Scottish Parliament, 4 March 2010

335 contributions from 72 members. The official report.

Factoring Services

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business today is a debate on motion S3M-5872, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on factoring services. We have a little flexibility this morning, and I can give all members an extra minute of speaking time at this stage.

I call Patricia Ferguson to speak to and move the motion. You have up to 14 minutes.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

It is some time since I had quite so long to speak. I will try to make the most of it.

I am grateful to have this opportunity to discuss with colleagues a subject that troubles many of our constituents across the length and breadth of Scotland. I say troubles but, for some, the unsatisfactory management of their property is more than just troublesome. At best, it can cause great concern and, at worst, it can cause real financial hardship and distress.

The irony is that the purpose of factoring is to make life simpler for the individual owner and to make it easier for them to co-operate with their neighbours to have common repairs and maintenance carried out. However, the reality for many is very different, and I am sure that colleagues who take part in this debate this morning will tell Parliament of the experiences of their constituents.

It is clear to me that the Scottish Government is well intentioned in what it is trying to do in this area, but I hope that this debate will explain to the minister why legislation is necessary and convince him of the merits of such an approach.

I want to set out today what the legislation I propose would achieve. Before I do so, however, I want to talk about a few constituency cases that have passed across my desk. I have changed the names of the individuals, because the circumstances demand that I do so.

Mr and Mrs A are currently being sued by their factor for almost £3,000. However, they have been sued several times over the last few years by the company, each time for several hundred pounds that is, ostensibly, due for administration charges, compound interest and legal fees. Their factors are, in my view, nothing more than debt farmers who grow vulnerable customer’s debts on a weekly basis by applying excessive administration charges, compound interest and expenses. In this case, decrees prevent the family from opening a bank account. Their elderly and frail parents were also sued by the same company and were made bankrupt. The family had to find £5,000 to pay to the factor, even though the bulk of the sums that were due were for not the original debt but administration charges, compound interest and legal fees.

Mr and Mrs B have the same factor. He has registered a notice of potential liability against them that prevents them from making a mortgage-to-rent application or from selling their property, because any purchaser would have to pay off the full debt. Mrs B owed the firm £4,500 in 2008 and, in spite of the fact that the factor no longer manages their property, it is now pursuing Mrs B for £12,000. Mr and Mrs B have tried hard to speak to their factor, but he simply will not listen. Their next-door neighbour is £2,500 in debt to the same factor, for an original bill of £600.

I will talk about the practice of this particular factor in detail. The company sends out reminder letters over unpaid bills every week at a cost of £17.62, which means that debts grow by £70.48 every four weeks. The firm calls that sum “administration charges” and applies 33 per cent compound interest on it. The arrangement means that, over the space of a year, a £10 debt could grow, in theory, to as much as £1,200, with 52 letters at £17.62 each, plus interest of around £300. That is a mark-up of 12,000 per cent on the original sum owed. The factor can then sue the owner for bankruptcy.

The experiences of these people are not unique, and while their situations might sound extreme, the fact that they can exist in Scotland today surely demands our attention. In fact, it demands that we use the powers at our disposal to legislate.

In 2007, my colleague, the then Labour MSP for Glasgow Govan, Gordon Jackson, indicated his intention to introduce legislation that would regulate the factoring industry. Unfortunately, Gordon was not returned to Parliament and could not pursue the idea. Having had experience of cases in my constituency, I was pleased to take over responsibility for the work. The consultation that I undertook showed the scale of the problem, with 87 per cent of those who responded indicating support for legislation.

That was borne out by a market study that was undertaken by the Office of Fair Trading, which found that almost one third of consumers thought their factor provided a poor service. More than half of all consumers had some complaint with that service and 67 per cent of those who had lodged a formal complaint said that they did not believe that it had been adequately resolved.

Although my consultation and the OFT’s study found similar problems, our conclusions were different. The OFT believes that a voluntary scheme is required, while I am convinced that we need legislation to underpin the changes that must now be made.

As we know, the Scottish Government has so far indicated that it also favours a voluntary scheme. It is my sincere hope that today’s debate will persuade the minister that legislation is needed and will demonstrate that this Parliament backs such an approach.

The proposed bill will require all property managers to be accredited and to meet some minimum operating standards. Many of the problems that are faced by their clients are about the basics, such as the availability of accounts and difficulties with communication and receiving quotes for work. Having a simple minimum standard would iron out many issues before they develop into problems. Having passed such a test, the property manager would be required to register with a body to be authorised by Scottish ministers that would also supervise the accreditation system. With regard to deciding which body should carry out that particular function, I suggest that Consumer Focus and the Property Managers Association should be statutory consultees.

When disputes occur, there is little that an aggrieved owner can do, other than going to court to defend or raise a claim. Going to court can be very difficult for homeowners because many of the cases are under £3,000 in value, and no civil legal aid is available for homeowners. The legal and factual complexity of disputes is often beyond the abilities of lay-representatives, and factors will often engage solicitors, which makes it a very one-sided arrangement. The third element of my bill proposal is to introduce accessible and legally binding dispute resolution that will not require legal representation but will avoid the need to go to court and be exposed to court charges and legal expense. Such a system is already in place under the private rented housing committee for private sector tenants who have repair disputes with their landlords.

I believe that that raft of measures would make a huge difference to home owners up and down the country.

One of the problems that was identified by the ministerial working group was the financing of its proposals for voluntary accreditation. The group has recognised that a voluntary scheme is not a popular concept and that, if accreditation is to be financed by those seeking to be accredited, it might be difficult to accrue enough funding to allow it to work. A statutory scheme would not have that problem, as a registration fee would have to be paid by all factors. I would, however, want to ensure that that cost was not simply passed on to the customer through higher management fees.

There is one other group that I believe that this legislation will help. I have outlined the bad practice of one particular factor, and we will no doubt hear of others today, but there are also good factors who take their responsibilities seriously. They, too, encounter problems while carrying out their job.

For many people, buying a home or a flat is a daunting experience, as there are many things to consider and a great deal of money to be spent. Money goes on the purchase, on legal and removal fees and on buying new furniture. Amid the sheer excitement of having one’s own home, particularly if it is one’s first home, arrangements must be made with the companies that supply the utilities to the property, friends must be told of one’s new address and so on. The cost of factoring is sometimes overlooked in all of that, and can come as a bit of a shock.

I hope that, by debating the issue today, we are raising its profile and reminding solicitors and developers that they, too, have a role in advising clients of the extent of the liability that they will incur.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am listening carefully to the member’s speech and I support her approach. She talks about property development and property maintenance, but, living in Inverness, my main concern is the maintenance of grounds and open spaces. Will the member confirm that, when she talks about maintenance, she includes the maintenance of land and open spaces?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Yes. If a property management company operates in that way, the proposed legislation would cover that, too.

In this day of buy to let, it can be difficult to persuade an absent owner—even if they can be found—of the need for communal repairs or maintenance. In Glasgow, relatively new properties have reached the point at which they had no factor, as companies understandably had to call it quits when the outstanding fees and communal utilities bills had gone unpaid for so long that the buildings were on the brink of having no communal lighting, lifts or pumped water supply. That situation was not of the factors’ making—indeed, they lost out on thousands of pounds in income and debt. I therefore firmly believe that property managers would benefit from the proposed legislation, too.

I know from talking to property factors that many of them recognise that their industry is not highly regarded, often because of the activities of a few unscrupulous characters. They, too, want to restore their industry’s reputation and they would welcome the opportunity that the legislation would afford.

As I draw to a close, I will thank several people. I realise that it is Oscar season, but I will try to cut the list down to just a few. I thank the non-executive bills unit for its advice and, I hope, for its on-going support. I also thank Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre for his unstinting support and for his hard work in the courts to support people who are being exploited by unscrupulous property managers. I also thank my constituency office colleagues Susan Smith and Isobel Tait, and particularly Chris Kelly, who has been so helpful to me in the work. My thanks also go to the Evening Times and The Herald, which heard of the problems that their readers were experiencing and, in true investigative style, decided not just to highlight the problem, but to lobby for change.

We owe it to the factors who want change to support them with legislation but, more important, we owe it to Mr and Mrs A and Mr and Mrs B and all the others whom we will no doubt hear about to change the system and to enshrine that change in statute. There is clear support for such reform across the length and breadth of Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that the Office of Fair Trading market study into the property management market found that the market is not working well for consumers in Scotland; welcomes the recent cross-party support for proposals to require property factors to register and to make provision for an accessible form of dispute resolution between homeowners and property factors, and further welcomes this positive progress toward the introduction of legislation to ensure better accountability of property managers for their standards and the services that they provide.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Normally, at the start of a speech in a members’ business debate, we congratulate the member on securing the debate. That is unusual for a party-political debate, but I congratulate Tricia Ferguson on securing this debate, because it is a subject that is worthy of the time that it has been allocated and the seriousness with which I think all parties intend to address the situation.

The Scottish Government recognises the cross-party support for action. We all accept that the status quo is not an option. I support the outcomes that Tricia Ferguson is trying to achieve through her proposed member’s bill. I have already indicated to the member that the Government will approach her bill empathetically. When we have the details, we will consider our position on the bill, but our approach will be from the standpoint of trying to do everything that we can to address the problems, which we all recognise. Passage of the proposed bill would of course include consideration of how the Parliament might legislate to provide the appropriate authorities with effective powers to make a real difference on enforcement. I look forward to seeing the final details of the bill. I have a meeting soon with Tricia Ferguson to discuss how we can proceed.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Can we take it from the minister’s remarks on Patricia Ferguson’s proposed bill that the Government’s official position is no longer to support an accreditation scheme, which is what the Government said that it supported in response to the OFT report as recently as May 2009? Has the Government’s position changed so that it now supports a statutory measure, rather than a voluntary industry-led initiative?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I will spell out the Government’s position on exactly that point if the member will give me an opportunity to do so.

I emphasise how important the issue is to the Scottish Government. Improving the condition of the common parts of housing in the private sector is one of our key policy priorities. More than one third of Scotland’s population lives in a flat, maisonette or apartment, and properties of that type have been identified as being more likely to suffer from a lack of maintenance. As a result, arrangements for the management of communal repairs are critical to the condition of a large section of our private housing stock.

Property managers have a crucial role in maintaining and improving the stock condition. At the same time, we want to support property owners to take on more responsibility for the condition of their homes. It is important that owners are aware of their responsibilities; that they understand the various services that are available; and that they enjoy access to quality and value-for-money property management services. Ultimately, the customer must have trust in the services that their property manager provides.

As Tricia Ferguson articulately outlined, the quality of service that some residential property managers provide is a matter of concern. It is a concern to the Government and the Parliament, and it was a concern to previous Administrations. The housing improvement task force recommended in its final report in 2003 that a national voluntary accreditation scheme for property managers be established. I think that Margaret Curran was the minister at the time. In July 2008, we announced plans to work with the property management industry to support the establishment of a national accreditation scheme. However, at that time, the Office of Fair Trading, as Tricia Ferguson said, was about to conduct a study to establish whether the market for residential property management services was working effectively in Scotland. We therefore decided to await publication of the OFT report before entering into discussions with stakeholders.

In February 2009, the OFT published the report on its market study, which concluded that some form of self-regulation was desirable, backed up with better information for consumers to improve the efficiency of the market and the quality of services. The OFT recommended that the Scottish Government should take the lead in ensuring early implementation of a self-regulatory scheme and that it should review progress of the scheme. It also recommended that, if a voluntary scheme did not prove to be effective, the Scottish Government should take steps to introduce a scheme on a statutory basis.

As Mr McLetchie pointed out, we accepted those recommendations. To date, they represent our main work in the policy area. We have been developing a national voluntary accreditation scheme with the industry and other stakeholders. The aim is to help property management businesses build a better reputation and gain the trust of consumers, and to ensure that the industry takes ownership of finding the solution to its image problem. That approach has the potential to raise standards above the legal minimum that might be afforded by statutory regulation approaches to control the market.

Let me be absolutely clear that, although the voluntary scheme is important, we are open to the possibility of the need for legislation. I have already indicated that we are prepared to sit down with the Tricia Ferguson and consider the detail of her proposed bill. Particularly in light of the work that the Public Petitions Committee has done in relation to Govanhill, we are certainly of a mind to consider whether legislation is needed, whether or not the voluntary scheme is successful.

The issue is that the roughly one third of property managers to whom Patricia Ferguson referred are getting the other two thirds a bad name. It may be that those property managers who would participate in a voluntary scheme are not from the third who make up the problem. We have an open mind on the issue.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I have listened carefully to the minister’s comments and would welcome the Government moving towards the idea of legislating. Does the minister accept that the issue is not the property managers’ image but their practice and the problems and difficulties that the people who contract them to work on their behalf experience?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

That is precisely why I am making my remarks today.

Statutory regulation in itself may not be a guarantee of achieving outcomes and carries some risks. If done wrongly, it could create barriers to entry to the market that might stifle competition and reduce choice for the consumer; we want to avoid that. We also want to ensure that there is flexibility, so that we can respond to changes in the market over time. We must ensure that whatever legislation is framed does not have unintended consequences.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Many of us have concerns about the emphasis on competition as a high-level objective in the area. Competition is important, but does the minister accept that, given the number of operators in the area, the real issue is raising standards? We do not want people with low standards to come in.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I agree with Robert Brown, but in some areas there is undoubtedly a local monopoly, which is driving down rather than driving up standards. As with every proposed legislative measure, we must consider the possibility that any legislation in the area will have unintended consequences. However, I emphasise that we are approaching the matter with an open mind and in the knowledge that we need to deal with the Govanhills of this world. I have made that absolutely clear.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Is the minister aware of the experience of older home owners in retirement complexes, who are particularly vulnerable to exploitation or bullying by management companies? That problem is rife throughout the sector. Older people do not want to make a fuss—they live in such properties because they want a quiet life—and are vulnerable. Some form of dispute resolution mechanism with property management companies is needed. What is the Government’s view on the issue?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It happens that I am dealing with a constituency case in Bothwell on the issue, so I am very aware of it. One of the residents concerned is a former Secretary of State for Scotland, so I am keen to ensure that I deal with the matter as effectively as possible.

Self-regulation is being pursued in the form of the development of an industry-led voluntary accreditation scheme. At this stage, legislation and voluntary accreditation are not mutually exclusive, because legislating inevitably takes time.

There are issues relating to the borderline between devolved and reserved responsibilities. The regulation of professions is a reserved matter, so we need to talk to our colleagues south of the border about the powers of the Parliament, to establish what legislation we can legitimately pass under the current constitutional arrangement.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Given that you are aware of the issue, have you spoken to your colleagues at Westminster about how matters can be taken forward?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We are in constant touch with people south of the border—especially John Healey—on a range of issues. We have also had on-going discussions with the OFT.

This started as a consensual debate; I hope that it remains one, as I have made clear that the Government is determined to work with Patricia Ferguson on the detail of her bill. We do not yet have that detail, and I cannot give an absolute commitment to support something when I do not know the detail of it. I have given an undertaking in principle to work with Patricia Ferguson and have given a clear steer this morning that, although we will progress the voluntary accreditation scheme, the Government has an open mind on the need for legislation. When we look at the situation in areas such as Govanhill and the work that Mike Dailly, the Public Petitions Committee and many others have done, we recognise the challenge that we face. We are facing up to that challenge; with all due respect, when Johann Lamont was a minister, nothing was done about it.

We intend to move ahead on the basis of trying to reach a consensus in the chamber. We will consider legislating, if necessary, but in the meantime we will continue to progress the voluntary scheme and try to make it as effective as possible. Any decision on whether we will legislate or support the detail of Patricia Ferguson’s bill will be determined by the persuasiveness of the arguments, by the evidence and by the need to ensure that any legislation that is proposed will deal effectively with the problem, without having unintended consequences.

I move amendment S3M-5872 to, insert at end:

“, and seeks to ensure that the appropriate authorities are given the powers necessary for effective enforcement of any new legislation.”

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I remind members that they should speak through the chair and not directly to each other. There seems to be a growing tendency to do that in this debate.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank Patricia Ferguson for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue, given that it appears that little action has been taken since Trish Godman’s members’ business debate in September 2007, when the minister responding was Fergus Ewing. Today we have a change of portfolio and a change of face; hopefully, much more action will be taken.

Scottish Conservatives agree that there is a major problem for householders in this area. There is widespread dissatisfaction, and many individuals and residents associations are unable to resolve the issues. Companies such as Greenbelt Group Ltd have got away with their practices for so long because no one has challenged their position and/or the conditions and burdens that developers impose on homes and properties. Although trading standards has been sympathetic, it appears totally powerless to bring pressure to bear on factors to meet their obligations of maintenance and land management.

I sent a copy of my speech to one of the main campaigners on the issue in Scotland, who will, I am sure, be known to members. Whatever we do today will not go far enough to achieve what many people seek but, out of courtesy, I will read out a couple of lines from an e-mail that I received from him. He states:

“Scottish and UK Government have done everything possible to avoid bringing developers and maintenance companies within the framework of existing consumer protection legislation whilst promoting the benefit of the Greenbelt Group Management scheme to Local Authority Planning officials.”

He continues:

“They operate in a completely uncontrolled market with impunity and laugh at any attempt by hard pressed consumers to attempt to obtain a contracted level of service!”

