Scottish Parliament, 18 March 2010

282 contributions from 78 members. The official report.

Climate Change

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I apologise for the slight delay in starting, but the lens in my glasses fell out and I am completely blind without them.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I am glad that your lens is now in the appropriate place.

Under rule 8.6.1 of the standing orders, I wish to provide clarity on the position of ministers with regard to amendment S3M-5978.2, in the name of Patrick Harvie. A draft application for the Hunterston proposal, referred to in that amendment, was received by the Government on Monday and is currently going through a formal gate-checking process, subject to a formal application being submitted by Ayrshire Power. The ministerial code says:

“To help ensure the fairness and transparency of the planning system the Planning Minister or any other Minister involved in the planning decision, must do nothing which might be seen as prejudicial to that process, particularly in advance of the decision being taken.”

Therefore, at this stage, ministers should not express any particular view other than that they will consider all representations made to them before reaching any decision on the application. It would be inappropriate for the planning minister to speak to or vote on Patrick Harvie’s amendment, beyond explaining why he cannot. I add that ministers always speak and vote within the boundaries of collective responsibility. Consequently, in this matter they share the responsibility of the planning minister to

“do nothing which might be seen as prejudicial to that process”.

That is, they cannot speak to or vote on Patrick Harvie’s amendment. For completeness, I add that the decision to include Hunterston in the national planning framework 2 document is subject to a possible judicial review.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will answer the first point of order before hearing yours, Mr Harvie.

I am grateful for the minister’s prior notice of his point of order. I am advised that there are no rules about live planning applications in terms of either the admissibility or selectability of an amendment. It is therefore entirely up to ministers how they approach the issue in the debate. I am sure that members will take the minister’s points into account.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

You have dealt with my point of order, Presiding Officer. It was merely to seek clarification that there are no constraints on the Parliament that mirror the comments about the ministerial code and that the Parliament is entitled to express a view on the matter, even if ministers are not.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am happy to confirm that that is the situation.

That being case, we come to the first item of business, which is a debate on motion S3M-5978, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on climate change.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I have great pleasure in speaking to and moving the Labour Party’s motion. The Scottish National Party Government has been happy to pay lip service to tackling climate change and to take the credit for the ambitious targets that we all voted through when passing the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, but it has not followed through quickly enough with the decisive action needed to deliver change.

Last month the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change published a report that advised how the Scottish Government’s targets can be met. We need more action and less talk and the debate gives us the chance to talk together about how we move forward. It is essential that we tie our action on climate change to tackling the recession. That is why we have focused on action that supports our economy and creates new jobs and training in low-carbon technologies. We need to use the tools that Labour added to the 2009 act—public sector procurement, the public sector duty and the public engagement strategy—to deliver transformational change. I hope that the minister will report today on the progress that he has made on tackling the key issues that we identified when passing the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009—energy efficiency, energy, transport and land use.

We all know that the lack of a global deal at Copenhagen was massively disappointing, but as political representatives our job is to get on and deliver the promise that we made to developing countries and those at the sharp end of climate change and show that we meant it when we said that we would act. Last summer, we all said that a we-will-if-you-will approach was not good enough. Our targets are intended to stimulate action and not just support soundbites. The climate change delivery plan that was published in the spring last year aimed to meet only a 34 per cent reduction target. We need a report from the minister on what he has done to revise his plan upwards to meet the tougher targets to which we all signed up.

The UK Committee on Climate Change report is clear that we need new policies to drive the required step change to deliver our targets. That means working with the UK Government and other European Union countries, but it would be totally wrong of the Scottish Government to absolve itself of its responsibility to use its powers to the maximum. The SNP cannot blame others for its lack of delivery on climate change in the past year. It is absolutely clear from the report that the Scottish Government has to deliver more in the non-traded sector. We have no chance of meeting our other targets if we do not get going on transport and buildings, which are core areas in our current emissions.

We are disappointed by the slow rate of progress, although we know that work has been happening—for example, we campaigned for the council tax discount policy, which now looks seriously unambitious. The intention was not to catch up with best practice in England; it was to go beyond it. Will the minister say whether he is happy with the deal that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has put in place? How many houses has he been told will be insulated in the first year? Why is there no sign of action to progress cavity wall insulation, which affects 700,000 houses in Scotland? Why is there nothing on incentives for household renewables?

Although we are still waiting for the energy efficiency targets, parliamentary question after parliamentary question has revealed that householders are simply not making it through the complex filtering of the energy action programme and housing insulation schemes. Those schemes are promising more than they are delivering. We also have the lowest level of new-build housing for decades, so we are not building the new low-carbon developments that are crucial to delivering economies of scale. I will not dwell on permitted development rights for air source heat pumps or mini wind turbines, except to say that we have lost jobs and the situation has been handled appallingly.

Perhaps the minister will talk about the details of the SNP’s boiler scrappage scheme. The minister needs to say when it will start, how many houses it will include and whether it will match the £400 discount in England or the £500 discount in Wales. The minister needs to get a move on. Plumbing companies are now worried that they are missing out because people are delaying ordering their boilers until they see what the Scottish boiler scrappage scheme will consist of.

We need a step change in transport policy. Ministerial cars are symbolic—if they are not low carbon or electric, what message does that send? The rest of the public sector needs a clear lead. The rest of the world is looking at our ground-breaking Scottish companies, such as Allied Vehicles and Axeon Technology, but our companies need to start getting serious orders now, not just three or four cars here or there, but fleets. Prices will not come down until we get economies of scale. Today’s big announcement by Nissan shows that we in Scotland have to get going urgently. Public sector fleets are crucial—the national health service, local authorities and the whole of the public sector, including Scottish Water and the police, need a co-ordinated approach to kick-start the market and get the value for money that we can deliver.

The Liberal Democrat amendment strengthens our motion. We do not need just the cars and the vans; we need the infrastructure to support them. Let us start in the cities that have the critical mass and the distances to make it work. Glasgow has already made a commitment to infrastructure and orders; we need other cities, such as Edinburgh, to follow. It is not just about cars and vans; it is also about high-quality public transport, more walking and cycling options. Will the minister commit to spending a higher proportion of the transport budget on cycling? Colleagues will talk later about the much greater work that needs to be done in support of the bus industry.

The UK Committee on Climate Change is clear that, on the current trajectory, the non-traded emissions in Scotland are above the level that we need to reach to meet our 42 per cent target. In all cases there is a gap between projections and targets, so we need new policies and a step change. The UK Government played a leading role in trying to secure a deal at Copenhagen and has not given up. A raft of new policies will come into effect this year that will help the Scottish Government to meet Scotland’s targets. Renewables will be crucial in meeting those targets. The feed-in tariff kicks in next month and will be a big help in persuading people to introduce into their houses renewables that produce electricity. We need work on low-carbon cars, the electric cars discount, the low-carbon buses initiative and the commitment to high-speed rail, to which we will return in future.

