and the Treasury agree. There are no other positive plans to use the reserves. Scotland is in recession now and business needs help to get through it. Small businesses cannot get the funds that they need from their banks, so why cannot the money be used to help thousands of them? Otherwise, we will have £122 million of good money in the wrong place in tough times. Will the First Minister ask for that transfer to happen?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Oh yes, I will certainly ask for the transfer to happen, and I will inform Tavish Scott why it has not happened to date. The Treasury's position is that, if we get transfers into the consolidated fund, the amount comes off the departmental expenditure limit. Tavish Scott should know that, because previously we have discussed the money under the fossil fuel levy, to which exactly the same principle applies. That amounts to £165 million. I therefore hold out hope that Tavish Scott will unite with me, in a new consensus in politics, and see the eminent common sense of having control of our finances, so that we do not have to go cap in hand to the Treasury to get back our own money.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am sure that the First Minister will share my concern about the 8 per cent increase in the incidence of domestic abuse reported by the police in the past year. Over many years, women's organisations have demanded that men who abuse their partners and terrorise their families should face the full force of the law. Does the First Minister think that it is acceptable that only about 10 per cent of men who are found guilty of domestic abuse go to jail? Will he reflect on his plans to scrap six-month sentences, given the concerns of many who are involved in supporting victims of domestic abuse that his actions will result in fewer of those men being jailed and women and children being put at greater risk?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am concerned about the issue. Indeed, I had discussions on exactly that point in Airdrie yesterday. On Johann Lamont's position on short jail sentences, the proposition is clear: people who commit serious offences should not receive short jail sentences; they should be given long jail sentences. We must face the inevitable conclusion, as some in her party do, and as the evidence shows, that short jail sentences do not work to change offending behaviour. Let us treat domestic violence as a serious issue in the criminal law, and let us not pretend that a short jail sentence is adequate to reflect the seriousness of the issue or will solve the problems in this or any other respect.

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is the First Minister aware that two of my constituents, Florence Mhango and her 10-year-old daughter Precious, from Cranhill in Glasgow are currently being detained at Yarl's Wood detention centre? In the past hour, I have received news that they will shortly be joined by a family of five Glasgow children who were taken to Dungavel yesterday after school—five Muslim children, innocent of any crime, but spending Eid in prison.

What progress has the Scottish Government made with the alternatives to detention pilots? Will the Scottish Government continue to support the consensus throughout Scotland that the detention of such children is morally wrong?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am aware of the circumstances in the first of the cases that Anne McLaughlin mentions. We have made continual representations to the United Kingdom Government on the detention of children. Michael Russell, the Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution, wrote to Phil Woolas on Friday last week, specifically on the first case that Anne McLaughlin mentioned.

As Anne McLaughlin indicated, the Scottish Government remains fundamentally opposed to dawn raids and to the detention of children in Dungavel. We have made it clear that asylum seekers and refugees must be treated fairly and humanely, and that while they are in Scotland they must be supported.

The Scottish Government has been actively exploring alternatives to detention, which is why we are supporting a three-year pilot in Glasgow that is aimed at reducing the number of children who are held in Dungavel and encouraging and assisting families' voluntary return.

I am not aware of the second case that Anne McLaughlin mentioned, but we will investigate it today and I shall write to her.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

To ask the First Minister what efforts the Scottish Government is making to reduce the number of air-gun incidents. (S3F-2054)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government is committed to tackling air-gun crime, which continues to be responsible for far too many offences in Scotland. We welcome the United Kingdom Government's recognition that legislative responsibility in that area should be devolved to this Parliament—something that we have been demanding for years. In fact, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has written to the Home Secretary no less than seven times and has met the Home Secretary twice since July 2007 in an attempt to secure agreement from the UK Government to devolve legislative responsibility for air weapons.

As Angela Constance knows, a draft order was lodged on 25 June that would have the effect of devolving responsibility for air weapons. We want the UK Government to agree to take action on that as soon as possible.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

The First Minister will be well aware of the white paper that was published yesterday by the UK Government in which it refuses to introduce legislation to transfer life-saving powers on air-guns prior to the next general election, and of the response of the Conservatives, who have indicated that, if elected, they will delay legislation. Will the First Minister therefore set out what action he is taking to introduce legislation immediately? Will the Scottish Government consult on how control over air-guns could be applied in Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I indicate to Angela Constance that I wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday to seek to secure agreement for the early devolution of responsibility for air weapons and several of the other Calman commission proposals. In fact, I have the orders right here. I indicated to the Prime Minister that there is a meeting of the Privy Council in February and another in March. If the political will exists and there is consensus throughout Parliament, not just on air-guns but on drink-driving limits and speed limits in Scotland, those measures could be implemented before the general election. If that were to happen, any suggestion of Conservative party backsliding or kicking into the long grass would be obviated by the action of the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. I note with great satisfaction that Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal spokesman for constitutional affairs, has indicated his agreement that the recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible.