Many home owners in Scotland have a monopoly contract that they contend is illegal under the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003. The issue is being pursued in Perth sheriff court, with a ruling against Greenbelt Group Ltd due on 4 May. Hopefully, that will set a benchmark for other, similar companies that are operating in Scotland. People seem to have an unfair contract, with no redress, and are faced with constant threats and bullying from factoring and management companies. That cannot be acceptable.

The motion notes

“that the Office of Fair Trading market study into the property management market found that the market is not working well for consumers”.

I make clear to Patricia Ferguson that all my experience—both personal and with constituents—is with land management and maintenance issues.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I hope that my intervention is on cue; it is intended to be helpful to Ms Scanlon. I said that my bill will address the issue of land management. However, when Greenbelt Group Ltd is involved, the situation is different, because it owns the land. My bill will not address that issue, because we cannot usefully help in such situations.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

One problem that we face is that the situation becomes much more difficult where property factoring companies own the land. Whatever provisions the bill contains, I hope that the ministerial team and the bill team will address that serious issue.

We very much favour an accreditation scheme rather than a register and we would prefer a voluntary approach, at least in the first instance, prior to considering legislation. The establishment of a voluntary accreditation scheme is supported by Consumer Focus Scotland, which I understand is represented on the Scottish Government’s working group. I appreciate that many residents associations believe that a voluntary approach will not work—and I do not blame them given their experiences over the years—but, nonetheless, we feel that a voluntary approach ought to be tried. An accreditation scheme would, I hope, establish good practice standards and provide an advantage to those firms that can prove that they can meet those standards. We are aware that the consumer will ultimately foot the bill for either an accreditation scheme, a register or any further legislation, so we owe it to householders to act in their best financial interests as well as the other interests that we are considering today.

Improved information and advice to consumers is another important issue on which we need a commitment from the Government. When I see properties for sale in the estate in which I live, I see no mention anywhere on the schedule that the property owner will be required to pay up to £200 a year in ground-maintenance charges. That cannot be right. When I bought my property 15 years ago—a detached house in Inverness—the deed of conditions and the title deed made no mention of the need to pay the annual charge. That led me to establish a residents association and to set up Inverness south community council. The issue pitched neighbour against neighbour, because those who paid the charge found that they were paying for all the non-payers. One can imagine how heated some discussions became when pensioners on a fixed income and people on low incomes found themselves paying for the charges of others. At one point, I received a sheriff’s letter demanding that I pay the charge despite the fact that I had not even received a bill. Many residents worried about their personal credit rating. However, we now get an annual statement that tells us who pays and who does not—it seems that we are into naming and shaming. Therefore, although I welcome the “Consumer Code for Home Builders” that Homes for Scotland has promoted, I can confirm that house purchasers are still not being given enough the pre-purchase information to which the code refers, such as

“a description of any management services and organisations to which the Home Buyer will be committed and an estimate of their cost.”

We may now have a consumer code for developers, but we do not have a consumer code that is beneficial to purchasers.

I suggest that all members should take a look at the websites of the campaign groups Greenbelt Group action and Peverel action, which are very interesting. I quote one example:

“My father lives in a complex (7 flats) in Kilmarnock ... For seven months I have been trying to get an explanation for an electricity rise from approx. £200 to £1800 for lighting and heating”.

Peverel also traps home owners into monopoly insurance for homes for elderly people. Another message on the website was from a home owner in Kemnay in Aberdeenshire who stated that the grass in their estate had been cut only once in 20 years. Where such land and properties are not maintained, that can undoubtedly lead to a fall in the value of the properties. Indeed, I understand that Aberdeenshire Council has written to all major developers in the region to ask them to consider not transferring ownership or management of open space to Greenbelt.

On the issue of switching, as Patricia Ferguson said, essentially it seems to be difficult to switch factor when the land has been sold to a company such as Greenbelt. That company has not covered itself in glory over this sorry saga, but it is not the only company that has failed to fulfil its obligations to home owners. On Kenneth Macintosh’s point—I think that I know the developer to which he referred, but I will not mention its name as I have stated enough—I am aware that new developments for elderly people have caused serious anxiety and worry for people who are looking for a stress-free existence at the end of their life. Residents can find themselves facing ever higher bills for fewer services with no consultation, reason or redress.

Finally—I am coming to a close, Presiding Officer—I thank all those who have campaigned on the issue for taking the time to bring information to the attention of members of Parliament. The issue is complex, but I firmly believe that the Government must do more. In the previous debate in September 2007, I said that we must

“protect consumers from such unfair contracts of sale, enable consumers to change to an alternative provider, and force maintenance providers to comply with the terms and conditions of their agreements with individual property owners”

and ensure that

“the contracted company must be fit for purpose or competent to undertake its obligations.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2007; c 1571.]

Two and a half years later, we have still not achieved those aims, but I hope that today’s debate on Patricia Ferguson’s motion will help to move us in that direction.

I move amendment S3M-5872.3, to leave out from “for proposals” to end and insert:

“to debate proposals to require property factors to register and to make provision for an accessible form of dispute resolution between homeowners and property factors, and considers that an accreditation scheme should be given time to work before further legislation is considered.”

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Let me begin with Mary Scanlon’s point, towards the end of her speech, about the complexity of the issue, as I agree that today’s debate is on a very complex area that has many interlinked issues, as we will see as the debate develop. I pay significant tribute to Patricia Ferguson, whose work on introducing her member’s bill proposal has helped very much to focus the issue by bringing it before the Parliament. I also welcome the minister’s desire to move forward on a non-partisan or cross-party basis, which I think is entirely right.

The financial crisis has brought considerable change to some aspects of the housing market—I will say a word later about problems with the buy-to-rent market, which are causing considerable problems in many parts of the wider Glasgow area that I represent—but the problem with factors is a long-standing issue. I can remember significant public concern about the quality of factoring when I first joined Glasgow District Council in 1977, which is a long time ago. Like many MSPs, I have had a series of casework issues relating to disputes over either the charges levied by factors or the quality of the service that they provide or both. Some problems were because factors did not have enough powers to act, either because of the need for agreement among the owners or because of the need for up-front funding for larger repairs. Legislative change since 1999 has brought some improvements, but factoring remains a complex and difficult issue and on-going problems remain. However, other complaints arise because factors assume too much power and provide too little transparency and because people have no satisfactory mediation scheme. Common complaints relate to hidden commissions, unspecified charges, lack of competitive quotes for work, the extortionate rates of interest that we heard about earlier, administration charges, overcharging and errors in bills. I think that many of those complaints would subside if the bills were more comprehensive and informative in the first place.

I might also point out—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Sorry, Mr Brown’s microphone seems to have stopped working.

It now seems to be working again.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I might also point out that the issue arises not just in the private sector, as there have also been issues with Glasgow Housing Association’s factoring services across Glasgow.

The word “factor”, if I recall correctly, comes from a Latin root and means literally a “doer”. One difficulty is that some factors are perceived to be “non-doers” of any significant services, but it should be remembered that their status is essentially that of an agent for the home owners whom the home owners can, subject to the provisions in their title deeds, get rid of or change. It is worth defining that the things that people want from their relationship with their factors are: block insurance that is provided at a competitive price; the carrying out of common repairs swiftly, efficiently and at a competitive price; the proper looking after of common parts, such as grass areas outside, lifts, agreed passageways and closes inside; a good-quality service that provides a clear statement of the factor’s bill and obligations; and an economic method of resolving disputes. By and large, many householders do not get those things from their factors, so the issue is what framework should be put in place to ensure that householders get a fair deal.

Patricia Ferguson’s member’s bill proposal would put in place a requirement for registration of factors, a fit-and-proper person test, minimum standards and, possibly, an accessible form of dispute resolution. Those are some of the necessary pieces of the jigsaw. For the moment, I will point out only that there is a debate to be had over whether such functions can be given to the private rented housing committee. I think that there is some merit in the argument that such a committee would not be set up with the proper skills, but, equally, the committees might readily acquire those skills.

A question mark has been placed over whether such arrangements should be voluntary or compulsory. However, we are not dealing with a new issue over which the industry has not had a long time to get its act in order. We are dealing not just with regulating well-intentioned factors but, frankly, with removing from the market some instances of bad, rogue, cowboy factors who are causing considerable difficulty to many home owners. The Liberal Democrat amendment calls on the Scottish Government to look further at introducing a mandatory accreditation scheme for factors. That is a key issue.

Last May, after a pretty long delay—the background to which Alex Neil has explained—the Government decided to support a voluntary accreditation scheme.

I am not clear how far that has progressed since that time, but I share the view of the Office of Fair Trading that there is no effective redress if things go wrong. At the very least, a statutory accreditation scheme should be ready to go if an effective voluntary scheme is not quickly put in place. I accept that the arguments can get a bit technical, but—at the end of the day—an accreditation scheme is about standards; it is about ensuring that owners get a routine and proper service from their factor and easy redress if they do not. It is proper that we should register factors, but that must be accompanied by effective, industry-wide arrangements to define and raise standards. I hope that the work that has been done in the background thus far lays the basis for that, whether the scheme is voluntary or compulsory.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Will you please clarify—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Please speak through the chair, Ms Mulligan.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I am sorry, Presiding Officer. In his amendment, the member refers to “voluntary sector property managers”. Will he clarify that?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I had the Glasgow Housing Association in mind in referring to voluntary sector property managers, although there are significant issues with other housing associations. We could end up with a realm of double regulation. That needs to be avoided. There is an issue there; the member is right to raise it. We should not understate the level of dissatisfaction with the Glasgow Housing Association, which goes right back to the factoring arrangements under Glasgow City Council.

I supported the statement that Alex Neil made last May that there

“will be no hiding place for cowboy property managers”.

However, we are nearly a year on since that statement and there are still plenty of hiding places for them.

I return to the issue of buy to rent, which I touched on at the outset. Buy to rent is an increasingly common phenomenon, particularly during this economic downturn. Many such flats are put into the hands of letting and management agents that also act as factors or similar to firms that do so. The quality of many letting and management agents leaves a good bit to be desired; their management skills are often well below par. The consequence of that and of uncaring landlords and tenants who do not live up their responsibilities can be severe decline in the quality of an area. The minister mentioned Govanhill, but such decline is a feature of some new-build flats in Rutherglen and Cambuslang and is a growing problem in the new Gorbals development at Crown Street and a challenge in Croftfoot, as some members representing Glasgow constituencies will know. I am not sure that the issue of substandard letting and management agents can be tackled in the context of factoring, but it raises many of the same issues. The problem will undoubtedly get worse.

There is a need for a comprehensive review of the interlocked issues that affect residents in multi-ownership buildings, whether traditional tenements or new-build blocks. The issues include residents who do not look after their properties and annoy their neighbours, inadequate factoring and maintenance arrangements, absentee or incompetent landlords, and bad management agents.

As we have said many times before in the chamber, a house is not just bricks and mortar; it is a home and the centre of family life. The arrangements that surround it need to be sound; in many respects, they are not. The debate will be useful in giving us a chance to highlight the issues.

I move amendment S3M-5872.2, to insert at end:

“, and calls on the Scottish Government to give consideration to the introduction of a mandatory accreditation scheme to cover private, public and voluntary sector property managers.”

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I wholeheartedly welcome the debate and fully support the motion in Patricia Ferguson’s name. By the end of the debate, I hope that the minister will be persuaded that legislation is a must. If we do not proceed on the principle that a statutory framework—a legal framework—is the only way forward, the debate will not continue to be consensual. The Scottish Government saying that it will support legislation is not enough. Indeed, a statutory scheme should not put off good factors from entering the market. If they are good operators, they will not be put off by it. I agree with the minister that we are talking about the art of the detail of framing legislation that is practical and that does what we want it to do. That is where we should be, and very soon. Things are moving fast in this field. There are too many bad examples of people being exploited. We must assert the authority of the Scottish Parliament and set the terms that will enable us to act in this session of the Parliament.

For those who live in shared properties or tenements or on estates where there are common grounds, there is a general need for an agreement on how to take decisions on the common parts of those properties. It is pretty hard to achieve that without property management of some kind. For the vast majority of people in such properties, a good factoring system is a necessity. I believe that there is urgent need of reform. Some owners undertake the factoring themselves, but most are factored by a company. Patricia Ferguson is absolutely right to say that we have good factors operating in Scotland. That said, there are some with poor operations and others that could provide better services—frankly, they just need to pull their socks up. Mary Scanlon highlighted some notable examples of bad factors; companies whose practices border on the criminal in that they are exploiting and extorting money from vulnerable people.

Factoring is not an easy line of business. Who would be a factor? For example, there is the difficulty of getting owners to pay their bills on time. However, there are too many examples where factors have not been transparent about their decision making in arriving at the repair bills that they issue. Many have exploited the lack of regulation under the law. Indeed, some have made a small fortune from doing that.

I commend Patricia Ferguson for the work that she is doing in this regard. I hope that all of us can build on it. I will continue to campaign hard for the Government to show that it supports fully legislation being introduced in this term of the Parliament. A voluntary code will not do. It is right that someone should have a fair mechanism to address a complaint to to be given an adequate explanation from a factor if they are unfairly charged and protection from one who is overcharging. Those are basic fundamental rights and requirements.

The OFT was wrong to come to the conclusions that it did, but the time is right to move on from that. We also have to renew the faith of property owners who have had a bad experience of the system. If someone has a choice of property, such bad experiences will put them off from buying a tenement property, particularly if they view the system as overly cumbersome. Good factoring is important for the upkeep of tenement properties. If owners and factors become frustrated with a system that they think is unworkable, not only people but the housing system will suffer. If too few factors act where they should act, buildings will become neglected.

In my constituency of Glasgow Kelvin, 70 per cent of my constituents live in tenement properties, a high proportion of whom have factors because they live in a building that has common parts that need to be maintained. Again, as Patricia Ferguson pointed out, the responsibilities and costs that go with looking after those common parts are very much the hidden aspect of buying a property. If someone's lawyer does not explain them, the purchaser will be shocked to find out the huge additional costs of living in their property.

If someone lives in a top-floor flat and they have a leaky roof, as I have done, and they care about the state of the roof, they have to accept that someone on the ground floor may not be so interested in the situation—the water is not literally falling on their head. That said, we need to have a system that is fair to both. Factors are crucial in making others live up to their responsibilities. It is important to note that. We have made a lot of progress in the Parliament in the area of the private housing sector. I am thinking of the abolition of feudal tenure—we have to think back if we are to recollect that—and the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004. That legislation is important, but it is not enough.

Like other members, I know of many examples of bad practice. Knowing that the debate was to take place today, I have had councillors writing to point out cases. For example, factors are charging £30 to issue an ordinary letter—a letter to tell someone that they are a few days late in paying a bill. Where do factors get the powers that enable them to do that? The answer is: the lack of a statutory framework. Factors can do what they like. I hope that the minister will take on board that point. The lack of a statutory framework is allowing a system in which factors can charge what they want. Factoring is an unregulated practice with few obvious standards. The lack of a statutory framework means that there is nothing in the system for owners and nothing for good factors.

Robert Brown mentioned the issue of absentee landlords, which is not an easy subject for either factors or owners. In Garnethill in my constituency, absentee landlords outnumber those who live there. Tenants continually lose out because of that, as they do not get improvements to their properties. Absentee landlords do not want to spend money on those properties, because they do not live there.

There are further issues around the GHA, which factors and is a housing association. Many owners in my constituency who do not live in the block where their tenants are have not benefited from regeneration, because of the bizarre rules. An owner who lives in a block with tenants gets the benefit of regeneration; those who do not live there do not. There are many anomalies in the system and, even if they do not all relate to Patricia Ferguson’s proposed bill, they are issues worthy of discussion.

I fully support the motion and I hope that the Government will act.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am pleased to speak in this debate on factoring services. As someone who has signed up to Patricia Ferguson’s proposals to require property factors to register with an appropriate body and to develop effective dispute resolution between home owners and property factors, I believe that it is important to debate and consider these matters. I am sure that Patricia Ferguson will agree, however, that it is impossible to give a blank cheque to any future factoring bill, particularly as the precise details of the bill remain to be published, and that robust parliamentary scrutiny must be undertaken before any final decisions are made by the Parliament. I have spoken to Patricia Ferguson about the matter and, on a one-to-one basis, I have given my support for the suggested bill.

Patricia Ferguson and I have heard similar complaints from constituents in north Glasgow in relation to factoring services. We perhaps even share some of those constituents. Many constituents will seek the maximum representation in dealing with their factors and the problems that arise, and that in itself provides a significant indication that there is a problem with poor-quality factoring, and constituents often feel helpless in their dealings with factors.

I have direct experience of just how unclear the whole factoring system can be. I stay in a tenemental property in Maryhill. Should one of my neighbours, for instance, highlight to the factor that there is an issue with the lock on the secure entry door at the front of the close, I will find out about it during the following billing period, when I will have the privilege of receiving a bill for it. However, I am likely to be unaware of whether the door was given a cursory glance by a handyman or a specialist attended to the fixing of said front door. I will be well aware of the bill for the pleasure of having someone come out to have a look at it, although I will not know any details of what has been done. The situation is often similar when light bulbs need to be replaced in the common close, or if something in the back court needs to be attended to—or for a number of other apparently minor matters in or around properties.

There is a feeling that best value is not always a consideration for factors. Because the system is one where, the more a customer is billed, the greater the management fee that is applied, there is a feeling on the part of many people that there might be a disincentive to seek best value.