The EU is crucial. In last month’s agriculture debate, I raised the subject of supporting our farmers to continue changing their practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We need the EU landfill targets to keep pushing us to do more on recycling. Every level of Government needs to do its bit, but the Scottish ministers must tell us how they will up their targets in their delivery plan. We need vision, policies and finance to deliver results. We need a step change and we need not only talk about climate change but action. Meeting our aspirations requires a much more collective approach to politics. I hope that the debate will stimulate the Scottish Government to act faster to make the big changes in our economy. We do not want excuses for inaction; we want vision and a timetable for delivery.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the publication of the UK Climate Change Committee Report, Scotland’s path to a low carbon economy; believes that the Scottish Government needs to review its Climate Change Delivery Plan to take into account the passing of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009; believes that there are economic opportunities to be gained from investment in low-carbon technologies and that the Scottish Government needs to take a lead through public procurement, particularly in the fields of transport and construction, and specifically calls on the Scottish Government to put in place a programme to replace its own fleet with low-carbon or electric vehicles and to enable the public and businesses to make the practical changes required to meet the targets set out in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I hope that it will aid the debate if I say that we are prepared to support Mr Johnstone’s and Ms McInnes’s amendments.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government. The debate comes at a timely moment, when we have had the chance to absorb and reflect on the outcome of the Copenhagen climate conference at the end of last year.

Like Sarah Boyack, the Government feels that the Copenhagen proceedings were very disappointing. They did not deliver the hoped-for commitments to emission cuts or a timetable for a new treaty, but the Copenhagen accord can be seen as a first step towards a new legally binding international agreement. It captures recognition from major players—the USA, China, India and Brazil among others—of the need to keep the global temperature rise within two degrees of pre-industrial levels and to support adaptation in the developing world. That is an important step forward, as it brings countries to the table that had expressed varying degrees of reservation.

The United Nations tells us that 70 countries have submitted mitigation targets and plans to the accord, representing more than 80 per cent of global energy emissions.

Scotland retains its position among the leading nations prepared to commit to high ambition in tackling climate change. One of the interesting things in the UK Committee on Climate Change’s advice is that it draws attention to the fact that, on the basis on which the UK Government has set its targets, our 80 per cent is equivalent to 84 per cent, because of our inclusion of shipping and aviation. We will continue to work with other nations, states and sub-state organisations to influence targets across the world and we will, of course, work closely with the UK and the EU, two of our most important partners that have influence over the majority of the emissions in Scotland—an issue that my amendment addresses.

The UK Government wants to broaden, deepen and strengthen the commitments made at Copenhagen, to secure a legally binding framework and increase the EU commitment from 20 to 30 per cent reductions by 2020, provided that there is high ambition from others. We want that to be converted to an unconditional offer of 30 per cent, and we will campaign and engage to try to achieve that.

As part of our commitment to being a responsible nation, I announced in Paris earlier this month our intention to plant 100 million trees by 2015 as part of a 1 billion tree commitment by the Climate Group’s states and regions alliance. That is in the context of a commitment by that alliance to plant one tree for every person on the planet; we are planting 20 for every person in Scotland. That is the kind of policy change that we are implementing. The aims to encourage Governments, businesses and communities worldwide are clear.

We will see a shift in the year ahead to domestic delivery. We are committed to the economic opportunities presented by the low-carbon economy to which Sarah Boyack referred. We provide the certainty that businesses and communities need to plan for a low-carbon future. We are now seeing examples of the low-carbon economy developing at every level in society: in communities, businesses, districts, towns and local authorities. All of society needs to take action. We provide the political driver, working with our colleagues in COSLA, through the new public sector climate action group. Membership is drawn from across the public sector and I co-chair the group with Alison Hay, the COSLA spokesperson for sustainable development.

The subject of Government cars has already arisen. Three years ago, the typical car that we bought had emissions of 138g of CO2 per kilometre; today the figure is 119g. There have been even bigger reductions in respect of ministerial cars. We have put ourselves on the road to setting an example and implementing the agenda that we need to pursue.

The advice that we have had from the UK Committee on Climate Change is complex, but very useful. It shows that it is possible for us to meet the 42 per cent objective that we have set ourselves and we will, of course, continue to work towards that 42 per cent, even in the absence of the European Union stepping up its ambition from 20 to 30 per cent. I am sure that that will reassure many in the chamber.

I thought that I heard Ms Boyack say that she campaigned for what has turned out to be an unambitious council tax discount policy. I think that councils are engaged on the issue. Members will remember that we structured things in the way that we did to allow us to continue to have access to carbon emissions reduction target—CERT—money. I think that that is the right approach for us to take.

We are making the kind of progress that befits our ambitions as the leading country on climate change. We have good relationships with the UK Government at both official and ministerial level. I attended two environment councils with Ed Miliband and we have discussed this subject. We have shared ambition. Scotland has a huge contribution to make to UK ambitions and we will work effectively to ensure that we help the UK deliver its ambitions while also ensuring that we in Scotland do the absolute maximum that we can.

I move amendment S3M-5978.1, to insert at end:

“, and urges the European Union and UK Government to take action to support Scotland’s ambitious plans and targets.”

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am grateful that the minister has committed to supporting both my amendment and that of the Liberal Democrats. Earlier today, Alison McInnes mentioned that my amendment was ungenerous but, typically, the Liberal Democrat amendment is extremely generous with public money. I believe that the two, put together, come to a consensual position that we will be able to support. Consequently, we will support the Lib Dem amendment. I find absolute common ground with the issues that have been brought to the debate by Sarah Boyack’s motion, so I will not oppose anything that it mentions.

In the limited time that is available to me, I will concentrate on one aspect of the motion, which is the issue of replacing Government vehicles with more fuel efficient electric or hybrid vehicles in the long term. We face an enormous problem and it is only partly related to the fact that we have a problem with global warming caused by carbon emissions. We also have a problem that oil reserves will run out in the long term and we have to find an alternative way to operate and run our economy.

The suggestion in the motion that the Government should begin now to replace its fleet of cars with hybrid or electric vehicles is a very good one. It seems likely that, over time, there will be some competition over the technology that we choose to use, but the signs are that the consensus may be heading towards batteries rather than fuel cells as the way to power cars in the future. I understand that the Honda FCX Clarity, which is the most advanced fuel-cell-operated car that is currently available, still costs almost £1 million a unit and, consequently, is unlikely to have an impact in the next 10 or 20 years, so it looks very much as if what we are looking at are electric and hybrid vehicles. For that to happen, we need the Government to commit. That means that I support the principle that the Government should be looking at such vehicles when cars are to be replaced. I would not suggest for a moment that we should be selling off brand new BMWs and replacing them with hybrids this very day, as that is neither energy nor carbon efficient, but when the opportunity arises it should be taken. We also need to look slightly further ahead to find out exactly how the ministerial Prius, or whatever it is, will be refuelled on its long journey to Strichen and back. As a consequence, we must look carefully at the suggestion made in the Liberal Democrat amendment.

If people are to take the risk of buying electric or electric hybrid vehicles, they must believe that they will be able to refuel them as they go around the country. Consequently, it is essential that the Government takes a lead in ensuring that recharging points are available. If we make that move, we will be able to encourage people to make cost-effective decisions to exchange hydrocarbon-fuelled cars for electric or electric hybrid cars, which will benefit the environment, the economy and the owners of those vehicles, as it will be possible to achieve much lower running costs, especially if the system for refuelling them is more broadly available.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I must hurry you.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Green amendment contains some views that I am highly sympathetic towards, but unless I hear otherwise from the minister during the debate, I believe that it is inappropriate for us to force the Government to express views on an issue on which it is sitting in judgment.