I say to Angela Constance, on the important subject of air weapons and indeed the other matters, why do we not just get on with the job and stop delaying things further?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

In terms of getting on with the job, the First Minister will know that people who carry or use an air-gun, particularly in an urban area, already do so at their peril, because of the existing laws against possession of offensive weapons, reckless actions that endanger life, and breach of the peace, among other offences. What action is his Government taking to ensure that existing laws are known about and rigorously enforced? Does he agree that, whatever the issues in countryside areas, there can be little justification for the use of air-guns in our cities?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Indeed, and there has been significant action through the violence reduction unit and other initiatives, including summits held by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on the issue of air-guns. The summits indicated that legislative competence is required to do the job properly and protect the Scottish public from the menace of air-guns. That was the conclusion of the groups that represent victims throughout Scottish society, and I thought that it was also the united conclusion of the Parliament. It is certainly the conclusion of Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal spokesman at Westminster.

Given the unanimity in the Parliament, among victims' groups, in the police service and elsewhere, why do we not all agree to get on with getting the legislative competence so that we can do the job properly and protect Scottish society?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Does the First Minister recall the terrible incident of the death of Andrew Morton, whose family were my constituents? I genuinely ask the First Minister to agree that this is not the day to play politics with the issue, but instead—[ Interruption. ] Genuinely, First Minister, this was a terrible incident, and the family have suffered terribly. Today, I ask the First Minister to join me in congratulating and paying tribute to the Morton family, because it is their pressure that has made all the political parties in Scotland find a way forward.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I gladly pay tribute to the Morton family and the other families who have campaigned on the issue. Surely the thing that we should do is unite as a Parliament to get the legislative power within our competence as quickly as possible to respond to the crying needs of the Morton family and other families in Scotland.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The First Minister must appreciate that, irrespective of the proposed transfer of powers, the law is in place to enable us to deal with offences of this type. Does he not recognise that his justice secretary's proposal to create a presumption against sentences of less than six months will allow many of those who commit offences under the existing legislation to escape what should be a custodial sentence for a very serious matter?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Bill Aitken, above all, should believe that people who commit serious offences should not be given short jail sentences. I thought that we had a consensus on the matter. The Calman commission said that air-gun legislation required to be devolved so that we could have a comprehensive legal framework to make society safer in Scotland. If the present legal framework was appropriate, no doubt Calman and the rest of us would not have called for competence to be devolved.

I do not think that the necessary action that we are continuing to take to protect Scottish society should preclude us from getting the legislative competence to do the job properly. Until now, I thought that the Conservatives were backsliding only on Calman's financial proposals. Their justice spokesman has now opened up the possibility that they are backsliding on the range of Calman's proposals.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government will take to support those homes and businesses affected by flooding over the last two weeks. (S3F-2053)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I thank the member for raising an issue that is, of course, at the forefront of our minds while Scotland is affected by severe weather for the third time in as many months. The recent flooding had a particularly bad impact on Whitesands in her constituency, as well as serious impacts across much of southern and central Scotland. The Minister for Environment is currently visiting Whitesands to see for herself the impact of the flooding.

The Scottish Government has provided record levels of funding for flood prevention schemes since 2007. The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009—which, if I remember correctly, the Parliament passed unanimously—comes into force today and will make a significant contribution, for example by streamlining decision making for flood prevention schemes and by placing new duties on local authorities to reduce overall flooding risk.

We have been in touch with Dumfries and Galloway Council about assistance under the Bellwin scheme, and the council has indicated that it will let us know by the end of the week whether it will be making an application.

I take this opportunity to update Parliament on the general situation. As of this morning, 13 flood watches and eight flood warnings are in force. The forecast is improving as we move towards the weekend, but we shall continue to monitor the situation.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am glad to hear that the Scottish Government continues to spend the funding that was allocated by the previous Executive for flood prevention. I am aware that the Minister for Environment is in my constituency: I was advised of that by the leader of the Labour group on Dumfries and Galloway Council—I am a little surprised not to have received the normal courtesy of notification of a ministerial visit to my constituency.

The United Kingdom Government and the Northwest Regional Development Agency are making £2 million available to help communities in Cumbria that were affected by last week's flooding. The Department for Transport will provide emergency funding to help to repair bridges and roads. Apart from reannouncing the passage of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, what is the Scottish Government actually going to do to help those of my constituents who are suffering the effects of flooding today? The UK Government has announced funding; the Scottish Government has reannounced the passing of an act—which, incidentally, was significantly improved through Labour Party amendments.