I should be clear that most factors are not cowboys, and they do not exploit. Most of them seek best value for customers. However, perception can be everything, and moving towards regulation can provide reassurance for householders and can defend the reputation of good, decent factors. Good factors have nothing to fear from statutory regulation, and everything to gain. Their reputations will be enhanced. Regulation will be an incentive to factors to make their billing systems as transparent as possible and to achieve best value for the customer. Regulation can chase the factoring cowboys out of town.

Much of my constituency casework involves disputes by owner-occupiers who are in conflict with factors, many of whom are social landlords. In many cases, that means the Glasgow Housing Association. I do not intend to use this speech just to hammer the Glasgow Housing Association as I might have done in the past. Indeed, the association is improving, and the Minister for Housing and Communities, Alex Neil, and the new chief executive of the GHA, Martin Armstrong, should take some credit for that.

Although the GHA is improving, it is from a dreadfully low and poor base. I will give two examples of the GHA’s work as factors. Owners who dispute bills for major works find it virtually impossible to get a full breakdown of how bills were arrived at by the GHA. They find it virtually impossible to get a specific scheme of works for their own properties, with appropriate costings. One of my constituents got a retrospective scheme of works—in other words, it was drafted following the completion of the works, rather than in advance of any of the works commencing or taking place. When the organisation was asked about how costs were arrived at between City Building (Glasgow) and the GHA, the GHA hid behind commercial confidentiality.

A second issue, which I am dealing with currently, relates to home owners who are factored by the GHA. Each of them has paid £6,000 to have their homes cladded to improve energy efficiency and address fuel poverty. There now appears to be a serious damp problem in those properties, which has to be investigated. We will see whether the GHA, as factors, has let down those home owners or not.

I thoroughly agree with the dispute resolution approach. Because of the Conservatives’ right-to-buy policy, many people who own homes could never have afforded to own and maintain those homes. We must consider credit solutions for home owners who cannot afford to pay for the upkeep of their properties.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

This has been a positive speech so far, but I wish to know what Bob Doris’s position is on whether there should be a statutory framework—or should there be a voluntary code? What is his position on that?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I said at the start of my speech that I favour a statutory framework. I will have to see how it works in practice, which is why I cannot give a firm commitment to any bill. Clearly, however, I favour a statutory framework.

We need credit solutions as well as dispute resolution, as many home owners avoid upkeeping their properties because they simply cannot afford to do so.

The minister made a point about local monopolies. Perhaps we need to reconsider the framework of the GHA, which has a local monopoly for many owner-occupiers in relation to factoring. Regulation can improve minimum standards.

We should consider a couple of other issues where there might be unintended consequences. A number of constituents have contacted me in relation to self-factoring. How will they deal with regulation in cases where people in closes and blocks have to self-factor? There might be some unintended consequences in that regard.

I will finish off—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Will the member take an intervention?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Can I finish off—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Sorry—it is too late to have an intervention.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Apologies to Ms Ferguson.

I will finish off by praising The Herald and the Evening Times, which, we all agree, have outpaced all the politicians in addressing the issue. No major political party had proposals in this area in their manifestos in 2007, but we are now coming together to address it as a Parliament.

I have no concern as to where the turf war lies in relation to addressing the issue, whether it is through a member’s bill from Ms Ferguson or through one of the two pieces of proposed housing legislation from the Scottish Government, but let us deal with the problems.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Although my profession, that of the solicitor, has been very heavily regulated by the Parliament in response to consumer complaints, in the course of which self-regulation by the profession was heavily criticised, my natural inclination as a Conservative is to view statutory intervention as a last, not first, resort in the marketplace. I believe that Governments and Parliament should involve themselves only where there is a demonstrable market failure and no ready means of redress for customers, clients or consumers, particularly through the exercising of choice. The most effective sanction by far in relation to any business is the loss of business, and we should reflect on that.

It is an inevitable fact of life that attention is invariably focused on customer complaints, rather than customer satisfaction. Before we talk any more about what is wrong, let us remind ourselves about what is right. In that context, one of the key findings of the Office of Fair Trading study was that most people—about 70 per cent—were happy with their property manager.

They said that they found it easy to get repairs carried out and felt that the services that property managers offered represented value for money and were of good quality. Let us praise the property managers and factors who do a good job, as Patricia Ferguson fairly did in her speech, and reflect that those who do so will be as concerned as anyone about their profession’s reputation and the activities of the minority who let it down.

I underline the point that, as my colleague Mary Scanlon said in her speech, the Conservatives are not necessarily opposed to Patricia Ferguson’s bill. We will give it fair consideration and view it against the alternative of an accreditation scheme. As the minister reminded us, the OFT study recommended that the Scottish Government take the lead in ensuring early implementation of such a scheme and keep its progress under review. It also recommended that, if the scheme had not proved effective within two years, the Parliament should legislate to introduce a statutory scheme to provide appropriate redress. Alex Neil reminded us in his speech that, in its response to the OFT report, the Government said that it would support and facilitate the establishment of such a scheme while stressing the importance that it be industry led.

The clock is ticking and the ball is very much in the Government’s court. Although the Conservatives are prepared to cut the Government a degree of slack in recognition that such schemes cannot be magicked into existence overnight, we are not prepared to sit back indefinitely and we expect substantial progress to be made. The Government, property managers and factors should be in no doubt that Parliament is very much on their case on the issue and will support a statutory scheme if an appropriate self-regulatory scheme is not up and running in the near future and proving its worth in dealing with some of the serious complaints that have been made and have been well articulated in the debate.

Despite the minister’s best rhetorical efforts this morning—I welcome him back into the chamber—I did not sense any degree of urgency in his remarks. Indeed, uncharacteristically, he sounded a wee bit defensive to me. I would be interested to hear in his closing speech exactly what has been done with the working group since May 2009 and when the accreditation scheme will be published as part of the group’s report. All members would be interested to know the timetable for action because we most decidedly all want action of one form or another to be taken.

Property managers come in all shapes and sizes, from private sector property managers many of whom are members of the long-established Property Managers Association of Scotland, through housing associations that not only manage properties within their own developments but are now competing for property management business within private developments—my son works for such an association—to management services that are performed as adjuncts of other businesses, such as letting and estate agencies. We have a very complex marketplace with a number of different participants, so a statutory scheme would be complex to devise and administer because it would have to reflect the nature of the players in the market. It would also have to include de minimus provisions so that it applied only to those who were involved in managing whole estates, developments or blocks of flats rather than collections of miscellaneous individual properties because the bulk of complaints relate to the inability of groups of owners in such properties to hold their factors or managers properly to account and obtain redress for their service.

I have always believed that the exercise of choice in a market place is what drives up standards of customer care and levels of customer satisfaction. In that regard, the findings of the OFT study that there is a low level of switching in the property management market and little evidence of active competition between property managers is a concern to me. We should examine whether statutory interventions are appropriate to enable informed choices and switches to be made. In some respects, that may mean overriding existing provisions in title deeds or deeds of conditions where they operate as a restrictive practice to preserve a local monopoly that fails to provide good-quality services and value for money for property owners.

The speeches in the debate so far demonstrate that there is a great deal to be done. Robert Brown gave a good summary of the interlocking issues that are involved and require consideration. There is a great deal to be done and we must get on with it.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I speak in the debate because of the large number of concerns that constituents have expressed to me about factoring services. Those concerns have not come from the large number of people who live in traditional tenements in my constituency because traditional tenements in Edinburgh have never had factors; they come from residents in the large number of new build flats that are being built in various parts of my constituency, particularly—but by no means exclusively—at the waterfront.

Like other speakers, I will concentrate on the problems that have been raised with me. However, I will make two other points to start with.

First, we are not talking about all factors. Various speakers have recognised that there are good factors. To give an example, I had a meeting two months ago with one factor who supports Patricia Ferguson’s proposed bill. I recently spoke to another—and will meet him later this month—who has complained about the fact that no independent body regulates his profession.

My second point is that not all constituent concerns have been about factors. Quite a large number of residents from one development have complained about people not paying because they are concerned that the factor may walk away from their development. I believe that that has happened at Kingston quay in Glasgow and in one or two places in my constituency. I have written to the minister about the issue, which we must recognise as well. As Patricia Ferguson said at the beginning of her speech, there are sometimes good reasons why people do not pay but, in most cases, people clearly ought to pay. There are issues with absentee landlords who do not live in the UK and do not pay.

I make those points at the beginning of my speech to put the rest of it in perspective.

The concerns that have been expressed to me overlap to a considerable extent with those that the OFT research highlighted. It highlighted significant dissatisfaction in relation to many issues, including lack of information, poor value for money, inadequate complaints handling and frequent failure to arrange repairs or supervise them adequately when arranged.

I spoke a few days ago to a constituent who complained about a continuing repair problem that had not been dealt with. Although, interestingly, he pointed out one repair that the factor had done and for which the residents had been billed that ought, in fact, to have been done by the builder. That feature—the relationship between what factors are responsible for and what builders are responsible for—has not come out in the debate. The other enormous issue in the new builds in my constituency is snagging problems, some of which can be dealt with only by the Westminster Parliament rather than this Parliament.

The OFT report also highlighted the low level of switching. David McLetchie referred to that, but there are significant difficulties with switching. First, there are problems with title conditions. Perhaps we need to revisit the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003, because residents often cannot change their factor for five years or until the last house in a development is built and sold, which may be nearer to 10 years in the current economic circumstances.

Secondly, there are often enormous problems when residents change their factor. Another horrific recent example was brought to my attention in which residents changed their factor following persistent overbilling and other incompetence on the factor’s part but the sacked factor is refusing to deal with refunds or any of the other outstanding issues. That factor also refuses to return the float, which makes the handover to the new factor difficult because people are understandably reluctant to pay a second float. All those issues must also be addressed as well.

Other residents perhaps foresee those problems, cannot switch anyway because of the title deeds or suspect that a new factor may not be much different and, therefore, try to come to the best arrangement that they can with their existing factor.

However, I should mention that another residents’ association—I am obviously referring to a large number of such associations without naming them—has kept its factor, but has taken over many of the factor’s activities, thereby greatly reducing the residents’ bill. That is an interesting model that is open to others to use, although it presents some difficulties. The residents involved decided to get new quotes for insurance and have ended up with a premium that is half what it used to be and with an excess of only £100 rather than £1,000. The issue of insurance highlights an on-going concern whereby the higher the insurance, the higher the commission for the factor. That insurance example highlights the issue of costs, and many of the complaints that we get are about the escalation of costs and the lack of information about what the costs are.

One of my constituents from another development suggested that there should be independent annual auditing and even an independent auditing authority. Independence is a key concept, which contrasts with relying only on the SPMA. There is also an argument for independence in complaints handling, because the only recourse at present is—again—to the SPMA. A key demand is independent redress as part of a quality-control system with auditable standards. Patricia Ferguson’s proposed bill offers many elements that are at the heart of my constituent’s demands. It proposes a dispute resolution mechanism, using the quasi-judicial infrastructure that we already have through the private rented housing committee. In addition, and crucially, it proposes a registration system that is based on a fit-and-proper person test and adherence to set standards. Although that is an excellent foundation, I would probably add things to the bill; it will be possible to propose additions, given the procedure for members’ bills. I certainly do not believe that a purely voluntary system will address the serious problems that should be clear to all from the debate.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

I welcome the debate, which highlights many issues that are addressed in Patricia Ferguson’s proposed bill, to which I have signed up. I hope that it will provide protection for home owners and raise standards in the property management industry. Indeed, many of us will recall debating this particular issue in a members’ business debate last year. I believe that today’s debate provides an important and welcome impetus for Patricia Ferguson’s proposed bill and for taking the whole issue forward.

I have always supported the Liberal Democrats’ long campaign to establish, as the amendment in Robert Brown’s name states, a

“mandatory accreditation scheme to cover private, public and voluntary sector property managers.”

The scheme would include definitions that would focus on improving standards rather than setting minimum levels of acceptable performance. Many of the problems with factoring companies have arisen since the mid-1990s, when private developers chose to undercut their competition by no longer paying the in-perpetuity, up-front maintenance fees to the local authority; instead, developers sought to reduce their own costs by imposing the financial burden for the maintenance of properties on the buyer, which was done by writing into title deeds the need to engage a property factor. That would be all well and good if factors carried out their obligations at a reasonable cost and with reasonable quality, as many members have said, but in too many cases they do neither.

As many members are aware from their casework, it is extremely difficult to progress a dispute between a factor and owner-occupiers, who can find themselves in a no-win situation. It can be very difficult to get out of a contract with a property factor whom the residents consider unsatisfactory. Such issues affect many of my constituents and many others across Scotland. Indeed, some areas in my constituency have no factors and no maintenance is carried out on, for example, children’s play areas and green spaces; with no one to sue, no resolution is possible for such constituents.

Previously as a local councillor and now as an MSP, I have spent many hours trying to resolve difficulties between residents and residents’ associations, and factors. It is sometimes impossible to query the need for repairs or improvements with a factor. There have been issues with unclear invoices, excessive charges, high rates of interest and penalty charges. If a property management dispute cannot be resolved between parties, there are only three options: first, to sack the factor, but that decision must be agreed by nearly all householders on any given estate; secondly, to go to independent arbitration; or thirdly, to raise court proceedings. All those options are time consuming and costly, to say the least, and are beyond many people.

There are some good factors in Scotland, as other members have said. I have examples of those in my constituency. However, many of us have encountered difficulties with certain factoring companies over the years. One of the most contentious is Greenbelt, to which Mary Scanlon and Patricia Ferguson quite properly referred. Greenbelt maintains open spaces and stairwells, but it first purchases the open spaces from the developer, then charges residents an apparently uncontrolled fee to maintain the land that Greenbelt owns. If that is not an insult to home owners, I do not know what is. Mr McLetchie seemed to have missed that situation when he suggested that self-regulation is the answer. I welcome moves to regulate the industry and provide an accessible form of dispute resolution. However, is that enough?

The Government’s plans—at least at this stage, as the minister said—for a voluntary, industry-led accreditation scheme for property managers simply do not provide the necessary clarity for our constituents. The Government has stated that it will impose statutory measures, if they prove to be necessary. However, I hope that the minister will consider, as he said he would, the detail of Patricia Ferguson’s proposed bill and look more favourably on it, because I believe that it is the only solution for many of our constituents around the country. It is clear to many members that mandatory measures are required now in a scheme that would

“cover private, public and voluntary sector property managers.”

As I said previously, the scheme would include definitions that would focus on improving standards rather than setting minimum levels of acceptable performance.

I do not believe that the solution lies with the Government’s plans. Patricia Ferguson’s proposals are a step in the right direction, but I believe that we should be looking at a more radical proposal that would, in some ways, see a return to the maintenance of public open spaces being carried out in perpetuity and the cost of that being part of the purchase price of a home; only in that case will future Scottish householders be able to get away from the difficulties caused by poor factoring, which have affected nearly a quarter of a million people to date.

Patricia Ferguson’s proposed bill will help the situation by driving up standards and moving towards a better regulatory system for existing home owners. However, it will not resolve all the difficulties that home owners have had to contend with over the years. I therefore believe that we need to go further. Ultimately, there should be a way of giving local authorities the power to adopt a maintenance scheme, albeit with an increased adoption fee, to ensure that future consumers have an accountable, in-perpetuity maintenance scheme in place for their housing schemes.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The debate is welcome, because its subject matters enormously to many people. As we have heard throughout the debate, many of our constituents have raised concerns about factoring issues. It is telling that we could all easily recount examples of the scale of the problems that we face in that regard.

I, too, congratulate Patricia Ferguson on bringing forward her proposed bill. I am pleased that cross-party support for it is growing. For those of us who have been in the Parliament since its beginning, factoring is one of many issues that we have commented on. It is pleasing to garner support on such an important issue and see that members are prepared to lay aside their differences on key points. Factoring is perhaps not a huge ideological issue, so it affords an opportunity for cross-party work.

It seems to me that the emerging issue in the debate is the need to move from a voluntary to a statutory framework—that is where opinion is galvanising. Certainly, the Parliament has an opportunity to reflect that by getting behind Patricia Ferguson’s proposed bill. I hope that we seize that opportunity. As is evident from the work of Govan Law Centre and from reports in the Glasgow media—for example, the Evening

Times and The Herald—the worries, concerns and frustrations around factoring are significant and widespread. That is certainly the case in the city of Glasgow. Patricia Ferguson’s proposed bill provides an opportunity for us to do something significant about that.

Like other members, I have received representations from across my constituency that express concerns about factoring.

I am pleased that shopkeepers will be covered by the proposed bill, because I know of shopkeepers who feel strongly that they have been left out of the decision-making process, that decisions are stacked against them and that their interests are not properly recognised when decisions are made.

Like other members, I have examples of ordinary families and couples who find it extremely frustrating that they have no means of tackling the issues that they face in their daily lives. Only this week, a young aspiring couple who clearly want to maintain their house came to my surgery because they are having trouble with young people gathering outside their front door, which is constantly being kicked in. There is also graffiti in their close. The most eminently sensible thing to do would be to get a better, stronger door, but despite making repeated representations to their factor to that effect, their factor will not comply, and they have no means of communicating effectively to resolve the issue. It is obvious that other avenues such as policing need to be pursued, but it seems that a sensible property management measure that would tackle the issue is not being adopted. It is concerning that the couple have come to me in desperation to ask what they can sensibly do about the problem. We do not have a proper commonsense answer, which is why we need to look to legislation. It is clear to me that there is an issue to be addressed.