I move amendment S3M-5978.4, to insert at end:

“, also noting that, while preserving the environment must not be seen as being in conflict with economic growth, it is vital that current economic circumstances are recognised and that all public expenditure offers value for money to the taxpayer.”

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Thank you. I am sorry to hurry everyone, but we are very short of time.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

The UK Committee on Climate Change’s report has made it clear that we can reach our interim goal of a 42 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, but it will be hard work. To misquote a famous political saying, we must act early and we must act often. Making early cuts in carbon emissions will be extremely important in easing the path towards that target.

I was delighted that the minister reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to reaching the 42 per cent target during the launch of the CCC’s advice. We are under no illusion that meeting that target will be easy, but by staying the course, Scotland is setting an example for the rest of the world to follow, and I am truly hopeful that we can put pressure on the EU to shake off the disappointments of Copenhagen and toughen its commitments. Let us remember that as well as being key to making a real difference in tackling climate change, stronger international targets will help us to meet our national targets.

I am interested in Sarah Boyack’s decision to focus on the Government’s car fleet. Although I recognise that heed must be paid to the cost to the taxpayer, I fully agree that the Government should be looking to shift to low or zero-emission vehicles. In the Scottish National Party’s first two years in power, the Government car service bought 18 new cars—14 diesels and four hybrids. I acknowledge what the minister said about emissions, and we cannot pretend that reversing that trend will have a huge impact on Scottish emissions—unless I am significantly underestimating the extent to which Mr Stevenson and his colleagues are driven around—but it will set an example. If we are to see the step change in reducing emissions from transport, as well as from buildings, waste and electricity, the need for which the CCC’s report highlighted, the Government must take the lead.

I am sure that the minister will recognise the language of my amendment from last summer’s climate change delivery plan, in which the planning and development of a battery-charging infrastructure is identified as a must-do for the “transformational change” of a wholesale switch to electric vehicles in the 2020s. Of course, such a switch cannot happen overnight, but if it is to happen at all, people will need to be sure that the right infrastructure is in place—or, at the very least, that it is properly planned for. Until a comprehensive charging network is planned for, electric cars can never be much more than gadgets—cars for short journeys—with petrol-fuelled cars remaining kings of the A roads. Once plans are in place for a charging infrastructure and there is evidence that the Government and the country are serious about making that change, even if it will not be completed for some years, people can at least start to give electric cars genuine consideration. Nissan’s announcement today is very welcome. The private sector is stepping up and the Government needs to match that action.

The UK Government launched its plugged-in places infrastructure framework in November by offering funding to create charging infrastructure in lead cities across the UK. London, north-east England and Milton Keynes were successful in the first round, and several other cities and regions were marked as having made strong bids. Disappointingly, no Scottish city or region was mentioned. Given that the second deadline for submissions is in June, I strongly urge the Government to work with local authorities, businesses and other organisations to share its expertise and seriously explore whether a suitable submission could still be made. I am sure that the minister would agree that it would be a crying shame if Scotland were to miss out not only on the chance to support the early market for electric vehicles, but on helping to shape the future of Britain’s transport infrastructure. From this point on, it will be a crying shame if Scotland misses out on any such opportunity.

The Committee on Climate Change made it clear that a step change is needed right across the country. In Parliament and in Government we must show that we are happy to set an example but, equally, we must show that we are serious about providing the infrastructure that is necessary if the rest of the country is to make that change.

I move amendment S3M-5978.3, to insert after “vehicles”:

“, to bring forward the planning and development of a national vehicle battery-charging infrastructure”.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am grateful that you finished 20 seconds early.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The last time that we debated climate change I expressed a little boredom with simply restating the very partial consensus that exists. We have established consensus of intent on where we want to get to, but we have not established consensus on the action that we should take.

It is clear from the Labour motion and what Sarah Boyack said that action is needed on a wide range of policy issues. We all agree that reducing energy demand in the home is a good thing to do, but no Government has yet set out an energy descent path for housing in Scotland and said how we can achieve it.

I agree strongly with what has been said about electric vehicles—indeed, I have made the same case in the past—but until the same issues around demand that we take for granted in relation to energy use and waste are expressed in relation to transport and we recognise that ever-increasing mobility is no longer a public good, let alone a sustainable policy, we will not make progress.

On land use, on food production, on consumerism and on the values that underpin our economy, we need a transformation.

In general, I welcome all the amendments. I am even happy to support Alex Johnstone’s amendment, which someone who was less generous than I am might have described as another attempt to demonstrate the message, “If you vote blue, you don’t get Green.” I agree with Alex Johnstone to the extent that limits on growth should not be seen as a source of conflict, as they are simply the natural state of life in an ecosystem. Therefore, I will not object to his amendment.

Energy is key. A contentious energy proposal has been put forward in recent days—the proposal for a new, largely unabated coal-fired power station at Hunterston. I understand that we cannot force the Government to state its view at this point, but I expect the Parliament to express its view on the proposal at this point.

Let us listen to the views that we have heard from outside the Parliament. RSPB Scotland said:

“This proposal at Hunterston would cause direct environmental harm and result in significant additional greenhouse gas emissions, and should not go ahead as currently proposed. RSPB Scotland does not believe that new, largely unabated coal fired power stations are appropriate in light of our ... climate change targets.”

It will come as no surprise that Friends of the Earth Scotland made similar comments, although it was much more succinct and to the point. It said:

“Scotland needs neither new coal nor new nuclear power.”

The convener of the church and society council at the Church of Scotland said:

“This proposal represents the first real challenge for the Scottish Government’s much applauded climate change act”.

On carbon capture and storage, he said:

“This technology is still in its infancy and has never been proven at the scale required to work”.

He asked the Parliament

“to reject any new coal fired power station”—

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I, too, am opposed to the Hunterston proposals as they stand, but is it fair to lodge an amendment in the knowledge that ministers cannot vote on it, given that they will have to consider what is a live application? The rest of us can vote on it but, as Alex Johnstone said, it puts ministers in an invidious position.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Had you been here on time, Mr Gibson, you would have heard a point of order on that very issue.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

As the Presiding Officer made clear, my amendment is admissible. It is entirely appropriate for us, as members of the Scottish Parliament, to express our view on the issue at this point.

Others views include that of Labour’s Lewis Macdonald, who said:

“A new plant in Hunterston now is the wrong technology in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

Ross Finnie’s proposed members’ business motion also makes serious criticisms of the proposal, and I have circulated a paper that contains criticisms of carbon capture and storage technology, which it suggests may be

“a profoundly non-feasible option for the management of ... emissions.”

Let us kill off this proposal right now—let us vote against it at 5 o’clock.

I move amendment S3M-5978.2, to insert at end:

“; also opposes new unabated coal power capacity, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to reject plans to build a new coal-fired power station at Hunterston, given that large-scale carbon capture and storage at existing coal or gas plants has never been successfully demonstrated.”

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate, particularly as I am a newer member of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

As has been said, the Parliament’s passing of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 was an historic landmark. Members worked hard at amending and strengthening the legislation, which was a collective piece of work. After all, we could not have achieved everything we had hoped to achieve without the support of community-based and non-governmental organisation coalitions, and again we have to look to communities for solutions. Now that the act is in place, the Scottish Government has to follow it up with actions that deliver on its intentions.