I recognise that there are many good factors, but although I am pleased that only a third of respondents to the OFT survey articulated difficulties with the service that they receive from their property manager, in my experience a higher proportion of residents seem to experience such difficulties. That said, a third still represents an important number of people and indicates that there is a substantial problem. There is no doubt that, as ordinary people know from their daily experience, money is wasted, responses are not provided and there is a lack of proper redress. The problem is big enough and important enough for us to take action on it. The fact that we could spend the entire debate talking about individual problems only serves to illustrate the point that, as Patricia Ferguson and Robert Brown said, standards are at the centre of the issue.

I want to focus on the opportunity that the Parliament has to take action. The minister properly laid out some of the history that underlies the present situation. I do not want to be defensive, but I think that previous Governments have taken action on the private housing market. However, we are now at a point at which voluntary efforts to work with the industry have failed or have not worked properly. Given that we are approaching the final year of the parliamentary session, it is vital that we do not lose the opportunity that Patricia Ferguson’s proposed bill presents.

I noted David McLetchie’s questions to the minister about what has been done since 2007 and what the timetable for action is—we are all extremely interested in that. I also noted that the minister said that it was time for consensus. I will not comment on the rumours in the Parliament that Alex Neil calls for consensus when he knows that his back is against the wall and that he is losing the argument—I am too much of a lady to do that. I will leave those rumours to one side and welcome the Government’s action.

However, it is clear from our constituents and from what members have said in the debate that an appetite exists for change. The central point is the need to move from a voluntary to a statutory scheme, which will afford our constituents the protection that they require. In particular, they need protection for their resources and they need access to redress. The detailed proposals in Patricia Ferguson’s proposed bill give us an opportunity to provide that. The proposals will be properly scrutinised through the parliamentary process. We have one final year. Let us not waste that time; let us seize the moment and get behind the proposed bill, because it will allow us to take effective action for our constituents.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I welcome the debate. It is to Patricia Ferguson’s credit that she lodged the motion.

There are many issues that we can all argue about in Parliament and, dare I say it, there have been and will be occasions when all sides’ engagement in partisan party politics gets in the way of real discussion of an issue. Sometimes there can be too much bluster and shouting in the chamber just the sake of it, but the majority of the comments that have been made during this morning’s debate have been much more measured. The debate has been more reasonable than some that we have. [Interruption.] Some of the comments that were made earlier made me worry that we were going to fall into the trap of engaging in party politics again but, thankfully, we have not done that too much.

I will be frank and admit that I have been contacted by constituents on factoring issues, but I have not been inundated with people raising such issues. However, that does not mean to say that there is not a bigger issue across the country.

I have lived in flatted accommodation, albeit briefly. I did so for a short time while at university and just after I got married, when I stayed in a flat in Greenock, which had no factor. There were six flats in our section, twelve flats in the block and numerous blocks in the street. To my knowledge, there was no factor anywhere in that locality. Between our six flats, we decided to club together and get some basic maintenance tasks undertaken. That was fine—the process was not too onerous, but there was still the issue of approaching the neighbours and asking them to contribute money. If we had had a factor, things would have been much easier for everyone who stayed in the block. That would have involved taking major decisions about how to proceed with selecting a factor, and there would eventually have been the added cost burden of employing one, but a benefit of the factor system is that the factor organisation is charged with collecting any moneys that are due, which was not the case in the situation that I was in a few years ago.

I am renting a flat here in Edinburgh. Recently, residents and owners decided to change the development’s property factor—I think that they were sick and tired of the fact that although bills would come in and the costs would increase continually, they saw little in the way of upkeep of the development. The process of change appeared to take quite a long time. Many things happened—various meetings were held, letters kept coming through the door and one night I got a visit from one of the folk involved, who wanted to progress matters. I am a tenant, so I passed all the information that I received on to the landlord, because it is the landlord who receives the bills and pays the factoring charges. The process appeared to be fairly seamless, but at the same time it was quite drawn out. I am aware that that situation will not be replicated across the country, and I will return to the issue of changing a factor. However, I am quite confident that the owners of those flats will have a better outcome in due course.

The number of tenement properties and flatted developments in Scotland means that property factors are essential.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I have listened carefully to what the member has said, but although I appreciate that there is a problem with factoring in flatted properties and tenements, there is an enormous and serious problem in new housing estates the length and breadth of Scotland and in the islands. I have no experience of flatted properties, but I have been inundated with people telling me of problems with all the new housing developments around Inverness. The issue is about land management and ground maintenance as well as flats.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I fully accept the member’s point. I did not want to give another example from my own experience. We went through a process of changing the land factor for the house that I stay in in Greenock only two years or so ago, so I am very much aware of those issues.

The challenge that faces us is to decide whether to legislate or whether to have a voluntary accreditation scheme. I am sure that members of all parties agree that both options have merits and must be considered fully. As far as the legislative approach is concerned, it is difficult to consider what could happen and what the consequences could be without seeing the detail of Patricia Ferguson’s proposals. That said, it is extremely difficult to disagree with the sentiments of Patricia Ferguson’s motion.

The voluntary accreditation scheme approach is the route that the Scottish Government, alongside numerous partners, including Consumer Focus Scotland, has taken to providing a solution to the existing problem.

The easy option and sometimes the greatest political hit is to call on the Government of the day to introduce legislation. I am not for one minute suggesting that Patricia Ferguson has taken that route. The fact that Ms Ferguson held a consultation in October 2007 shows that this is a genuine attempt to solve a problem, and she should be commended for that.

I feel that legislation can sometimes be a blunt instrument and that every possible option should be considered and introduced, when justified, before legislation. Both the OFT report and the Consumer Focus Scotland briefing are interesting, and two points in the OFT report stand out for me. The first is that one third of consumers feel that they do not get good value for money, and the second is that there are low levels of switching.

I gave the example of the flat that I rent here in Edinburgh. I am confident that switching will prove to be beneficial, but it was a long and drawn-out process. There may be people who do not want to participate in such a process, so I can understand why there has been such a low level of switching in the past.

If we consider the economic situation and the uncertainty about future budgets coming to the Parliament and the subsequent knock-on effects to wider Scotland, I hope that those two points—the lack of value for money and the low level of switching—change in the coming months. Every penny will be a prisoner, and I am sure that owners of tenement flats will exert a stronger voice and act accordingly. I am sure that a greater emphasis will be placed on value for money and, as a consequence, there will be more switching.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Wind up, please.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To conclude, I welcome the minister’s openness on Patricia Ferguson’s proposal and his willingness not to reject it out of hand. The consensual approach allows for a greater outcome and better deal for owners who deal with factors.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I should probably declare an interest as I stay in a factored property. Indeed, on Tuesday night I attended a residents meeting, where this debate and Patricia Ferguson’s proposed bill was discussed. At some points, the meeting was quite heated, so I will not name the factor or its other properties, but I will give members a couple of examples as I go along.

I know that, basically, there is consensus on the issue. There may be dubiety about how we go about tackling it, but there is certainly a consensus that the people of Scotland need better factoring. The debate is on how we get that.

As has been mentioned, there are good factors and bad factors, and we must remember that there are good factors that support Patricia Ferguson’s bill as we do. They want some form of legislation to get rid of the rogue factors, and they are very supportive of action.

Speaking about legislation, I should say that I do not believe that voluntary registration will work in this case. However, I want to quote from the briefing from Consumer Focus Scotland for this debate, which we should consider:

“Voluntary and statutory approaches to regulation are not mutually exclusive, and both have advantages and disadvantages from the consumer perspective. CFS believes that the cost of regulation must be weighed carefully against the benefits.”

That is fair.

“In most cases, it is the consumer”—

that is, the tenant—

“that foots the bill for the costs of regulation through increased prices. Citizens can also pay indirectly, through taxation, if the public sector is to bear the cost of regulating an industry. Any regulation of this market must therefore be developed to ensure that there is real benefit to consumers and taxpayers to justify increased prices”.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

In making that valid point about costs, does Sandra White accept that the cost element will be there whether the arrangement is statutory or voluntary? The cost has to be met somewhere and, in practice, will probably land on the consumer; it is the value that is important.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I quoted the briefing only to put the debate in perspective. I do not believe that voluntary registration will work—I think that it must be statutory—but I wanted to mention the views from Consumer Focus Scotland, which spoke to people. Those are the answers that it got back, and we have to look at everything. CFS makes a valid point, which is why I wanted to raise it.

Like others, I have spoken to the minister, and I know that it is not in tablets of stone whether a system would be statutory or voluntary. We have to take into account everybody’s ideas on the proposed bill. As Malcolm Chisholm has mentioned, there may be various amendments as the bill goes through Parliament. We have to consider everything and, although there is a cost, we are dealing with people’s lives. As Margaret Curran mentioned, we are talking not just about property but about how people live their lives.

I want to give some examples of good and bad practice. One issue is a lack of information when people move into a tenement property or, as Mary Scanlon rightly said, a new-build property. People do not know how much maintenance will cost and what the factoring fees will be. Malcolm Chisholm’s example was one of the best—when the residents shopped around, they were able to save hundreds of pounds in their insurance bill. As I know to my own cost, factors never tell people that they can save that amount of money. That is why it is important to address the lack of information.

There is also an issue with repairs and the difficulty in having them carried out. Even more so in some cases, there is difficulty in finding out whether repairs have been carried out. People get a bill and pay it, but then they think, “I didn’t see anyone come out to do the work. Who let them in?” When they phone the factor, they cannot get any answers or a breakdown of the bill, and yet in some cases they are paying thousands of pounds. There is sometimes no proof that repairs have been carried out—there is no receipt or breakdown—but people have to pay for them.

Of course, when people query the bill and say, “I’m sorry, but I don’t see the repair work having been done and I’m withholding payment until I see evidence of it”, the next thing is that they get a letter from the sheriff officer to say that they are being taken to court. That is an important part of the issue—people are very dissatisfied with how things are dealt with.

Another issue is that, when people query a bill and ask for factors to get quotations from other builders, joiners, gardeners or other maintenance people, the factors never seem to do that. As Malcolm Chisholm’s example showed, people can save hundreds of pounds when they shop around, but when they ask the factor, “Why didn’t you do that?”, they reply, “Well, it’s not my job.” Factors are not being proactive and are basically just collectors of money. They are not doing anything for the tenants.

I am talking about the bad factors, which are mostly in the private sector. I must admit that I used to get most complaints from the GHA, but, as others have said, Martin Armstrong and the minister seem to have improved things there, so I get a lot fewer complaints about the GHA than I did before. It is mostly private factors that I get complaints about.

Mary Scanlon mentioned other areas, but as a Glasgow MSP I get most of my complaints from tenement properties and the residents meetings that I attend. The complaints are both worrying and annoying for people. Most of the people whom I represent are working and are not in during the day, so they cannot prove that anything has been done—even changing a light bulb, as was said. We would think that it costs a couple of pounds to buy a light bulb, but people can get a bill for £300 for one light bulb to be changed and cannot even prove that it has been done.

Those are the problems that have to be regulated for. I certainly look forward to the bill going through the parliamentary process. We agree that something needs to be done, but we may want to lodge amendments to toughen or slacken the bill, and there will be an opportunity to do that.

I congratulate Patricia Ferguson on bringing forward the proposed bill, and I thank the minister for having lodged the amendment, which should be acceptable to members. I hope that we can move forward in consensus on the issue, because it is the people who live in a factored building—myself included, I must admit—who have to put up with the problems day after day, week after week. I look forward to the bill going through the process.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I welcome the debate. The common theme in the speeches from throughout the chamber is that we need urgent action, and we all agree that we need to use Patricia Ferguson’s member’s bill to get effective legislation to identify the solutions to the problems of property management. It is complex, and it is part of a continuing programme that the Parliament has to go through. We have looked at feudal tenure and the law of the tenement; a review of factoring is a crucial part of the process, and we need to turn our attentions to it.

There are different traditions and practices across the country and in the cities. In Edinburgh tenements, there is not the same tradition of factoring as in Glasgow. People tend to manage properties themselves, spurred on—I must say—by statutory notices from the council. The law of the tenement has been helpful, although it has not resolved all the issues: there is still more to do.

Issues such as fair shares, the effective management of repairs and the affordability of repairs are relevant to new properties, too. It is not just about the physical state of the building; it is about the land around the building and the security of the property. Those issues are crucial and, in Edinburgh, they tend to be led by factors. I will focus on rising costs, the lack of transparency, the need for registration proposals and the need for effective dispute resolution. Those things will all be dealt with by Patricia Ferguson’s bill, which provides us with the vehicle to set the right framework. Towards the end of my comments, I will also focus on the particular vulnerability of older residents, for whom the lack of dispute resolution is a major social justice problem.

Lots of residents have reported to me issues relating to the rising costs of maintenance, utilities and insurance; the difficulty that they have in challenging estimates from factors; the difficulty in getting to see the bills as they come in; and issues around getting proper transparency. One of my constituents challenged the factor and the utility company when a change from one utility company to another was proposed. The resident pointed out the reason why they used a specific utility company and the need to check that the tariff was right because of the nature of the property’s heating system. The factor completely ignored my constituent and changed the utility company. Months later, after a process that was not at all transparent, my constituent was able to get that changed because the factor had chosen the wrong tariff and a company that could not deliver the right tariff given the nature of the heating system in that block.

My constituent was not given access to the utility company, which refused to talk to him because he was not the factor. The factor also refused to talk to him. Then, following months of upheaval, after the factor had changed back to the previous utility company, my constituent was sent a series of hostile letters. We need to reassert some balance and get a level playing field. A register that was publicly available and transparent would help, and the ability to get information back from factors is crucial. One of the helpful suggestions in the OFT report was to have a good code of practice. That could come along with a proper regulatory system through the Parliament. People need to know what they should expect from a factor and, to be fair, the factoring companies need to know what they are expected to provide. Everybody must be clear about that.

Malcolm Chisholm raised the issue of the need for new deeds when somebody buys into a new property. In one case, the developer has avoided dealing with the fact that there is a leak in the roof that has been there since the start of the development. The developer has also been able to avoid the setting up of a residents association by specifying in the initial deeds that there could be no residents association until every property in the development was sold. The developer has held on to the last flat, deliberately not selling it, so that there cannot be a residents association and, until there is a residents association, the residents cannot debate getting rid of the factoring company. Those things are tied together, which is why it is complex. However, that is why we need a debate in the Parliament about the legislation surrounding the issue.

Thousands of our constituents would be glad if we began to deal with the matter, and dispute resolution needs to be part of the process. It is vital in getting proper remedy. Pursuing a legal remedy can be very expensive and time consuming even through the small claims system, and if someone is not au fait with how the law works it is difficult for them to know where to start. At the moment, it is difficult to switch factors; therefore, I am not surprised that many people do not switch factors. That cannot be used as evidence that the system works.

I have given the example of people being tied to a factor through their deeds. When they start to receive increasingly threatening letters from their factor and face hiked-up bills, that disempowers people and it is a social justice issue. A large number of older people in my constituency have deliberately downsized from leaky, inefficient, expensive properties. They have freed up the larger properties, which is good for society, and have bought smaller, newer properties on the expectation that they will be able to manage their financial affairs more easily; however, it has become a financial nightmare for them and a real social justice issue. Those people are vulnerable. They are intelligent and articulate and they are able to write letters to us, but they are not able to deal with lots of threatening letters from factors. I do not think that they should have to deal with such letters. We should have a fairer system.

David McLetchie asked whether we need a proper system now or whether we should opt for a voluntary system. He accepted the fact that things are not moving fast—a year has passed since the publication of the OFT report. The minister needs to listen to us all across the chamber. Let us address the fact that a third of factoring companies are seen to be unsatisfactory. If there were a voluntary scheme, two thirds of the companies would sign up but a third would not and, after a couple of years, we would be back here, having the same debate. Let us cut to the chase and use Patricia Ferguson’s bill to have a proper debate, consult everybody, examine the detail and get it right. Let us not wait two or three years for a new Government to start the process all over again. I know that the minister wants to consider the voluntary approach first; however, we have had debates in which we have talked about going voluntary but also about using the force of the law if necessary. Let us regulate the sector transparently and properly, with a good debate, and let us get it right.

We still have a year and a quarter of the Parliament. Let us use that time wisely to think about the problems that our constituents face and get the proper remedy. There is enough cross-party support to get it right.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I will return to the issue that Mary Scanlon raised. As members will recognise, there are two different areas to the subject: how flatted accommodation is factored and how external, commonly owned parts of a housing estate are factored. I will concentrate on the second area.

Planning advice note 65 generated a desire for estate builders to ensure that their external land—the common areas—was owned and managed by somebody. Two ways emerged in which that could be done. The first was to get the local authority to take it over, although that had a cost. The second was to sell the land or, possibly, to give it to a land management company, which would have the right to receive payments from the house owners. That is where the problem has arisen to which Mary Scanlon and Jim Tolson have referred.

If the factor does not perform, there are a couple of things that the house owners can do. They can engage with the contractor and try to get them to get it right, or they can withhold payments with the expectation of being sued—and some are doing that. However, we have heard many times that our constituents want a quiet life. Although withholding payments and waiting to be sued might appeal to the average MSP, it does not appeal to the average constituent.

The Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 was designed to deal with the problem. Section 3(7) states:

“Except in so far as expressly permitted by this Act, a real burden must not have the effect of creating a monopoly”.

It is quite clear that that statute was designed to deal with the situation that I have described and enable the owners, in one way or another, to change the factor under those circumstances as well as many others. Unfortunately, it appears that it does not do so. Section 63 relates to “Manager burdens”, which one would have thought to be relevant, but it turns out that it is essentially about the temporary situation during the first five years when the aim is to get the property sold. Section 33 relates to a community burden, allowing a majority of landowners to change that burden. However, the landowning factor will be one of the owners and will have a right to object and to take the matter to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland.

Section 122 of the 2003 act defines “service burden” as

“a real burden which relates to the provision of services to land other than the burdened property”.

Facility burdens involve the maintenance of areas such as common areas for recreation, private roads, private sewerage and boundary walls. However, any application to discharge one of those burdens must also be heard by the Lands Tribunal, with a consequent risk and expense to the house owners.

The 2003 act affords other ways of changing or removing a factor. Section 28 allows a majority of owners to dismiss a property manager, although that can be overridden by a clause in the deed of conditions. Section 64—“Overriding power to dismiss and appoint manager”—looks more promising. It states:

“(1) Where a person is the manager of related properties, the owners of two thirds of those properties may—

(a) dismiss that person; and

(b) where they do so, appoint some other person to be such manager”.

Unfortunately, time does not allow me to go through section 66(2)(c), which relates to various issues about what is a related property, but the net result is that I have seen an advocate’s opinion that the section does not apply to the situation that concerns us. The result is that we are in a situation in which an act, which I think was intended to cover this situation, apparently does not, or it is at the very least uncertain. We know that uncertain law is of no use whatever to our constituents; it may appeal to academics, because they can wind-up their students, and it has some appeal to lawyers, because it keeps them in business, but it is no use whatever to our constituents. It seems to me that we should do something to change that uncertain law and provide some certainty.

I have consulted the Property Managers Association and individual factors, as I am sure many other members have done in preparation for the debate. I have done so specifically on this problem. We are clear that home owners who are paying for land management services should have the right to decide who provides that service. I hear Patricia Ferguson saying, I think, that she feels that the matter will not be covered by the Property Factors (Scotland) Bill. Given that it could have been, and I think was intended to be, covered by the 2003 act, it seems to me that it is in the very least within the Parliament’s competence to address the issue. Whether it should be annexed to the bill is not for me to say, but I seriously ask the Government to consider whether that is possible and to find a way of resolving the problem. I think that we are clear that it requires legislation.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

This has been an interesting debate. I have to say, in closing for the Liberal Democrats, that there is something musty and Dickensian about the whole issue of factors. We want to see a breath of modern Scottish Parliament fresh air, as it were, blown through the whole area.

I was struck by a couple of comments that Sarah Boyack made, which I thought were relevant. One was the greater application of this, in some ways, to older people. That is a valid point. We all know examples of older people who have moved to flats or other accommodation—sometimes nice new flats with bits of ground around them that get maintained and so forth—which sometimes have considerable management costs attached to them. The other one was the point about the two thirds/one third business. That echoes with me and there is no question that the issue has been around for a long time. The industry has had a long time to put its house in order, if that is what it wanted to do. We are now at the point at which it is not a matter only of bringing up standards among, if you like, good factors and well-intentioned factors who want to run a decent business; it is also a matter of driving out of business some factors who ought not to be there in the first place.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

There has certainly been a lot of interest in the subject of retirement flats this morning. I remind the member that it is not only about the management and maintenance costs. Homeowners are also supplied with a monopoly provider for insurance—they cannot even shop around for buildings and contents insurance.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am well aware of that. It comes back to a point that I made previously and want to repeat, which is the complexity of the matter. This is not an easy area to deal with in an effective and comprehensive fashion.

Mary Scanlon began by making a point—Jim Tolson, Nigel Don and other members have echoed it—about the green-belt maintenance issues, whether with the Greenbelt Group or in other situations. We have discussed the buy-to-rent aspect, which I touched on, and also, of course, factors. Malcolm Chisholm correctly pointed out that there are undoubtedly issues with some home owners. The issue of home owners not paying their share is a significant problem. Ken Macintosh mentioned retirement homes—I have also had experience of that issue in my own constituency—and Margaret Curran rightly mentioned the issue of shopkeepers. A wide range of people and circumstances are covered by the possible legislation that we might want to deal with in this regard.

The debate has, to a considerable extent, centred on standards and whether there should be a voluntary or statutory arrangement. I am very much towards the view that we require a statutory framework. Margaret Curran talked about the lack of such a framework being the important issue that underlies the debate.

I should clarify the Liberal Democrat amendment, which refers to “voluntary sector property managers.” It has been suggested that that is intended to apply to self-help arrangements, but it is not. Such arrangements should either remain unregulated or we should deal with them in a different way if the issue arises. That is a different situation and it is more in the co-operative field rather than the field that we are talking about in this debate. However, “voluntary sector property managers” certainly include the GHA and perhaps also the community-based associations, although I also touched on the need to avoid possible over-regulation in that respect.

David McLetchie made the point that the whole issue of statutory regulation can be complex, but so can the voluntary aspect; it applies both ways round. The minister referred to the difficulties caused by a local monopoly, which is also a valid point. The implication that the issue can be resolved voluntarily is a proposition that I do not think that I really accept. We are in a situation in which we must take action that deals with the debt farmers to whom Patricia Ferguson referred, with the cowboys in the field and brings in reputable people who will do a proper job and are prepared to be regulated properly within a system, whether it is voluntary or statutory.

I liked Pauline McNeill’s phrase that it is necessary to

“assert the authority of the Scottish Parliament”.

That also lies behind our approach to the issue.

Whatever the end result of all this, the work that has been done on the voluntary scheme will no doubt be helpful. I guess that the issue can be tackled on various levels. David McLetchie mentioned the Law Society of Scotland, which is fairly heavily regulated, but, in effect, the regulation is then accomplished by the Law Society itself in practice. I have no doubt that there will also be an element of that in this scheme.

Standards are important. One issue that we should note is the point that was made about residents and good property managers benefiting from standards, as does the general community.

Some issues have been raised that can be tackled in other ways. Jim Tolson rightly touched on the maintenance of common areas, such as grassed areas and open spaces, and the fact that planning bonds used to be common but have now given way to factoring-type arrangements. As Jim Tolson rightly suggested, there may be other ways of tackling that issue. Malcolm Chisholm raised the issue of builders and snagging problems, which is a big problem that overlaps with the issue that we are discussing.

Another issue is finance. We should not disguise the fact that, whether the regulation is statutory or voluntary, a cost will be involved. On the other hand, regulation could take out some costs. For example, if there is better competition for the insurance premiums or whatever, there could be benefits. Regulation could lead to a better service for a more appropriate cost, which is what we seek.

Like yesterday’s debate on regeneration, this has been an excellent debate, because people largely knew what they were talking about. I think that in the minister’s response to the debate he has to tell us something more about the timetable, because I am not clear how many meetings there have been of the working group that is looking at the matter, how far it has got, when the minister expects proposals to come out the other end and what the timetable is. We have to get that information at the end of the debate so that there is clarity about where we are going on the issue. This is an important debate. I very much support the motion and, in particular, obviously, the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the Labour Party, and in particular Patricia Ferguson, for bringing this debate to the chamber and affording us all the opportunity to explore, in considerable detail, some of the serious concerns on the issue.

The reason that I gave my personal backing to the initial consultation stages of the Property Factors (Scotland) Bill was to build on the concerns, which have been raised in the chamber during this debate, and on the comments made by my colleague Mary Scanlon, who in September 2007 made it clear that there were too many loopholes in the existing legislation. We have heard from all parties this morning that we have evidence of situations, in more or less every constituency throughout Scotland, where residents have encountered difficulties with factors. There can be no doubt that in many cases, although by no means in all cases, those residents are from older and perhaps more vulnerable groups, as both Sarah Boyack and Ken Macintosh said. As such, these issues deserve full parliamentary scrutiny.

Before I sum up our party’s overall position on this matter, I have to say that we recognise that many factors do an excellent job and provide first-class facilities across the board. Of course, that in turn means that we have to be very mindful of supporting those factors and of not designing new legislation that would be overbureaucratic or would restrict either them or—as important—the consumer’s choice.

As Mary Scanlon and David McLetchie have already made clear this morning, we want three specific concerns to be addressed: first, how we strike the right balance between accreditation, regulation and quality assurance; secondly, as Margaret Curran highlighted, the absence of effective complaints procedures against factors who default; and thirdly, the need for greater transparency in obtaining relevant financial information about the managing company’s accounts.

Let me summarise our position on each. We fully appreciate the calls for better quality assurance and a level playing field across Scotland. Currently, as Malcolm Chisholm hinted, there is often a big contrast between conditions in older title deeds, which make almost no provision for common decision making, and newer title deeds in which such provisions are much more extensive and comprehensive.

Although we understand the calls for mandatory regulation, which were made particularly strongly by Patricia Ferguson and Pauline McNeill, we need to keep an open mind about what that would mean and begin by listening to the arguments about whether any approach should include compulsory registration or whether the problems would be better solved by a system of voluntary accreditation. I have listened to and understand the reasons behind the strong calls for the need for more than a voluntary system, but we want to explore the arguments a little more. In that respect, I echo the request made by Robert Brown and David McLetchie to the minister to tell us his current position with regard to seeking this additional information. After all, there are arguments on both sides but the key principle must be to ensure that the consumer has effective choice, that they will not be restricted from switching and that any changes will not involve unnecessary and expensive red tape.

On the second point, we are absolutely clear that there must be an effective complaints procedure that leaves no scope for the difficult factor to manipulate the situation or discriminate against the consumer. There must be clarity about the respective roles, responsibilities and legal rights of the managing company and the owners and residents body.

We also believe that there must be much greater facility for financial transparency to ensure that owners and residents can see clearly what their money is being spent on and the value for money that they are getting every time they are asked to pay a bill. On that point, we also seek clarification about trading standards and whether any related issues involve purely reserved legislation and might therefore bring into question the Scottish Parliament’s competence. We note in particular the Scottish Consumer Council’s concern in its submission to the OFT that, in too many cases, consumers find it very difficult to exercise collective choice and switch. That can act as a considerable constraint on suppliers and prevent consumers from getting best value for money.

As the relationship between the property manager and the owners in a shared property is defined by complex legislation, property deeds and agreements, many consumers often do not understand their rights and obligations. Likewise, consumers often fail to understand the processes involved in switching and, in any case, there is no effective mechanism for pursuing complaints, which allows dishonest factors to play the system even more. We also note the calls to set down the minimum requirements for best practice so that complaints can be investigated against clear standards.

In short, we will support measures that increase consumer choice, provide a level playing field of quality assurance and weed out the bad factor and oppose measures that might tip the balance in favour of too much bureaucracy rather than self-regulation and raise barriers that stifle competition and eliminate diversity within provision. As I say, we have a very open mind on whether a statutory approach needs to be taken on this matter. The arguments have been very well presented in various parts of the chamber and for that reason alone the debate has been more than worth while.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As other members have said, this has been a very good and wide-ranging debate on a very serious issue that affects many people in Scotland. In my closing remarks, I will emphasise a number of my earlier points, deal with some of the points that have been raised in the debate and issue an invitation to members.

I want to make the Government’s position absolutely clear. First, we regard this as a priority issue that needs to be dealt with. Secondly, we believe in the need for urgent action. Thirdly, we will support Patricia Ferguson’s motion at the vote at 5 o’clock. As I said in my opening remarks, we are taking a very empathetic approach to Ms Ferguson’s proposed bill. Once we see the detail, we will sit down and consider it with her and if we believe that the bill achieves its objectives we will give very serious consideration to supporting it.

I also think that there are certain wider issues that need to be addressed but which might not be covered in the bill. To some extent, the debate has been dominated by arguments over whether there should be legislation or a voluntary scheme. In fact, landlords and, as Robert Brown pointed out, the legal profession are dealt with by a combination of legislation and voluntary codes. I believe that we need more legislation to enforce landlord standards, but nevertheless in recent years we have made significant progress not by choosing between legislation or a more voluntary approach but by introducing a combination of both, with legislation playing an important role. In that respect, I liked Robert Brown’s comment that legislation would provide a statutory framework within which a voluntary code could work.

A number of members asked about the detailed timetable for the publication of the accreditation standards. I am pleased to be able to tell the chamber that they will be published next month, which indicates the importance and urgency with which we are dealing with this issue.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does the minister nevertheless accept that at the core of this issue is what must be a statutory requirement for the people who operate in this field to be subject to the voluntary code, scheme or however it might be described?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

That case has been very well made this morning by Robert Brown and others. As I say, we have a very open mind not only on that issue but on the wider issues that Patricia Ferguson’s proposed bill might not necessarily deal with.

That brings me to my invitation. Given the fact that across the whole chamber there is broad consensus about what we are trying to achieve, I invite each of the parties—including the members of the Green party and Margo MacDonald, who are not present this morning—to a meeting that I as minister will convene to try to map out and agree together the way forward in dealing not only with all the issues that have been raised this morning but with many other related issues that have not featured in the debate but which need to be addressed. If we as a Parliament can move forward together and agree a critical path for the proposed legislation, the voluntary framework and the other bits and pieces that we need to deal with in addition to the issues tackled in Patricia Ferguson’s proposed bill, we will not only make the measures more effective and ensure that they cover everything that needs to be covered but help with the timetable of implementing these actions. It is, after all, a lot easier to move forward if we have cross-party and all-party consensus. As a result, within the next week or so, I will issue my invitation, which I hope will be accepted by all parties in the spirit in which it is offered and will allow us to map out a way forward together.

Robert Brown is absolutely right to say that this area is very complex. Some of the issues that have been mentioned will not, as I have said, be covered in Patricia Ferguson’s bill or, indeed, by the voluntary code. For example, Sarah Boyack and Mary Scanlon highlighted the situation in certain new developments, in which the developer-appointed factor cannot be replaced by the residents for five years or until the last house is sold, whichever happens earlier.

I know from my own experience that many problems often arise in the immediate period after a development has been completed. That is often the critical time when many issues that relate to the developer and on-going management and maintenance have to be dealt with. We need to consider that area, and whether we need to reform the law that relates to new developments and offer greater flexibility. Members also need to consider seriously and urgently several other issues that have been mentioned.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will the minister commit to considering that factoring issue and whether there is a way in Patricia Ferguson’s bill through which we can deal with it? Sometimes the issue is how we define what we are trying to do. If one word is used, something cannot be done, but if another word is used, it can be. Will the minister commit to at least considering that issue?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Absolutely. Indeed, I hope that we will consider it together as part of the joint approach that I have suggested that we should take. A holistic and comprehensive view must be taken.

We must also ensure that a voluntary or a legislative scheme should not be overbureaucratic, as Elizabeth Smith rightly said, and that it should not, as an indirect or unintended consequence, undermine good factors and the work that they are doing. We should be extolling the virtues of good practice among the bulk of factors, but we must also be determined not only to root out slum landlords—I said to the Public Petitions Committee the other day that we should be determined to do that in Govanhill—but to root out rogue factors. That is the issue. Those people can make people’s lives a misery. As Mary Scanlon and Elizabeth Smith in particular highlighted, the peace of older people who have moved into factored accommodation and are looking forward to enjoying their retirement in comfortable surroundings is often disturbed. I am dealing with such constituency cases. They have sleepless nights and worries as a result of their factor’s bad practice, and that is unacceptable. We have called the Parliament the people’s Parliament. It is the Parliament’s job to rectify that situation. If voluntary action is required to do so, let us ensure that it happens; if legislation is required, let us ensure that it happens.

I think that the mood is that we should work together to try to seriously advance the issue this year. I will therefore issue an invitation to all the parties, including to Margo MacDonald and the Greens, so that we can, I hope, put aside any party-political considerations, put the interests of our constituents and our people above any narrow political considerations, move forward, and see real progress this year.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

As is customary, I begin by saying that we have had a positive and thoughtful debate. Indeed, it has even resulted in an invitation from the minister. What more could we ask for?

I congratulate Patricia Ferguson on lodging the motion and on pursuing her bill proposal, despite the reluctance that there has sometimes been to support it. Her experience in her Glasgow Maryhill constituency showed her that legislation was needed. As we have heard, many members share her experience, which is why there is cross-party support for her bill. Even the Scottish Government is now moving solidly in that direction.

Some members—Mr McLetchie is among them—have frequently said that the Parliament has taken on too much legislation. I suggest that that has not been the case recently. I will return to the Conservative amendment. I agree that we should legislate only when there is no alternative to doing so, but members will agree, having heard about the experiences of many people, that legislation on the issue in question is clearly necessary.

The consultation document that Patricia Ferguson issued listed a number of questions, and the responses to those questions show why legislation is necessary. We have heard other comments on that this morning. I will refer to the questions that were asked and then address the amendments.

The consultation document asked:

“What type/category of property managers should be registered?”

The overwhelming majority of respondents believed that all types and categories of property managers should be registered, but questions were raised. Should registrations include housing associations that are already registered? Members have also asked that question. Housing associations often establish a separate arm to carry out factoring responsibilities; in that case, there is perhaps still a need for them to be registered. If the management role is taken on by one or more owners, there should be no need to register. I think that Bob Doris raised that issue. It is not the intention of the proposed bill to include those people in registrations.

Another question is whether registration should be extended to include land management companies—for example, those that both own and manage land. Mary Scanlon and Jim Tolson, among other members, raised that issue. I, too, have experience of the matter in my constituency, predominantly in the towns of Armadale and Bathgate. New-build estates are being maintained by Greenbelt Group Ltd, which has already been mentioned. We have debated the role of that company and others before in the chamber, and I was as critical of its performance as any member. However, it is only fair to say that it has responded to criticisms and sought to make improvements. I will not criticise it today, but I still believe that it would have been helpful in resolving owners’ difficulties if it had been registered and, more particularly, if there had been a clear system for dispute resolution.

A number of examples have been given that show why we should regulate. Members have given examples of extremely bad practice. I should acknowledge that some factors operate and provide a good service, but it is clear that there has been bad practice. I have heard of cases in which factors have been known to use exceptional attachment orders for debts of just a few hundred pounds. Members will know that that process is the modern-day equivalent of warrant sales, in which household goods are forcibly removed and sold to pay a debt. Factors can also use the notice of liability procedure under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 for very small debts. If a person has a £25 bill, for example, the factor can threaten to register a notice of liability in the land register. That would cost around £30, and would be billed to the person and would show up when they tried to sell their flat or property. It could put off buyers, as any purchaser would inherit the debt. Housing campaigners fear that too many of those notices are being used.

That brings me to dispute resolution, which is the second major theme of Patricia Ferguson’s proposed bill. As we have heard, the only route for resolving disputes at the moment is through the courts. It is clear that that is unsatisfactory. Most law-abiding people instinctively shy away from the legal process, which is also, as we have heard, expensive and complex. In the responses to the consultation, the most popular suggestion on financing the costs of dispute resolution was that the property managers should pay them, either through their registration fee or an additional levy. The other most popular suggestion was that they should be publicly funded by the Scottish Government. If the minister wants to reply to that suggestion at some stage, I am sure that members would be interested to hear his comments.

The minister started his opening speech by saying that the status quo is not an option. I agree with that.

He referred to the OFT report from February 2009 that proposed self-regulation with the possibility of moving to statute. The issue for us is one that other members have raised: the delay in coming forward with any proposals. The minister also raised concerns that the proposed bill might have unintended consequences that might bring about the stifling of competition among factors. Given that most of us accept that two thirds of property factors behave responsibly, I do not think that we can say that there would be a lack of competition. However, that third of factors is a significant number who would need regulation.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am sure that the member agrees with me and many of her back benchers that one of the issues is the difficulty that people have with the complex process that they have to go through to change their factor. That is a competition issue. We want more choice so that it is easier to change the factor if they are not providing the service.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

The minister is absolutely right that choice of factor should be taken into account. We heard an important example of that from Sarah Boyack this morning. She told of a factor abusing the legislation that was already in place by holding back one flat so that residents could not establish a residents association and therefore could not follow the available procedures to change that factor. That should convince us that we need either to make amendments to the present legislation or introduce the proposed new legislation.

Other members, Patricia Ferguson among them, suggested that there was an issue around people being aware whether a factor was in place, particularly in new properties. That is one clear reason why a register would be helpful to ensure that that factoring responsibility is known about.

My final point is about the responsibility of builders and developers and the factors who then take over from them. Malcolm Chisholm spoke about that area of contention in relation to new builds. Although he spoke of the problem in relation to new builds, it is also an issue in older tenements where a major repair project has taken place and the bills might be large.

Today we have a bill proposal from Patricia Ferguson that has brought about a great deal of consensus. Labour will support the Scottish Government’s amendment because it does not say anything with which we can disagree, but I suggest to Mr Neil that he follows his own advice on the registration of private landlords.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member make it clear to me whether she will accept my invitation?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I am coming to that—I tell Mr Neil that all good things are worth waiting for.

Labour will not support the Conservative amendment. Although the Conservative contributions to today’s debate give us heart, further delay is unnecessary and we wish to proceed with legislation. Labour will support the Liberal Democrat amendment, given Robert Brown’s clarifications.

We have in front of us an opportunity to do something that will address the concerns of people in Scotland. The proposed bill does not shilly-shally and hold back, but would take action that would protect a lot of people who, as we have heard this morning, have been affected by bad practice among some property factors. I tell the minister that I am more than happy to meet him to discuss further options in relation to property factors. However, I urge him to be brave at this stage and support Patricia Ferguson’s proposed bill. We are always happy to consider further matters, but that should not delay what we have in front of us today. I understand that the minister will even support our motion today. I urge him to take the logical step to support the proposed bill too.

Probationary Tenancies

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has considered introducing probationary tenancies for use by housing associations. (S3O-9754)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 already enables social landlords to give tenants a short Scottish secure tenancy agreement in certain circumstances including as a probationary tenancy for those with a history of antisocial behaviour. That probationary tenancy enables tenants to be given a second chance to sustain a successful tenancy. The tenancy will be for at least six months and can be for up to 12 months. If the tenant or member of their household continues to act in an antisocial manner, the landlord can seek to end the tenancy.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I have a number of constituents who are suffering from antisocial neighbours and despite using community wardens, the police and other public service bodies, it appears that little can be done to deal successfully with the antisocial tenants. I am mindful of what the minister said a few moments ago, but registered social landlords and housing associations in particular have raised concerns with me that the process of dealing with or removing antisocial tenants is extremely complicated. Therefore, I ask the minister whether the Scottish Government will consider amending existing regulations for housing associations and all RSLs to allow them to deal with antisocial tenants in a more effective manner?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I thank the member for highlighting those issues. A number of local authorities already use existing provisions effectively, but if local authorities find any problems, barriers or unnecessary bureaucratic problems with the procedure, I am happy to listen to any proposals for reform.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I am glad that the minister is prepared to look at the issue, which I have raised with housing associations. The point that they have made to me is that they are not always aware of tenants’ previous antisocial behaviour history. If somebody leaves a property before action is taken against them, the behaviour is not recorded anywhere. Will the minister talk to the housing associations about how often they experience the problem because it has been raised as a major problem by more than one housing association in Edinburgh?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I thank the member for raising that issue, which I will put on the agenda of my next meeting with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations to try to identify whether it is a serious, widespread problem and whether any Government action is needed to deal with it.

Severe Weather (Vulnerable People)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to protect vulnerable people in the event of cold or severe weather. (S3O-9712)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The energy assistance package is delivering heating systems, insulation, energy savings advice, increased incomes, and lower fuel costs to many thousands of fuel poor households. Anyone who is having problems meeting their fuel bills should phone 0800 512 012 today.

Just last week I wrote to Helen Goodman, Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions, asking for wind chill to be taken into account when calculating the trigger for cold weather payments. and I am sure that the chamber will support me in continuing to press Westminster to take proper account of the severe climate experienced in Scotland.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I will not support the removal of many pensioners from the free central heating scheme designed by this Scottish Government. Many pensioners in need no longer have access to that scheme because of the new conditions introduced by the Government.

The Weatherwise website, mentioned previously in the chamber, was designed to allow access to local authority emergency telephone numbers but, as we all know, it was not set up until 6 January. Given that it is a website, what account has been taken of the 70 per cent of people over 60 who have never used the internet?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I correct Andy Kerr: it is not true to say that all pensioners do not have access to the energy assistance package. That package consists of four different stages, including assistance with income maximisation and benefit maximisation. I think that the member was referring to stage 4 of the package where we are deliberately targeting our resources to those who are fuel poor, based on the recommendations of the fuel poverty forum and proposals that were supported by the Labour Party.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

What discussions has the Government had with charitable and voluntary organisations, such as WRVS, about the contribution that the third sector can make to helping vulnerable people through a harsh winter such as we are experiencing this year?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

All ministers have continuing dialogue with the third sector, which includes discussion of how it can assist with such programmes. The officials who are involved in the Energy Saving Trust, which delivers the energy assistance package with Scottish Gas, and those who are involved in delivering the home insulation scheme are regularly in touch with third-sector organisations to try to reach those whom we are trying to help the most.

As Nanette Milne knows, I have responded to the concerns of Macmillan Cancer Support nurses about cancer patients’ eligibility for the energy assistance package and other measures. The Scottish fuel poverty forum is considering whether we can help effectively in any way people who are long-term sick and who live in fuel poverty.

Energy Assistance Package

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive what percentage of the total central heating installations that have taken place in this financial year were under the energy assistance package commencing in April 2009 rather than the previous central heating programme. (S3O-9702)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Of the heating system measures that were delivered up to the end of January, 70 per cent were undertaken as part of our commitment to honour applications under the previous central heating programme. By the end of this financial year, most installations will have been generated by the energy assistance package.

As well as heating measures, we deliver insulation, energy saving advice, increased incomes and lower fuel costs. By the end of January, that had benefited more than 40,000 households throughout Scotland.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

How many inquirers about the energy assistance package were ineligible for the installation of enhanced measures under stage 4 on the ground that their central heating system works intermittently and has not completely broken down? I ask for the figures to be broken down by local authority area. I have written to the minister numerous times about Mrs Moore of North Queensferry, who is ineligible for that reason, although she is 93 years old and has a heart condition. The minister’s officials have told her that she must sit with electric heating should her boiler break down.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I have dealt with several of my constituents who were not initially approved because their system was working when the inspector visited. I have issued to the Energy Saving Trust and Scottish Gas the clear instruction that when a system is not working properly or providing the necessary heating—particularly for older people—they must take a sympathetic and flexible approach. If they are in doubt, they should approve a central heating system for people in such a situation.

New Campus Glasgow

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive how many times it has met representatives of the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council to discuss the New Campus Glasgow complex and proposed merger. (S3O-9722)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I, my colleagues and Government officials meet the Scottish funding council regularly to discuss a wide range of issues, which include the progress that is being made in developing the New Campus Glasgow project and the proposed merger of the colleges that are involved.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I was looking for a specific answer that gave the number of times that the minister has met funding council representatives. Two press reports have suggested that the merger has happened. Will the minister confirm that whether to sign off the merger of the Glasgow colleges is a ministerial decision and not one for the Scottish funding council? What conditions will he set to ensure that the merger benefits students? I want assurances that no reduction will be made in student numbers and that the existing courses, which are good, will continue.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Pauline McNeill knows that such matters are dealt with through the funding council—that arrangement was inherited from the previous Administration. The funding council’s role is first to receive the business case that the colleges are preparing—that should go to the funding council shortly.

If one implication is that the new college requires a grant of more than £50 million—that is extremely likely—ministers will have to sign that off. However, the business case will be discussed first with the funding council, which will consider the future provision of courses throughout Glasgow. Much work is being done on that, but it is right for the process to involve dialogue between the colleges and the funding council. Ministers will become involved subsequently.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The minister knows of the concerns that unions and others have expressed about the merger. At the beginning, Stow College supported co-location, but it now has grave concerns. Has the minister met or does he plan to meet that college’s board?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

The Stow College matters to which Sandra White refers have been substantially discussed with the funding council. At this stage, it is right for discussions to take place between the college and the funding council. If Stow College changed its stance about the proposed merger, that would involve ministers further down the line.

Issues including the future provision of courses at Stow College are being considered. The funding council is undertaking a consultation, to which responses are being made, and I understand that trade unions are involved. I am happy to examine the issue and to give Sandra White further information about exactly how the funding council is proceeding.

Affordable Warmth

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to promote affordable warmth in Scotland. (S3O-9732)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As well as providing energy saving advice, our energy assistance package helps fuel-poor households in important ways that attack the three causes of fuel poverty. It helps them to increase their incomes by providing benefit checks that deliver—on average—more than £1,300 a year. It helps them to reduce the price that they pay for fuel by accessing social tariffs or cheaper payment methods from the energy companies. It helps them to reduce their use of energy through insulation and draught-proofing to stop their homes losing heat and through efficient heating systems.

We are also reducing the cost of heating for many other households, with insulation that is delivered through the home insulation scheme and with energy saving Scotland home loans to replace old and inefficient boilers.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Fewer than 1,000 Scottish households have benefited from the installation of central heating since the Scottish Government changed the eligibility criteria for stage 4 measures under the energy assistance package. That leaves many elderly and vulnerable Scots, such as my 83-year-old constituent in Shotts, living in a cold home. If she lived in Sheffield, she could already have benefited from the boiler scrappage scheme. When will the minister’s Government finally announce the eligibility criteria for that scheme and when will the first payments be made?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Not for the first time, Karen Whitefield is behind the times. The energy assistance package has a boiler scrappage scheme. Where appropriate, we offer replacement boilers for nothing. Any pensioner who is fuel poor in Shotts or anywhere else and who receives benefits is entitled to stage 4 of the package. It is ridiculous for members to try to mislead constituents about their eligibility for the scheme.

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

How will the boiler scrappage scheme benefit my constituents in Glasgow? Does the minister agree that it is a bit rich for the Labour Party on its website to criticise the Scottish National Party for what it describes as “finally” agreeing to the scheme and to congratulate itself for forcing us into the scheme when every SNP MSP voted for it in the budget and every Labour MSP voted against it, despite what Karen Whitefield says?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

So that I do not hold up the First Minister too long, I shall give a short answer. I agree with every word that Anne McLaughlin said.

Litter

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what action is being taken to reduce littering in public places. (S3O-9746)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish Government funds Keep Scotland Beautiful’s annual national spring clean, which will take place again throughout April. As of today—with almost a month still to go—volunteer numbers are already at 36,140, so we are heading for record participation levels. I urge all members to become involved in their local spring-clean tidy-up.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that littering blights many communities. A recent survey that I conducted among my constituents in the Greenfaulds area of Cumbernauld showed that 98 per cent of the respondents felt that littering was a problem. Many people suggested that the ready availability of fast food in the vicinity of the local high school was a major contributor to the problem.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is important for local authorities to work with local businesses, schools and other community organisations to promote a sense of civic awareness and pride that encourages local residents to keep their areas clean?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I agree. I would also urge the local businesses that the member mentions to sponsor their local spring clean-up and the local organisations that are participating in it. Many schoolchildren across Scotland will be participating in this year’s spring clean-up.

I support the member’s message that all such businesses should be socially responsible and should work with their local authorities, local schools and others to keep our streets clean.

Getting it Right for Every Child

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made on the getting it right for every child programme. (S3O-9720)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Real progress is being made in implementing the GIRFEC approach. GIRFEC is the delivery mechanism for the early years framework, for example, and there is no more important work than to improve outcomes for children in their earliest years.

Highland Council has already rolled out the getting it right for every child programme. North Lanarkshire Council, South Lanarkshire Council and Edinburgh Council are committed to implementing the approach next year, and Angus Council is working to have full implementation shortly thereafter.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Is the minister aware of the concerns of the Scottish young carers services alliance, which is highlighting the fact that Midlothian Council and Highland Council are reducing their services and the fact that the Moray young carers project is facing significant funding issues? That is just one example of what is being put at risk due to local authority funding cuts.

With young carers already facing poorer outcomes in health, due to additional stress in their lives and the fact that they have to balance care responsibilities with going to school, how can the minister be confident that he is getting it right for every child when young carers projects are being placed in the difficult situation that I have described?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am always concerned about cuts that are made to local services, and young carers are certainly deserving of support. In this Parliament, we all have to understand where those cuts are coming from and who is responsible for them. However, the getting it right for every child programme has already demonstrated tangible benefits to children. For example, in the Highlands, earlier and more appropriate intervention has meant that the rate of children being placed on the child protection register has fallen by half and that there has been a decrease in non-offence referrals to the children’s reporter of 70 per cent, which means that services are meeting the needs of children in a timely fashion, which is what GIRFEC is all about.

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

In light of what the minister has just said, can he reconsider how GIRFEC will approach the issue of looked-after children and those within the state’s care? It remains the case that only about 1 per cent of looked-after children will ever have an opportunity to go to university and study, yet there remains a lack of specific and targeted resources in this area. Indeed, the area appears to be a gap in the single outcome agreements and the Government’s concordat with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Will the Government consider having more targeted support for this group of young people whom we are, collectively, letting down?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I can give that undertaking to Mr Purvis. Just yesterday, I took part in a meeting of the health inequality task force that focused on the needs of looked-after children and care leavers. Scotland’s record of provision for those young people is shameful. Our ambition is that the outcomes for those children should be no different from those of any other children in Scotland.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 8 has been withdrawn.

NHS Highland (Meetings)

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

9. To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of NHS Highland and what issues were discussed. (S3O-9708)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I meet all national health service board chairs regularly. I last met the chair of NHS Highland on 22 February at one of those regular meetings, and we discussed a wide range of issues.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the norovirus outbreak at Raigmore hospital. She might also be aware that there was a delay of five days in making information about the outbreak available to the public. What guidance is available to NHS boards on how they should publicise such outbreaks in order that staff, patients and visitors can take steps to protect themselves and others?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Rhoda Grant will be aware that NHS Highland has been under considerable pressure because of the recent challenging weather conditions and because of the incidence of norovirus. The board has assured me that its winter plans remain robust and that it has robust contingency measures in place to safeguard front-line services. I pay tribute to everybody who has been working hard in NHS Highland to ensure that those challenges have not impacted on front-line patient care.