Transport and buildings contribute the largest share of emissions in the non-traded sector. However, by concentrating work on those areas, we can make a difference, and efforts to tackle climate change can generate many jobs in new sectors such as alternative energy production and building insulation. We also need to link in essential training for such jobs. Indeed, I was pleased to hear an update on that very matter at Monday’s job summit at Dundee College with UK minister Ann McKechin, at which it was pointed out that over recent years many courses in the college have been developed to train people for exactly such job opportunities.

Last year, the trade union group of the campaign against climate change organised a conference of 200 union activists, and the resulting report called for a million new green climate jobs across the UK. It is essential that we in Scotland play our part in reaching that target.

In responding to the report from the UK Committee on Climate Change, which analyses in depth our path to a low-carbon economy, the Scottish Government will have to review its climate change delivery plan. Will the minister ensure that guidance to public bodies has a strong focus on low-carbon procurement? Emissions from transport are, in fact, increasing, but there are still many actions that ministers can take. The Labour motion specifically calls on the Scottish Government to replace its own car fleet with low-carbon or electric vehicles to provide a lead to others. As the Liberal Democrat amendment makes clear, to drive the required step change, the Scottish Government needs to support the provision of electric car-charging infrastructure by, for example, following up and extending the joined cities plan in which Glasgow has been chosen to participate.

Such action would have positive knock-on effects for jobs. For example, in Dundee, advanced battery manufacturer Axeon Technology is developing new high-energy battery chemistries that are ideal for plug-in electric vehicles. That work is particularly essential given that from next January the £5,000 plug-in car grant, which is intended to persuade people to transfer to more environmentally friendly electric cars to reduce carbon emissions, will be available throughout the UK.

Climate change is an international issue, and its serious consequences do not respect national boundaries. Indeed, it must be the least nationalist and most internationalist issue that we will have to face in the coming decades, and the maxim “Think globally and act locally” is still relevant. One example of that is the University of Dundee’s work on and involvement in the ACQWA—assessing climate impacts on the quantity and quality of water—project, which is a European Commission-financed five-year international project examining the consequences of climate change for communities in places such as Chile and the Alps, where the melting of mountain glaciers and snow contributes significantly to water resources. However, although the University of Dundee carries out global research, it also acts locally. Last week, it was in the news as the first employer in Tayside to receive the cycle friendly award for encouraging its staff to cycle to work.

It is up to every one of us to change our behaviour in order to reduce our carbon footprint, and I urge the minister as a matter of urgency to take up the challenges that have been identified this morning.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 provides the substantial foundations for this country’s contribution to the collective international battle against climate change. However, putting down those foundations was, in many respects, the easy part. The hard part is to build on that powerful start by taking the tough decisions that will ensure that we deliver on our targets, and the UK Committee on Climate Change’s report leaves no doubt about how tough that work will be.

The 2009 act was passed unanimously by Parliament last June. In the same month, the Scottish Government published its climate change delivery plan, which, as it points out, was prepared as a

“precursor to the more detailed statutory Report on Proposals and Policies to be produced”

this year,

“which will set out how we will meet our annual targets”.

That report will, as this morning’s motion demands, take full account of the passing of the 2009 act and the UK committee’s own recent report.

The motion draws specific attention to transport and, in particular, low-carbon vehicles. That very point has already been covered in the Government’s initial delivery plan, in which it is accepted that almost complete decarbonisation of road transport is needed by 2050 with significant progress by 2030 through wholesale adoption of electric cars and vans.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We are all tight for time this morning, so I will not.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Very wise.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Against that background, it is appropriate that the Government plans a programme for ensuring that its fleet comprises only low-carbon or electric vehicles. However, such a move must be combined with the development of the infrastructure required to support the use of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles across Scotland. Indeed, that step, which would make the decarbonisation of the Government fleet significantly easier, is also referred to in the first delivery plan.

Although it is important for the Scottish Government to lead from the front and change its fleet of 209 vehicles to low-carbon vehicles, I find it difficult to resist the temptation to compare such a move with the carbon reduction that could have been achieved if last week the UK Government had committed to a high-speed rail link all the way to Scotland instead of allowing it to hit the buffers in Birmingham. Moreover, work to deal with the wider public sector fleet has already begun. Very shortly after the 2009 act was passed, the Government issued a consultation on low carbon vehicles, which included the proposal of 100 per cent LCV use in the public sector by 2020. It is a shame that that vision is not shared by Labour’s colleagues in the administration at South Lanarkshire Council, which has stated that any updating of electric vehicles is 20 years or more away, or by Glasgow City Council, which has urged the setting of a less ambitious target.

The motion also calls for a programme

“to enable the public and businesses to make the practical changes required to meet”

our targets. No one can disagree with that, but unfortunately time does not permit anything approaching a detailed discussion of the work that is already going on in that respect, including the climate challenge fund and energy assistance package, to name but two of the many projects that are already under way.

The motion is also right to highlight the economic opportunities of investing in low-carbon technologies. The Scottish Government is helping to facilitate such investment with, for example, its decision on the Beauly to Denny line and the £10 million saltire prize. Those are two further examples of the work that is already going on.

The first bricks have been laid on the foundations put down by the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Of course, as we all agree, there is much more work to be done, and I look forward to the Government’s statutory report on proposals and policies, which will be published later this year.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

We all know that we face an enormous challenge, given that, if there are no changes to the EU emissions trading scheme, a 47 per cent reduction in emissions will probably be required in the non-traded sector. As a result, we must be very bold in the positive actions that we take and avoid the negatives at all costs. In that respect, I totally agree with Patrick Harvie that we should reject the largely unabated coal-fired power station proposal for Hunterston.

Of course, good things are happening. For example, I was very pleased by this week’s leasing announcement, particularly as it included Pelamis Wave Power, which is based in Leith. However, the announcement was put into perspective by comments from Professor Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh, a key figure in the development of wave power, who said that all that was given was a licence and none of the necessary financial support. A month ago today, I visited Pelamis and heard about the issues that it faces. For example, although it does not use a large part of the building in which it is based, the size and height of the building are still taken into account in the rates bill. I have written to the minister on the matter but I believe that, if something cannot be done about such issues, other kinds of financial support must be given to Pelamis and other such companies. The previous Administration’s wave and tidal energy support scheme is now closed to new applicants. I know that money is tight but in such times we must look to the long term and few things are more important to Scotland’s future than the development of renewable energy.

In any case, the issue is not always money; will is also an issue, and that is certainly the case with regard to cycling. A couple of weeks ago, I praised the tackling obesity action plan’s commitment to creating

“environments that make walking and cycling part of everyday life for everyone”.

However, when a day or two later I received at my house the bulletin from the cycling organisation Spokes, I was alarmed to read on its front page that

“the SNP government could end up the only Scottish administration”

since devolution

“with total cycle investment lower in every year of office.”

Simply moving a small part of the enormous roads budget could make an enormous difference to cycling.

I point out that at the moment very little cycle training is available for young people. Indeed, an article in the Edinburgh Evening News suggested that only one in six children in Edinburgh primary schools receive such training.