On Rhoda Grant’s specific question about guidance, she will recall from recent discussions that, following the Clostridium difficile outbreak at Ninewells hospital, I asked the health care associated infection task force to review the guidance on the circumstances in which health boards should notify the public of outbreaks. I am more than happy to write to Rhoda Grant to make that information and the deliberations of the HAI task force available.

Engagements

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2239)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today, I have engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Unemployment is growing faster in Scotland than in Britain as a whole, with 16 to 24-year-olds the worst affected. In two budgets, we in the Labour Party have argued that giving our young people the skills and jobs that they need must be the top priority. The situation for our young people is getting worse, not better. What is the Scottish Government doing to give our young people the skills that they need?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Iain Gray should be aware, the Scottish budget contained funding for a substantial increase in apprenticeships to enable more of our young people, during these difficult economic times, to have the advantages of skills. He will also be aware that colleges and universities received a substantially better settlement this year than, for example, their counterparts south of the border. The evidence in the Scottish budget is of a huge amount of effort across the range of economic initiatives to improve the employment situation in Scotland for young people and everyone else. That makes it all the more remarkable that the Labour Party decided to vote against that budget and those initiatives for Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

It is crucial that every single penny of the budgets that are allocated to support our young people and their skills should be used to the best advantage. However, last Friday, Skills Development Scotland staff in Lanarkshire—an area that is particularly badly hit by youth unemployment—were told that 20 per cent of the funding for the crucial get ready for work programme was unused and unspent. That is £800,000 that should have been helping young people into work. Can the First Minister tell us how much of the skills budgets throughout Scotland is sitting unused and unspent?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The skills budget for Scotland has been substantially enhanced and increased. Shortly, Iain Gray will I am sure be celebrating the announcement by Skills Development Scotland on the highly demanding apprenticeships targets that have been reached. The evidence is absolutely clear that there has been an expansion of key initiatives in skills, training and education to help our young people. Given that the Labour Party pretends to support all those initiatives, what is perplexing to young people and to members of other parties is why on earth Labour members voted against those initiatives in the budget debate only a few weeks ago.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The First Minister clearly does not know how much of his skills budget is underspent throughout Scotland. The invest in an apprentice scheme, one of the schemes to which the First Minister refers and which gives businesses £1,000 to take on an apprentice, proved popular. Unfortunately, it ran out of money in a fortnight, leaving hundreds of businesses and apprentices disappointed. There is plenty of money for some things, though. Tomorrow, SDS will spend £20,000 to fly in hypnotist Paul McKenna to give 260 unemployed youngsters a pep talk.

Apparently, he will hand out signed copies of his bestsellers “Instant Confidence”, “I Can Make You Rich” and, of course, the classic “I Can Make You Thin”. Is that really the First Minister’s strategy to help our young unemployed?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Scotland does not need Paul McKenna when Iain Gray sends it to sleep every single week.

Iain Gray says that we do not have the statistics, so I will help him by providing some of the key statistics for ScotAction and the drive to help young people in Scotland. ScotAction is investing £145 million to help unemployed people to enter the labour market, to help employees to develop workforce skills and to support those who face redundancy due to Labour’s recession. During 2009, £16 million of additional help was provided to support 7,800 additional apprenticeships. Over the next 12 months, the Scottish Government will provide 34,500 training opportunities, 15,000 modern apprenticeships, 14,500 training places and 5,000 new flexible training opportunities. We have launched the 16-plus learning choices, which guarantee entitlement to a place in learning and training to any young person who requires that at present. Those are the substantial initiatives that the Government is taking forward. What perplexes everyone in Scotland is why every Labour MSP voted against that help for our young people in Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I presume from that hypnotic recitation of numbers that the First Minister has finally found the right page in his briefing.

The point is that the budgets to which he refers are not being spent or used properly. One in five of our young people leaves school with literacy problems. Would it not be better to give them more literacy training, instead of a stage show at Hampden tomorrow? What is Paul McKenna going to do—hypnotise them into believing them that they have a job, a future and a chance in life? Twenty thousand pounds could have opened up 20 more apprenticeships. Alex Salmond is the illusionist here, fooling Scotland and failing our young people. It is time that he looked deep into the eyes of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Mr Russell, and told him to get this shambles sorted out.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Paul McKenna will be asked to run an additional course on how to be an Opposition leader and not read out my funny lines in rote fashion.

Statistics are quite important, as they are the basis on which a budget proposition is put together. Iain Gray has not questioned the numbers that I cited showing the tens of thousands of people around Scotland who will be helped through Labour’s recession by the action of the Scottish National Party. Those are the facts that Iain Gray does not want to acknowledge or accept, because no one can understand why the Labour Party voted against them in the budget. The SNP Government and a number of parties represented in the chamber decided to vote for the budget precisely because it helped young people and others in Scotland who are suffering the effects of Labour’s recession. The Labour Party is not only culpable for causing the recession in the first place but doubly culpable for refusing to support measures to help people through its recession. That is why no amount of coaching or training will ever turn Iain Gray into an effective politician.

Prime Minister (Meetings)

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-2240)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Freedom of the press and the independence of broadcasters are key pillars of a democratic society. The First Minister is under suspicion of undermining those pillars and using taxpayers’ money to compromise the impartiality of Scottish Television. That is why yesterday the Office of Communications launched an official investigation into the affair. The issue is causing concern, and the First Minister must be totally transparent.

Indeed, yesterday we got “full disclosure” from the Government, which revealed that it had spent £625,000 of taxpayers’ money on sponsoring programmes on STV. We know that other money is spent on advertising, but has any more taxpayers’ money been spent by the Government or its agencies on sponsoring programmes? Can the First Minister confirm that yesterday’s statement was full disclosure?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The figure was £618,000 according to my notes, and it was certainly disclosure.

The point about the statement is that there was a demand from another Opposition leader—Iain Gray—to reveal how much money the SNP had given STV since 2007. The Scottish Government allocated and spent a budget of £618,000 for sponsoring programmes. One interesting fact in the disclosure—presumably, this was unknown to Iain Gray when he demanded it—was that, although that is a substantial sum, it is half as much as was spent by the previous Labour Administration. I know that Annabel Goldie relished there being full disclosure in our answers and that she was not responsible for the previous Administration, but now that that fact has been fully ventilated perhaps it will allow her to put into context some of the rather absurd suggestions to which she seemed to allude.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I asked the First Minister whether we had been given full disclosure on Government expenditure on sponsoring programmes. His response, if I may say so, is both intriguing and troubling. I have here a document from Scottish Natural Heritage that confirms that more taxpayers’ money was used to sponsor other programmes on STV. That begs the question what else the First Minister is hiding and how much more taxpayers’ money has been spent. Why is he not being transparent? Is there anything else that he needs to reveal after his so-called “full disclosure” yesterday?

For example, I have here an example of the Government’s response to freedom of information requests from the Sunday Express, but it is pretty obvious that not much information is being disclosed by these responses. Indeed, I think that for the First Minister FOI must stand for “full of ink”. Will he undertake this afternoon to issue unredacted documentation to take us at least one step closer to full disclosure?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Let me see if I can help Annabel Goldie with full disclosure by giving her the breakdown of the expenditure that the Government has made on sponsoring programmes on STV. In 2009-10, £18,000 was spent on the children’s panel programmes. In 2009-10, we sponsored “Make Me Happier”—something that I try to do myself at every possible opportunity—which was a series of programmes to promote the well-being of Scots, fronted by Lorraine Kelly, that looked holistically at how exercise and so on can help our mental state. That is something that I try to do as well. There was also £150,000 spent on the homecoming series.

I recently for the first time saw two of the programmes—which, incidentally, were watched by 2.517 million Scots, or more than half the population, which seems a considerable success for Scottish programming—but I had nothing to do with the content of the programmes. I am not, therefore, in a position to apologise for the fact that one of the programmes was introduced by Alastair Campbell playing the bagpipes—that was not a sinister attempt to undermine the credibility of the Labour Party in Scotland—or that Sir Menzies Campbell chaired the judging panel on another of the programmes. Nor am I responsible for Charles Kennedy introducing another of the programmes—that was not an attempt to remind people that the Liberal party once had an outstanding leader who used to get lots of votes—as none of those things was my responsibility. All that I was trying to do was to encourage more Scottish programmes and more Scottish jobs so that Scotland and homecoming could be increasingly successful.

With that assurance, will Annabel Goldie please accept that that is a perfectly acceptable and proper way to spend public money in Scotland?

Cabinet (Meetings)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2241)

The First Minister (Alex Salmond): The next meeting of Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

This week is Scottish tourism week. Last night, in the Parliament, industry leaders predicted that 2010 will be a tougher year. Extra burdens on Scottish tourism could cost jobs and businesses. Why then are so many Scottish hotels facing an increase in their business rate bills from 1 April that are way above inflation? Their business turnover is being hit in these tough economic times, but their business rate bills are going up by 20 per cent, 40 per cent, 80 per cent and even 120 per cent. Does the First Minister think that that is fair?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Tavish Scott should well know, rating valuation is done by independent assessors and not by the First Minister or Government. What the Government has done, of course, is to drive down business rates in Scotland. The small business bonus scheme is incomparably the best deal for small businesses anywhere in these islands. Furthermore, the rating valuation position between Scotland and the rest of the UK is at its best level ever in the favour of Scottish business. Given that range of actions that the Government is taking forward, some of which were supported by the Liberal Democrats, surely Tavish Scott will have to accept that the promotion of Scottish business has been a central aspect of this Government. We do not control the independent valuer nor should we do so.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The information is on the First Minister’s Government website. I was not asking the First Minister about general business rates, but about the detail of hotels in Scotland. We should look at the bills that they face in just three weeks time: Stobo Castle will get a £25,000 increase in its bill; Prestonfield House in Edinburgh will get a 70 per cent increase; and the Queens Hotel in Lerwick will have to pay 65 per cent more. Let us look at the hotels where the Cabinet stayed during its summer tour last year: Malmaison in Aberdeen, the Apex in Dundee, the Radisson SAS in Glasgow, The Townhouse Hotel in Melrose, and—for the First Minister—Dryburgh Abbey Hotel. The increase in business rates that those hotels will have to pay in the new year are respectively 42 per cent, 59 per cent, 43 per cent, 31 per cent and 120 per cent. Will the Government change its mind and help Scottish hotels that are facing these eye-watering increases?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Tavish Scott should accept that the valuations of individual premises were carried out not by the First Minister but the independent assessor who rates individual businesses. That is how the system works. If Tavish Scott believes that the First Minister or Mike Rumbles or anyone else should get into the business of saying what individual properties should be valued at, he would introduce an innovation into the rating system that would be unprecedented in the developed world.

I remind him of the things that the Government is responsible for. The 2010-11 business rate poundage is 40.7p matches that of England and is the lowest national poundage ever set in Scotland. As a result, the overall benefit to Scottish businesses in this coming year has been estimated at over £200 million. The package of reliefs that has been introduced is worth a further £2.4 million over five years. It is the most generous package in the United Kingdom and includes an expansion of the small business bonus scheme. Following revaluation, 60 per cent of Scottish businesses will be better off, with an average saving of over £1,000. Given that Tavish Scott is criticising the independent valuation of the rating assessors, what will he say to the 60 per cent of businesses that will be better off or to the Federation of Small Businesses, which has supported enthusiastically the initiatives that this Government is taking forward.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a constituency question from Willie Coffey.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am sure that the First Minister will share my concern about the evidence that is emerging from the fatal accident inquiry into the tragic death of my constituent Alison Hume in Galston? Will he ensure that the Scottish Government will review the health and safety guidance that the emergency services operate so that saving lives is always the priority and that that is reflected clearly in any revised guidelines?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I thank the constituency member for raising this important matter; one that has caused great public concern. This is a tragic incident for all those concerned. Given that it is the subject of a fatal accident inquiry, it is inappropriate for me to comment on the detail of the incident at this stage. However, subject to the disclosure of the findings, it will be important that lessons are learned and acted upon. Health and safety regulations are, of course, a reserved matter. That said, they impinge on services that are within the devolved remit.

I can advise that work involving the Health and Safety Executive and the Chief Fire Officers Association has been going on for some time on the development of a high-level statement to clarify how health and safety law duties should be complied with in the operational work of the fire and rescue service. I confirm that the Scottish fire and rescue advisory unit will take part in the launch of that statement on Friday 12 March, with a similar event being planned for the Scottish fire and rescue service shortly thereafter.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Last week the First Minister urged the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and ScotRail to resolve what he described as “an unnecessary dispute.” I have with me a letter, which states that the decision to run driver-only trains on the new Airdrie to Bathgate rail link is one for Transport Scotland. That means that, ultimately, it is a decision for ministers.

I am sure that the First Minister did not wish to give a misleading impression to Parliament. Can he confirm that it is a decision for Transport Scotland, and can he tell the Parliament what action his Government will take to resolve the dispute?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Last week, I said that the Government was concerned about the safety arguments that were put forward by the RMT. As a result of a meeting, we did two things. First, we asked Transport Scotland to check with three safety bodies about the operation of driver-and-ticket-examiner trains. The replies that came back indicated that those bodies did not have safety concerns. That should not have been a surprise to Karen Whitefield, because—

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

That is not what I was asking about.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I pointed out last week that about 60 per cent of services that run in Scotland run on that basis. The past Administration operated and launched services on that basis.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

What I was asking—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Ms Whitefield.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Government is taking extremely seriously the points that were made by the RMT. There is to be a further meeting between the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change and the union. Matters of safety—even when we have been assured that they have been examined and that they are satisfactory—are something that we take very seriously, and that is part of the Government’s role and responsibility.

I again urge a resolution to the dispute, because it is an unnecessary dispute—but that is properly a matter for ScotRail and the RMT.

Alcohol Consumption (Pregnancy)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

4. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government plans to tackle the problem of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. (S3F-2251)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government’s alcohol framework outlines a package of measures to tackle alcohol misuse in Scotland. Those include legislative measures that are being developed in the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill, in particular action on minimum pricing and on irresponsible promotions. That is supported by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, ChildLine, Children 1st, the Aberlour Child Care Trust, YouthLink Scotland, Barnardo’s Scotland, Action for Children Scotland, Quarriers and Parenting across Scotland.

The bill is complemented by a range of non-legislative measures, including targeted action on foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, and it is backed by record investment, totalling almost £100 million over three years, in treatment and support services.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The First Minister will be aware that Dr Harry Burns, the chief medical officer, has said that he believes that the incidence of foetal alcohol syndrome disorder in Scotland has been significantly underestimated. Given the impact that the condition can have on the unborn child, and noting the report from Children in Scotland on the matter, does the First Minister agree that the problem demonstrates yet again why all parties represented in the chamber should be united on taking action on alcohol abuse?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

On the specifics of Jamie Hepburn’s question, a team is being put in place to work on foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Part of that work will focus specifically on the prevention of alcohol-exposed pregnancies and on the promotion of healthy pregnancies. A pack of resources on alcohol interventions in the antenatal setting has been developed, and it will be issued to every national health service board by the end of this month.

On the general issue, Jamie Hepburn has made a point about how alcohol misuse can affect unborn children in particular. As we know, and as we must accept, alcohol misuse goes through the range of society. It has a range of dreadful effects on public order and on the public health of Scotland. In those circumstances, it behoves everyone in the Parliament to respond to the enormity of that challenge by examining the measures that the Government is proposing outwith the normal argy-bargy of party politics. This issue above all is an example of what is right, as opposed to who is right.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Does the First Minister agree with Children in Scotland’s submission on foetal alcohol syndrome and foetal alcohol spectrum disorder to the House of Commons Health Committee that accurate measurement of the incidence of the conditions can occur only after there is a critical mass of health practitioners who are able to make the diagnosis correctly? What steps is his Government taking to create such a critical mass?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Ross Finnie’s question is perfectly fair. I know that he recognises the specifics of the action on FASD that I have just listed. As a general proposition, his point seems to me a reasonable one. Therefore, the work of the team that has been put together to undertake specific work on foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is all the more important.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi (Status)

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will provide an update on the status of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. (S3F-2257)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Mr al-Megrahi remains terminally ill with incurable prostate cancer.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On 12 January, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice told the Scottish Affairs Committee in Westminster that Mr Megrahi was “alive and well”. In his other responses to the committee, there was no hint of regret from Mr MacAskill about any aspect of the handling of the entire affair. Since January, the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee has produced a report that was highly critical of many aspects of the process. Would the First Minister now like to offer any words of apology or comfort to those relatives of the Lockerbie victims who were, and continue to be, distressed by his Government’s decision and the process by which it was reached?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I believe that Mr MacAskill took the right decision for the right reasons. Those are the reasons that were articulated at the time. They have been explained and promoted as sensitively as possible and in a way that, as far as is possible in such matters, has avoided unnecessary party politicking.

I attended the meeting of the Scottish Affairs Committee to which Dr Simpson refers and do not agree that the tenor of the submissions across the issue was anything like what he pointed to in that quotation. Whatever people think about the decision, it should be recognised that there was no ulterior or other motive for Mr MacAskill’s decision other than the criteria that he established and outlined in his statement to the Parliament.

Since our initial debates on the matter, we have had some clarity on the United Kingdom Government’s position. The UK Government has maintained that the decision was not for it to make but has said, in the words of the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons:

“British interests, including those of UK nationals, British businesses and possibly security co-operation, would be damaged ... if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 12 October 2009; Vol 497, c 31.]