The motion refers to public procurement, including public sector vehicle procurement, which is highlighted in the climate change delivery plan. Five years ago, when I was a minister, I was driven around in a hybrid car, which the driver took great pleasure in, and I am astonished to hear that the majority of cars bought by the present Administration have been traditional vehicles. The Government must do something about that, and it must put something about low-carbon procurement in the guidance to local authorities that it must issue under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.

The built environment is obviously key. We must get a move on with universal home insulation and with the council tax rebate for energy efficiency and microgeneration measures. The scheme that was announced in Edinburgh this week is inadequate. It comes to only £60, and people have to use Scottish Gas for the work. It is a start, I admit, but much more is needed. We must also get on with permitted development rights for microgeneration. I am sorry to mention my own time in office again, but despite my consulting on the matter in 2006, there is still a proposal on requiring microturbines to be 100m away from the nearest building.

Can we do something about listed building and planning consent for double glazing and similar measures, applications for which are often rejected? The whole Government needs to work across departments on the climate change agenda.

Finally, we must get on with the public engagement strategy.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I believe that there is more that unites us than divides us in the debate. As it is such an important subject, I am really sorry that it has been allowed only half the time that it deserves. There are many details that we cannot deal with in the very short time that has been allocated. If Labour really believed in having the debate, it might have given it all the time available this morning. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

We can see the work that is being done on the abatement of carbon emissions in land use. A nice addition would be to have support from across the Parliament for investment in retaining peat lands. I am glad that Sarah Boyack, Liam McArthur and I have proposed a motion on that. If we invested about £60 million a year, we would get £120 million back by saving carbon—simply by changing the land use, blocking up drains and so on. We can do that work, but it raises the whole question of money. In these tight financial times, each time someone asks for money to be spent we have to know where it will from.

I wonder whether Malcolm Chisholm and others who want more money to be spent on public procurement, engagement and so on will join me in campaigning in a united fashion against the possible increase in rental charges by the Crown Estate commissioners for our sea bed. That is the rumour. The matter is not within our power, but we should be able to harness the funds to spend in Scotland. Transmission charge costs are huge in the north of Scotland, where the main power sources lie. Do we have a united voice in Parliament to get that money and put it into efforts to address climate change?

It is important for the Government to take a lead and it is a good idea for MSPs to do so, too. I have done so in a small way recently, by using the Energy Saving Trust’s scheme to set up thermal solar panels on our house. That followed the recent challenge to MSPs.

Everybody who has £3,000 or £4,000 to invest could be improving their own house. Many people could, instead of going on a holiday to Australia, easily be carrying out those measures in their own country. Of course, many others cannot do that, and we must find the money to support them, too. That is the task before us. I suggest that the moneys that are wasted on rents to the Crown Estate and on paying for transmission charge access could be recycled in that direction.

We will discuss cycling in greater detail when we come to debate the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee’s active travel inquiry. In the meantime, I have a question for Labour members. If they wanted more money for cycling in the budget, where was their amendment? If we are to discuss such matters, we must ask Labour members to decide, when money is allocated, whether they want it to be used for such purposes; then we can see what the Parliament decides.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

It is important for energy to be made more affordable if vehicles are to be able to run both on electric batteries and on hydrogen. In our area, a hydrogen corridor is being planned between Aberdeen and Inverness. Large fleets of vehicles, such as those that are run by the Royal Mail—it has are more than 30,000 vehicles throughout Britain—will be powered by electricity by 2020. Royal Mail already has a hydrogen vehicle operating in Stornoway, and it is seeking sites for others. We have been involved in supporting such measures, and the Government has supported the hydrogen corridor. It is precisely those elements, involving the private sector and major bodies working in partnership with the Government, that will allow us to achieve the aims that we all want to achieve.

George (Labour, Lothians)

I congratulate Shirley-Anne Somerville on one of the best arguments in favour of the Edinburgh tram scheme that I have heard. I look forward to her continuing support for it outwith the chamber.

Scottish Executive ministers are rightly asking us all to be aware of the dangers of global warming and to recognise that we all contribute to climate change by our individual actions. They urge us all to change our habits and reduce our carbon footprints. However, as Alison McInnes said, as MSPs—particularly those of us in positions of leadership—we need to lead by example. I commend my colleague Sarah Boyack for setting a very good example by regularly travelling here and elsewhere by bike. I also commend Stewart Stevenson, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change—and I really mean this—for regularly using public transport for official engagements.

There the leadership comes to a sudden, dramatic stop as far as the Scottish Executive is concerned. For the past three years I have been asking parliamentary questions to try to shame ministers into changing their travel arrangements so that they are more environmentally friendly. Apart from Stewart Stevenson, they all seem shameless. One PQ covered a random three-week period in which Stewart Stevenson took 15 journeys by train, Richard Lochhead managed one, but none of the other ministers took to the railways.

In August 2009, I asked for information on all the rail journeys that were undertaken by cabinet secretaries and ministers during the previous financial year. Again, Stewart Stevenson led the way, but Nicola Sturgeon, Keith Brown, Adam Ingram, Alex Neil, Stewart Maxwell, Kenny MacAskill, Fergus Ewing and even the Minister for Environment, Roseanna Cunningham, could not be prised out of their luxurious ministerial limousines on to public transport. Who wins the trophy? The First Minister, of course. He probably has the biggest carbon footprint of anyone in Scotland. He has never travelled by public transport on any official engagement. His journeys by official car include one from Bute house to 10 George Street. I could do that in two minutes. [Laughter.] I mean on foot.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member take an intervention?

George (Labour, Lothians)

The minister can make his point when he replies to the debate.

The First Minister regularly rides in style on the short journey from St Andrew’s house to Holyrood, missing the glory of the Royal Mile. It is a journey that he and I could do to our advantage if we walked it regularly. Indeed, that is what I do, probably because I know that there is a guarantee that I will not meet the First Minister as I walk.

I also lodged a number of parliamentary questions asking what each individual minister and cabinet secretary is doing to reduce their carbon footprint, but I have received only holding answers.

The greatest hypocrisy and irony came last December, when the First Minister went uninvited to the Copenhagen conference on climate change, taking with him no fewer than 10 officials, at a cost of nearly £3,000 and adding to the climate change problem. He compounded the irony by agreeing a statement with the President of the Maldives, and now he is going to fly to the Maldives, where the water is rising. If the First Minister keeps flying to the Maldives, they will be covered with water before long.

For Alex Salmond—this is a serious point—it is not do as I do but do as I say. If we followed his example, the dangers of climate change would increase exponentially. We all have to set an example. Until Alex Salmond is removed from office—which will not be very long from now—I urge everyone to follow the examples of those of us who are proud to travel using the excellent bus service in Edinburgh and the excellent railways throughout the United Kingdom.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We move to wind-up speeches.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I think that George Foulkes’s recent parliamentary questions have given us good value for money. I am sure that I can say with confidence that he has forsworn ever to use domestic aviation again for travel from London back up to Scotland.

In my opening speech, I referred to a research paper—which I have circulated to Opposition parties and to the Government—that informs our comments on carbon capture and storage and our attitude to the Hunterston proposal. I have no doubt that the paper will not be the last word on carbon capture and storage and I agree that research should be undertaken to explore whether the technology is possible. However, let me quote from the abstract of the paper, which was published in the Journal of Petroleum Science & Engineering. It states:

“Published reports on the potential for sequestration fail to address the necessity of storing CO2 in a closed system. Our calculations suggest that the volume of liquid or supercritical CO2 to be disposed cannot exceed more than about 1% of pore space. This will require from 50 to 200 times more underground reservoir volume than has been envisioned by many, and it renders geologic sequestration of CO2 a profoundly non-feasible option for the management of CO2 emissions.”

Under “Conclusions”, the authors state that the findings of the research do not bode well

“for geologic CO2 sequestration and ... clearly suggest that it is not a practical means to provide any substantive reduction in CO2 emissions, although it has been repeatedly presented as such by others.”

As I said, the research paper will not be the last word on CCS, but it throws serious doubt on the technology.

CCS might work one day, but we do not know that yet. Therefore, it would be quite wrong to approve new coal-fired capacity, whose emissions would be largely unabated even with an element of CCS, simply on the basis of a technology that currently remains speculative and which might—only might—be available in future. If CCS does not work, we will be left with the suggestion—the words are, I think, at least a couple of decades old—that a recent Friends of the Earth conference heard from Nimmo Bassey, who said simply:

“leave the coal in the hole”.

Therefore, I am happy to sign Ross Finnie’s motion opposing the Hunterston proposal, but that cannot be enough. The Parliament should reject the proposal by agreeing to an amended motion at decision time today.

On electric vehicles, which have been the subject of much focus during the debate, I agree with much that has been said, especially about charging infrastructure. In our big cities, such as Glasgow and Edinburgh, much of the property is composed of tenemental accommodation. I live on the third floor of a tenement. If I was going to buy a car, why on earth would I buy a car that I could not charge even in my own street? The installation of charging points in such streets is possible—they could run off street lamp or domestic electricity supply—but will not be cheap or easy. Thought needs to be given to how it will be done, otherwise no one will buy those much more efficient cars when they come on to the market. I agree that opportunities exist for public sector procurement. Changing how we use procurement does not mean spending more money; it means spending it differently.

On cycling, which Malcolm Chisholm highlighted, some of the small-scale, cheap-and-easy transport measures simply do not have anything like the political momentum behind them that has been given to the most vast, wildly expensive transport projects that will actually make climate change harder to deal with. One example of that is high-speed rail, on which there are two views. Unless we are willing to constrain domestic aviation, high-speed rail will not bring an environmental benefit. We must challenge the prominence of mobility in the transport debate.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

This has been a brief but useful debate, not least in confirming that George Foulkes is stalking the First Minister’s every carbon footprint. The debate has also re-emphasised that, despite all the talk of world-leading pieces of legislation, the action that we take—and that alone—will determine whether we achieve what the UK Committee on Climate Change report describes as “challenging but achievable” targets.

Like my colleague Alison McInnes, I welcome the minister’s commitment to the 42 per cent interim target. I acknowledge that the process of getting there will not be easy or straightforward, but progress will not be made any easier if ministers and their officials fail to engage fully and in early course with those who are expected to contribute. The attempt to put NorthLink Ferries sailings to the northern isles on reduced power is a case in point. I trust that the minister has learned lessons from the way in which that consultation was handled.

Although ferry sailings might be lower down the list of priorities for other members, common cause can surely be found—this was demonstrated during the debate—on the development and roll-out of low and zero-carbon vehicles. As Alison McInnes rightly pointed out, the Government has as yet failed to grasp the opportunity to lead by example. If we are to see the widespread take-up of electric vehicles that was part of the transformational change called for in the climate change delivery plan, ministers must make early efforts to remove obstacles by making a commitment to put in place the necessary infrastructure. Alex Johnstone made some excellent points about the link between Government commitment and public confidence. At this stage, that might go no further than ensuring that such infrastructure is being properly planned for, but we certainly need to see evidence that the issue is being taken seriously by ministers.

As Alison McInnes pointed out, in contrast to south of the border where charging infrastructure has been introduced under the plugged-in places project, nothing appears to be happening so far in Scotland. Ministers must work with local authorities, businesses and others to explore options for submitting a bid later in the year. I know that there is certainly an appetite for that in my constituency. Notwithstanding Sarah Boyack’s and Patrick Harvie’s comments about Glasgow and Edinburgh, Orkney seems, on the face of it, ideally suited to developing electric car infrastructure, given the limited mileages that are travelled. Likewise, given the on-going restrictions of grid capacity—an issue that I hope can and will be resolved in the near future—piloting an electric vehicle roll-out in Orkney would help to mop up excess local electricity generation that cannot be exported at present. The offer is there, if the minister chooses to take it up. In return, I can confirm that the Liberal Democrats will support the minister’s amendment at decision time.

We will also support Patrick Harvie’s amendment. I entirely agree with what has been said about the impact that the addition of 1,200MW of unabated emissions from a new coal-fired power station at Hunterston would have on our climate change objectives. CCS has an important role to play in the abatement of existing emissions. That is why we support the proposals for Longannet. By contrast, the proposal for Hunterston would in effect drive a coach and horses through the Government’s stated ambitions.

The Tory amendment could be interpreted as a wish that efforts to tackle climate change be put on the back burner. Like others, I welcomed the emergence of Alex Johnstone’s late-blossoming green side during the passage of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. While not entirely convincing, his performance was undoubtedly touching to watch. However, I was reassured by his opening speech in the debate, so we will support his amendment.

The time constraints, as others have observed, have prevented any real, substantive discussion of the range of issues on which detail is crucially needed, but the message from today’s parliamentary debate has been clear. I hope that the minister will now heed that message and, in the words of Alison McInnes, act early and act often.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am pleased that the Labour Party has chosen to make climate change the topic of its debating time today, given the pressing need for Scotland to make progress towards a low-carbon economy in order to achieve the targets in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. However, like others, I think that the subject would have been worthy of a full morning’s debate to allow a more in-depth discussion of the important issues that have been raised in the recently published UK Committee on Climate Change report and by many members this morning.

It is clear that Scotland’s interim target of a 42 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, in comparison with 1990 levels, is ambitious. With some sectors unlikely to achieve that target, others will need to achieve significantly more if the economy-wide target of a 42 per cent cut in emissions is to be reached. However, there are real opportunities for reducing emissions from the energy-intensive industries that are covered by the EU emission trading scheme, particularly in the power sector, where the investment in renewable electricity that is already well under way also has the potential to open up significant employment and other economic benefits. In that area, the Government is well aware of its important enabling role. However, my party believes that, in order to ensure secure, affordable, low-carbon energy, we need a balanced mix of energy provision in which renewables and nuclear are complementary.

In the short time available, I will touch briefly on the non-traded sector, which the Committee on Climate Change believes will need to achieve up to 47 per cent cuts in emissions if we are to meet the economy-wide target of 42 per cent. That is a tall order, for which sustained co-operative working will be required among Government, businesses large and small, and individuals. However, the target is reckoned to be achievable by adopting a wide range of measures—which have been amply expanded on by Sarah Boyack and others—such as improved energy efficiency, increased levels of heat penetration, cars that are more fuel and carbon efficient and reduced agricultural emissions.