Given that statement, Richard Simpson should consider carefully the great benefit of the justice secretary of Scotland making a decision based on Scottish judicial principles and no other criteria whatever.

Sex Offenders Disclosure Scheme

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

6. To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government will roll out its proposed plans for a sex offenders disclosure scheme. (S3F-2245)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The roll-out of the Tayside disclosure pilot will, for the first time, empower parents, carers and guardians to access the information that they need to keep children safe. I expect a phased roll-out to begin in the autumn after publication of the evaluation that this Administration commissioned.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I welcome the Tayside pilot’s reported success to date. However, does the First Minister agree that it is a difficult policy area with many complex concerns? For example, the scheme provides for action where there is no criminal record of sexual offences but there are other reasons why the police might be worried about the safety of particular children. That is obviously proper, but it raises the possibility of innocent people being scapegoated. Given that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has already agreed, as the First Minister’s statement confirms, to roll the scheme out across Scotland months before the pilot has finished and before its evaluation, will the First Minister say whether any difficulties have arisen during the pilot that lead to changes needing to be made in the current arrangements for the scheme?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I accept, of course, that the Tayside pilot does not end until May 2010. I think that the evaluation of the pilot is due out in August this year. However, I do not think that that should stop us from examining the experience that we have had with the pilot scheme in Tayside since it was introduced last September. The experience to date not only allays many of the fears about civil liberties that Robert Brown has expressed, but justifies the decision to prepare for the pilot’s roll-out across Scotland.

Robert Brown is not alone in questioning such an initiative, but he should accept the analysis so far. For example, Assistant Chief Constable Iain Livingstone holds the public protection portfolio for the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, and ACPOS is as aware as anyone else of the concerns that Robert Brown has articulated. Iain Livingstone has said:

“The police service in Scotland welcomes the decision to bring forward the implementation of the sex offender disclosure scheme throughout Scotland.”

That statement was made on the basis and experience of the pilot scheme so far.

12:30 Meeting suspended until 14:15.

14:15 On resuming—

Finance and Sustainable Growth

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is themed question time. The whole session will be given over to questions on finance and sustainable growth. Question 1 is from Christopher Harvie.

Regrettably, Christopher Harvie is not here. I therefore move to question 2, from Mike Pringle.

Gilmerton Core Store

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

2. I am glad to say that I am here, Presiding Officer.

To ask the Scottish Executive what notice it was given of the British Geological Survey’s proposal to relocate the national offshore oil and gas core store facility based at Gilmerton in Edinburgh to Keyworth in Nottinghamshire. (S3O-9684)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government did not receive any notice of the British Geological Survey’s proposal to relocate the Gilmerton core storage facility to Keyworth in Nottinghamshire. We became aware of the BGS’s decision following the publication of its report on 24 September 2009. Since then, we have expressed our concern about the proposal direct to the BGS on a number of occasions, including at a meeting on 25 January 2010. We remain concerned and we plan to hold further discussions on the matter.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I appreciate that the minister shares many of my concerns about both the proposed relocation and the business case on which it is predicated. The Edinburgh facility is largely purpose built and it has decades of spare capacity. A recent poll by the Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain revealed that 70 per cent of its interested members were in favour of retaining the store in Edinburgh and there is also widespread academic opposition to the relocation.

Two important outstanding issues are what costs the British Geological Survey attributes to keeping the core store in Edinburgh as opposed to its transfer and whether it has factored in to the business case funding for the transfer of the fragile core store, which is estimated to be worth between £3 billion and £5 billion. I sent the minister some interesting information today about what the BGS thinks the cost would be. Perhaps he could comment on that, and as well as that—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I must hurry you, Mr Pringle.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Will the Scottish Government seek an urgent meeting with the management of the British Geological Survey to examine the serious concerns that are shared by a wide range of stakeholders regarding the business case for the proposed relocation?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I share Mr Pringle’s analysis and his concern about the costs. When we met the executive director of the BGS, Professor John Ludden, on 25 January, we made clear our concerns, which echo Mr Pringle’s. At that meeting, the BGS agreed to hold a stakeholder engagement session, which I would facilitate, to allow Scotland-based users an opportunity to participate in an open and inclusive discussion. We are pressing the BGS to honour that commitment.

There are a number of concerns about the proposed move, including the lack of effective consultation, a subsequent use of opinion, concerns about cost, and the clear impact that it would have on teaching and research, together with concerns about the assumptions and assertions that the BGS has made. We wish it to reconsider its decision and we are doing all that we can to urge it to reflect and change its view.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

What action has the Government taken as a consequence of the poll by the Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain, which is the professional body for practicing geologists? The poll clearly demonstrates widespread opposition to the transfer and the complete failure of the so-called consultation to engage with that key group of stakeholders.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We have noted the results of the poll of PESGB members, which shows that 89 per cent of active users are against the move. We believe that the views that were raised reinforce our concerns about the proposed move and, in particular, the failure properly to consult users of the Gilmerton core store. We are liaising with a number of users and urging the BGS to meet stakeholders to engage fully and address the concerns. I am grateful for the cutting that I have been given from The Press and Journal in which Jeremy Cresswell eloquently summarises a proposition that I think everyone in the Parliament is behind.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can you give members advice on how they might ask supplementary questions when other members who have the primary question are not here in time to pose it?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

As I have said before, I am afraid that they cannot. That is one of the regrettable knock-on effects of members not being here on time. I am aware that you wished to ask a supplementary to question 1, but I am afraid that that cannot be done.

Fin 3 Union Terrace Gardens

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive whether regeneration of Union Terrace gardens in Aberdeen is a matter for Scottish Enterprise or for Aberdeen City Council. (S3O-9718)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Decisions on the future development of Union Terrace gardens in Aberdeen are a matter for Aberdeen City Council in its leadership role, working with its community planning partners, including Scottish Enterprise.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of yesterday’s statement by the leader and deputy leader of Aberdeen City Council that

“there are no proposals for the council to commit expenditure to the development”,

which is currently being consulted on by Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future. Does he agree with them that it is for the Scottish Government to put up any public funding that might go into that project? If so, how and when might such funding be delivered?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As Mr Macdonald knows from the discussion that we had some weeks ago in my office, along with other members who represent north-east constituencies, the Scottish Government takes the view that it is a matter for the citizens of Aberdeen to address whether the Union Terrace gardens development is an approach that they wish to take. I understand that a public consultation on that question is under way. The proposals that ACSEF has set out are very ambitious and would involve participation by a range of organisations. The Scottish Government would certainly be happy to take part in discussions around those issues. As I said in my original answer, Scottish Enterprise is of course a participant in ACSEF, as, I might add, are Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council. The point that I made about the importance of the issue being developed at local level is the key point in taking forward the development of any proposals at Union Terrace gardens.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Should it be decided to pursue the proposed city square scheme to redevelop the Union Terrace gardens, can the cabinet secretary suggest any particular sources of funding that could be accessible to the project?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As Nanette Milne will know, the Government makes a range of interventions in regeneration activity. Scottish Enterprise takes forward different initiatives in relation to the implications of regeneration, leading to commercial development. Those opportunities can be discussed by the partners who are responsible for taking forward the Union Terrace gardens proposal and the relevant bodies in the public sector.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

The cabinet secretary might wish to elaborate further on that. In particular, if the city square project gathers sufficient public support to proceed, how could any public finance, other than direct Aberdeen City Council or Scottish Government finance, be achieved? Could that mechanism be available for other public projects in Aberdeen?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I should have said in response to Dr Milne that significant private sector funding has been pledged to the development by Sir Ian Wood, which is a welcome contribution to the regeneration of the city of Aberdeen. As I said to Dr Milne, there are a range of opportunities, through the Government’s regeneration work and the work of Scottish Enterprise, to take forward such developments. We have to consider specific proposals when they emerge. As I indicated in my answer a moment ago, I have had some discussions with members who represent north-east constituencies and I am happy to have further discussions in due course.

Fin 4 Coalfields Regeneration Trust

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth is planning to renew funding for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which expires at the end of March 2011. (S3O-9700)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I can confirm that all future expenditure plans beyond March 2011 will be subject to the next spending review. The issue that Cathie Craigie raises will be considered at that time.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The Coalfields Regeneration Trust is a charitable organisation, which benefits many groups in Scotland, including the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth unemployed workers centre, in my constituency. It is understandable that the CRT is worried about the funding that it will receive after March 2011 and that the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth unemployed workers centre is concerned that without CRT grant it will face financial difficulty. I appreciate that a spending review is coming up, but can the cabinet secretary tell me whether the CRT will gain backing again from the Scottish Government?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Cathie Craigie’s supplementary question indicates that she accepts some of the constraints under which I operate in the context of my ability to provide a definitive answer to her question. As she knows, the Scottish Government does not yet know what financial settlement will be at our disposal for the period beyond March 2011. It is in the public domain that there will be significant constraints on public expenditure—we have heard those forecasts from the Treasury—so it would be inappropriate of me to give particular commitments.

The work of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which has been supported by the previous Administration and by the current Administration, has been significant in assisting the regeneration of areas that were previously dominated by coal mining activity, including in many parts of the constituency that Mrs Craigie represents. The CRT’s work is appreciated by the Scottish Government.

Small Business Bonus Scheme

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive how many businesses in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire will benefit from the extension to the small business bonus scheme after 1 April 2010. (S3O-9739)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Last year, 5,000 properties in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire—more than a quarter of all business properties—paid no rates at all under the small business bonus scheme. From 1 April, about 300 more business properties in the area are likely to benefit from the expansion of the scheme. That is, of course, only one element in an overall rates relief package that is worth some £2.4 billion over the next five years.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

In the context of the general payment of rates in Aberdeen, will the cabinet secretary outline his thoughts on tax incremental funding, perhaps for projects in Aberdeen such as the Union Terrace Gardens project or combined heat and power plants?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The tax incremental financing model presents many opportunities for expanding the revenue base at local level. I have asked the Scottish Futures Trust to work with a number of local authorities in Scotland to develop tax incremental financing models. That work is being taken forward and I expect to receive the results in due course. The proposal has significant merit.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

In his first response to Mr Don, the cabinet secretary was clear about the number of businesses that benefit from the small business bonus scheme. However, is he aware of the number of businesses in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire that are losing out as a result of a large increase in their rates burden and the lack of availability of the transitional relief that is available in other parts of the United Kingdom? Does he accept that the late setting of and high rate of increase in rates for some of Scotland’s larger businesses is having a detrimental impact, not just on business planning but on jobs and the wellbeing of businesses?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As the First Minister said today, 60 per cent of businesses in Scotland will benefit from a valuation settlement that reduces their valuation. As a consequence of the Government’s manifesto commitment to ensure that the business rate poundage in Scotland was set no higher than the business rate poundage in England, which we have honoured, we have delivered a settlement that results in a saving for businesses of approximately £220 million.

I accept that some businesses face increases in their valuations. They are entitled to appeal the valuations, which have been arrived at by independent valuation personnel around the country. It is quite proper for businesses to advance their positions, which the valuations service will consider in the appropriate way.

INCREASE III Funding

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has had with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment with regard to the percentage of waste prevention projects funded by investment in community recycling and social enterprise III to be terminated in 2010. (S3O-9728)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I have had no discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment on the issue.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Following a delayed start, the communities reducing excess waste project was launched in November 2008, and it has gone from strength to strength. Given the Government’s climate change targets, surely CREW is not the kind of initiative that should be cut. It must be supported and the funding should not be cut halfway through the project. Will the cabinet secretary please review that decision?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

It would be appropriate for me to pass the issue to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, who carries operational responsibility for that programme. According to the information that I have in front of me, the CREW project has not delivered on the performance target that was agreed at the outset. I see that Cathy Peattie is shaking her head. If the information that I have in front of me is incorrect, she should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment and I am sure that he will consider her points.

I suspect that the question was asked in case it is me that it cutting the budget. I should make it clear that the issue is one of the project’s performance and not an accusation about my conduct concerning the size of the budget.

Transmission Charges

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the recommendation on transmission charges in the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee report, “The Future of Britain’s Electricity Networks”. (S3O-9756)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The existing transmission charging regime for use of the Great Britain grid network means that generators in Scotland pay the highest transmission charges in the United Kingdom. Scottish ministers believe that that works against the development of clean, renewable energy in Scotland. We believe that the locational charging methodology applied by Ofgem and the National Grid needs to change to help deliver the transition to a low-carbon economy and help Scotland to play its part in meeting European Union and UK climate change targets. We therefore welcome the concerns that such an influential UK committee is expressing about locational charging, and we fully support its recommendation that the Department of Energy and Climate Change should establish an independent review of transmission charging. We continue to press UK ministers to undertake that independent review quickly and based on the positive work we already have put in hand on changing the minds of Ofgem and the National Grid.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Like the minister, I welcome the report and many of the key recommendations that he has highlighted. Have we yet received any indication from DECC about whether it will accept the committee’s recommendations, particularly on the manner in which the network charging regime discriminates against wind generators, and the recommendation that an independent review should look again at whether locational charging is an appropriate system? If we have not heard from DECC yet, will the minister undertake to continue to press for a positive response to those recommendations?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We are already working closely and productively with DECC. The First Minister and I have argued and will continue to argue strongly and consistently about the need to change the current transmission charging system. As a result, National Grid is now looking at a charging methodology for wind generators that could significantly reduce the transmission costs that it faces. We are also now working on other charging options.

However, it is significant that such a influential UK committee shares our concerns about transmission charging and has highlighted that it

“should not discriminate against renewable energy wherever it is located in Britain.”

That shows that the UK Parliament is listening to the arguments, as are, I trust, others.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

As the minister said, he is aware that transmission charges for intermittent electricity generators are currently under review on the ground that their take-up of transmission is around half that of fossil fuel power stations. What level of reduction in charges does he believe that could bring to the wind energy sector in Scotland? Is he making representations on behalf of the Scottish Government in relation to that review?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Rather than picking a specific number, we are determined to achieve a materially beneficial position. The member knows that we ran a session that brought together Ofgem, National Grid, Scottish academia, Scottish utilities, Scottish renewables interests and the Scottish Government in one room. We now plan to make sure that we bring others, including DECC and generators from other locations in the UK, into that room as we go forward.

I wrote to UK ministers on 25 February to support the committee’s call for an independent review of transmission charges. We will continue to press for that and for positive outcomes that result in a better deal for Scottish generators.

Scottish Futures Trust

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive what cost savings have been delivered by the Scottish Futures Trust. (S3O-9711)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Scottish Futures Trust is working with a range of public sector organisations to deliver substantial value-for-money savings across a number of areas, including transport, schools, community infrastructure, regeneration and affordable housing. Full details of the savings that are achieved will be reported in the SFT’s annual report for 2009-10, which will be published later this year.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

The strategic business case for the SFT stated that it would save £150 million. In reality, it has delivered nothing and is paying £400,000 to consultants. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is the most expensive job creation scheme in Scotland, which is paying over-inflated salaries and stuffing consultants’ pockets full of public money?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

No—I do not agree with that point of view.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I am not surprised.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

No matter how many times Mr Kelly asks the question, I will not agree with him on that point.

The Scottish Futures Trust is working, as I said, on a range of different projects, which includes the work that I mentioned earlier on tax incremental financing, and the work on the schools programme, the hub partnership, the Borders rail line—on which work started yesterday—and the procurement of the NHS Tayside non-profit distributing project on mental health. The SFT is actively involved in a range of different projects and is working to deliver value for money for the taxpayer.

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

Will the cabinet secretary explain how much is expected to be saved on the Borders railway as a result of the SFT’s involvement?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As I said in my answer to James Kelly, any savings that are delivered by the SFT will be reported in the annual report, which is the proper and orderly place in which to put such information in the public domain.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the expensive quango that he has created simply reflects the role of the senior civil service prior to the SFT’s establishment? The aggregation of contracts, the legal documents, the insurances and other procedures—as well as projects such as the hub, the schools project and others—were all previously handled by the civil service.

The SFT is a fig leaf to address the SNP’s manifesto commitment to set up a not-for-profit trust in Scotland, and it simply does not work.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

There have been a number of contributions to the debate on the procurement activities in relation to the last round of private finance initiative projects that were set up around the country. The lack of aggregation was one of the major criticisms about the way in which those projects were procured—a criticism that came not from me, but from Audit Scotland.

The National Audit Office—which I accept has a wider canvass on some of these questions—-warned in November last year that the value for money of 43 major projects with a combined worth of £200 billion was at risk because of significant weaknesses in the Government’s commercial skills and expertise.

That is a United Kingdom report, but it is important that we understand the point that it makes in order to guarantee that we maximise the opportunities to deliver value for money, which is exactly what the Scottish Futures Trust does.

Local Government Finance (Third Sector)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

9. To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment it has made of the impact of the local government finance settlement for 2010-11 on the third sector. (S3O-9696)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The local government finance settlement for 2010-11 of £12 billion has increased local government’s share of the overall Scottish budget to 34.1 per cent, which is up from 33.4 per cent in 2007-08 when the Government came to office. It is for local authorities to use that funding to meet the needs of their communities and deliver the outcomes in their single outcome agreements.

I am confident that they recognise the benefits to the community that accrue from using the third sector to design and deliver local services.