Ahead of the debate, members received two briefings from RSPB Scotland, of which I declare my membership, and NFU Scotland, which make some important points about land use and climate change. RSPB Scotland highlights the opportunities to reduce emissions significantly through the restoration and conservation of our peatlands—an issue that Rob Gibson touched on. Our peatlands are of international repute and are recognised as important carbon sinks. Peatland restoration is cited as being cheaper than many other forms of carbon abatement, and it has the benefit that a single initial expenditure can lead to indefinite carbon reduction and long-term carbon sequestration. It also brings financial benefits through local employment and tourism.

NFU Scotland rightly stresses the importance of farming to food security while accepting that food production will always lead to some emissions. If our growing world population is to be fed, a sustainable agricultural industry is essential, and appropriate management of nutrients, livestock and soil can ensure that food production methods become more sustainable. Further research into those areas will help the industry to continue its fight against climate change. There has already been some success, with UK emissions of methane and nitrous oxide down by 17 per cent since 1990 and CO2 emissions down by 5 per cent since 2006.

I mention the RSPB and NFUS briefings to illustrate the important contribution that land use can make in fighting and adapting to climate change. We must urgently develop a strategy to manage the complexities, conflicts and opportunities around land use so that its future potential can be realised. I hope that the Government will produce its proposed land use strategy soon.

Today, we have heard several important and interesting speeches from members, but we have only scratched the surface of how we can reach our targeted low-carbon economy. I have no doubt that the topic will be revisited many times in the chamber in the months and years ahead. We will support the motion and the Liberal Democrat and SNP amendments.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Parliamentary debates on climate change have thus far produced consensus, and today’s debate has been no exception. I join other members in welcoming the £220 million that the European Investment Bank is providing to Nissan to build a facility at Sunderland where up to 50,000 electric cars a year will be produced. Nissan states that it will provide the first mass-market, affordable electric car. We will watch that with considerable interest.

Cycling has been raised several times. I, too, read the Spokes bulletin. Spokes chooses to focus only on what the Government spends, not on what is spent on cycling in Scotland, and one can reach very different conclusions if one looks at the whole picture. Particularly in cycling, delivery works well if it is led at the local level. In the past, I have referred to the efforts of Moray Council, but there are many other councils with cycling initiatives, including East Lothian Council, which has good schools practice. I mention those two councils only because I am familiar with their initiatives, not for any other reason.

We published a sustainable procurement action plan in October 2009 that includes guidance on climate change issues, low-carbon vehicles, renewable energy and so on. We also have contracts in place for information and communications technology improvements and for lighting and water supply to our offices that show that we are taking action. Public sector engagement has been mentioned several times. Work on a strategy and a linked behaviour change research programme is under way, and the public engagement strategy is being developed.

Time permits me to turn to only a few of the things that have been said in the debate. Alison McInnes welcomed our continuing commitment to a 42 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. We will work together with the Parliament on that.

Patrick Harvie made the point that we must reduce energy use in the home, and we are engaging on that subject. However, he said that, even in the context of electric vehicles, increasing mobility is not a public good. There will be less consensus across the Parliament on that. Given the present climate in which we continue to burn oil out of the ground for much of our transport infrastructure, I accept that while we have seen huge improvements in the fuel economy of vehicles it is not appropriate for people simply to increase the amount of travelling that they do, as that would lead to a rising curve of oil consumption. That points to some of the limitations of viewing tackling climate change as simply an engineering problem. Particularly in relation to oil use, it is an issue with a human aspect to it as well.

Malcolm Chisholm rather unwisely referred to the use of hybrid vehicles in his time as a minister. The hybrid vehicles in which he travelled emitted 215g of CO2 per kilometre, whereas the vehicles that we now procure—which all have diesel engines—emit only 149g of CO2 per kilometre. That is a 31 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will the minister give way on that point?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I do not have time. My apologies.

I use that illustration to make the general point that considerable work is going on to improve all the technologies that are deployed in transport. Governments of all shades, including the Scottish Government, do not have a particularly good track record in betting on winning technologies. We must, therefore, ensure that we have a variety of technologies going forward, as we just do not know what will work best. Hydrogen fuel cell technology will complement the work that is going on to develop electric vehicles.

George Foulkes provided some good, knockabout stuff. He referred to the three weeks in which Stewart Stevenson made so many journeys. It is true that I did. I am going to upset a former school colleague. I went to school with Nina Myskow, who is one of the ladies who appear on “Grumpy Old Women”. I am a grumpy old man who does not like Christmas, and I happen to be the minister who was on duty for four days over the Christmas period, therefore my travel plans were entirely different from those of other ministers. Believe me, we get the message and we are on the case.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am afraid that, on that happy note, you must stop, minister.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

The minister said that Scotland is leading the way on tackling climate change. Sarah Boyack called for vision, policy and action. Much has been made of the ground-breaking nature of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, and rightly so. Now, we need to move forward rapidly on the basis of that legislation, matching it with equal ambition and action.

Sarah Boyack highlighted the crucial importance of action in the domestic, non-traded sector. Housing and transport clearly offer scope for individual and collective action. The Scottish Government must facilitate and encourage such action through awareness raising, public engagement and, as George Foulkes pointed out, leading by example. It must also create the mechanisms to provide adequate resources to encourage people to make changes in their lifestyles as well as improvements in their homes and travel arrangements.

Rob Gibson talked about the Government leading by example, not only in respect of its own property and vehicles but through its ability to direct public bodies and local authorities and through its influence on business, the voluntary sector and home owners.

As Malcolm Chisholm and Marlyn Glen showed, there is the potential to develop more active travel and adopt cleaner, lower-carbon vehicles. We must, however, ensure that active travel is safe and easy. There is little point in encouraging children to use bicycles if it is not safe for them to cycle on the roads to school. We must also ensure that early adopters of electric and hybrid vehicles are properly supported by an expansion of the charging infrastructure. I welcome Alison McInnes’s suggestion that the Scottish Government should develop a network of charging points.

Malcolm Chisholm spoke about Pelamis Wave Power, which is based in his constituency. Renewables are an essential element of our climate change programme, and it is difficult to understate the importance of green jobs to our economic future, as Marlyn Glen said.

The Scottish Government’s role in promoting action is particularly important when it comes to public procurement and public engagement. Beyond what is provided for in the 2009 act, Scottish ministers must make further provision for public duties. I know that they have consulted local authorities and other public bodies, but it is about time that they came back to Parliament with the results of that exercise and a recommendation for those public duties. Of course, a timescale for some action would be helpful.

It is vital that public duties recognise the role that procurement can play in setting examples and stimulating innovation in the development of low-carbon products and services. It is equally vital that that is done in co-operation with the public, local authorities and communities. We will not be successful if we do not win the hearts and minds of the Scottish people. When will the Scottish Government properly take that on board and set in motion a comprehensive programme for public engagement? It is vital that people sign up.

Alison McInnes talked about taking action early and often. Infrastructure is vital. Let us get on with it.

The subject of the next debate this morning is a good example of a way in which we can fulfil our climate change and other objectives. We can stimulate the economy, save jobs and provide accessible public transport and greener and environmentally friendly transport. All that we need to do is to introduce and support improvements and commit to them in the long term. When it comes to climate change, we cannot wait for the long term; we need to act in the short term.

Alexander Dennis Ltd is a prime example of a successful Scottish company—based in Falkirk—that will continue to be a successful Scottish company if it overcomes the economic downturn that has come about as a result of the recession. We need new hybrid bus technology. There are enormous benefits to building technology here in Scotland—benefits to people and in terms of the economy and climate change. I urge the Scottish Government to heed the voices that are being raised in support of that.

At the Copenhagen conference, the Scottish Government was delighted to receive praise for the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, and I was proud that this Parliament had passed such legislation. We need to demonstrate that we can deliver on that legislation and meet the targets. We must not allow the Scottish experience to become one of delays and missed opportunities.

In Copenhagen, there were posters everywhere that showed world leaders saying:

“I’m sorry. We could have stopped the catastrophic climate change... We didn’t.”

We need to act now so that we do not have to say sorry to future generations.

I am pleased that we have had this debate. I hope that we have many debates on this subject and that the Government has the chance to come to the chamber to report on its progress. I hope that we all participate in that progress and continue to push for real action to be taken. I hope that the Scottish Parliament can be proud of the legislation and not say, “Hey, it was a good idea, but we’re sorry it didn’t work.”

Buses

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5973, in the name of Charlie Gordon, on building better buses.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

The motion that I rise to move is identical to a motion that I lodged for a members’ business debate next month, which attracted cross-party support from most major parties in the chamber, except for the Tories. Margaret Thatcher once notoriously suggested that any adult travelling by bus was a failure. If that is the reason why Tory MSPs have failed to back Scotland’s bus manufacturing industry, they need not have worried—everybody already knows that they are failures anyway. Perhaps the sinners will repent today.

Cross-party support for the better buses campaign is a recognition of its manifest policy benefits in terms of action on climate change, jobs, value for money for the public purse and the social inclusion of thousands of Scots whose mobility is impaired.

We accept the Scottish Government’s amendment to my motion—after all, it involves something for which Labour has been calling for some time: using the bus service operators grant to incentivise operators to switch to low-carbon-emission buses. However, such revenue support is no substitute for a capital grants scheme similar to the United Kingdom Government’s greener buses scheme, which is what we seek. We also accept the Liberal Democrat amendment, although it calls for something to happen that is already happening.

A powerful case was made in this morning’s debate on climate change for early, practical action to achieve Scotland’s ambitious targets by, for example, converting Scottish Government cars to cars that run on electricity. Another change that could bring more environmental benefits would be to convert Scotland’s bus fleets to ones that run on greener power, such as the hybrid bus that is produced by Alexander Dennis Ltd of Falkirk, with its 35 per cent fewer emissions and 30 per cent fuel savings. That change would also help to ensure the survival of a world-class bus manufacturing plant—Scotland’s sole surviving one—where more than 900 workers are on short time.

Some members complained that this morning’s climate change debate should have been longer and that we should not have had two shorter debates this morning. I can only say that Labour does not apologise for moving 900 bus manufacturing jobs further up the political agenda. Let us be patriotic. Let us help to save Scottish jobs for Scottish workers.

Good news for ADL, courtesy of the UK Government, was reported yesterday in The Scotsman:

“BAE systems said yesterday that the first of the hybrid electric systems that will power 56 Stagecoach double-deck buses in Oxford and Manchester have been delivered to manufacturer Alexander Dennis.

They are the first of up to 300 hybrid electric buses that will be supplied to operators across the UK with support from the UK Department of Transport’s £30 million Green Bus Fund, which provides financial incentives to adopt green technologies.”

That gets to the very heart of the matter.

Cross-party consensus—even unanimity—is all very well, but we must will the means as well as the ends. We on the Labour benches still feel the hurt of the thousands of disabled Scots on the lower rate of disability living allowance who, despite the Parliament unanimously passing a resolution as recently as 12 December 2009 that they should be given free bus travel, were let down when costings were rejected by the Scottish Government in budget negotiations. That is why we insist on a Scottish equivalent of the greener buses fund. However, it is not the only reason.

As is made clear in a briefing that was e-mailed to all MSPs by Strathclyde partnership for transport, substantial savings can be achieved by public sector capital acquisition and ownership of buses that are deployed for school transport, demand-responsive transport and scheduled services. Similar benefits were recounted to Shirley-Anne Somerville and me during a recent committee visit to Dumfries and Galloway Council, and Sir John Arbuthnott’s recent report on shared services identified vehicle utilisation’s potential for efficiency gains and cost benefits in the public sector.

The cleaner, greener, better-value buses that are made in Scotland are also fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, so this policy agenda could give full accessibility to thousands of Scots with impaired mobility far sooner than is provided for in UK-reserved legislation.

There we have it: a comprehensive, cross-cutting case that is deserving of cross-party support. I respectfully ask for cross-party support for better buses. I hope for unanimous support for better buses, but I demand equitable funding for better buses to be made in Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that some transport authorities have secured better value for money when tendering for bus services by purchasing vehicles themselves rather than incurring costs that include a vehicle supplied by the bidders; further notes the flexibility and efficiency of the five Alexander Dennis Limited (ADL) ALX 300 buses operating in the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport area, which are fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) and which have variable numbers of seats in various configurations enabling one vehicle to be used for demand-responsive services, school services and local scheduled bus services in the course of a single day; considers that to the proven efficiency and social benefits of such buses should be added the environmental and jobs benefits of increasing production of ADL’s new hybrid bus, which is compliant with both DDA requirements and with emissions targets, but notes with concern that over 900 workers at ADL, Scotland’s sole bus manufacturer, are on a three-day week, and calls on the Scottish Government, as a matter of urgency, to fund grants for acquisition of ADL buses by transport authorities and by commercial bus operators to ensure a new generation of bus-build that secures Scottish jobs and skills, world-class bus manufacturing in Falkirk and the provision of world-class transport for the Scottish public.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Government recognises the importance of bus services and bus manufacturing to the development of a climate of sustainable growth for our economy and, specifically, for the bus industry in Scotland. I welcome many of Mr Gordon’s remarks, and I agree with a significant number of them, especially his comments about Alexander Dennis Ltd, which is a fantastic Scottish manufacturing success. For a number of years, the Government has been pleased to give support to Alexander Dennis, to the tune of £1.4 million, to support its research and development activities. On a visit to the factory, I have seen for myself the tremendous skill and quality of the workforce.

I very much welcome the company’s announcement that it is returning to a five-day week at its Falkirk plant from April. I am surprised that Mr Gordon did not mention that, and that it is not in the Labour motion, because it has been public knowledge for some time. However, I am delighted that the company has been able to overcome some challenging economic circumstances. I would be the first to concede that this has been a difficult time for the Scottish economy, and I applaud the skill and achievement of the management of Alexander Dennis in navigating its way back to a five-day week. I also applaud the tremendous contribution of the company’s workforce, which have had to make sacrifices in their working conditions and remuneration to ensure the sustainability and survival of a jewel in the Scottish manufacturing crown. The company’s return to a five-day week has been achieved by continued investment in new and emerging technologies to keep it at the forefront of bus and coach manufacturing.

Parliament has just debated climate change. Public transport networks have a significant role to play in changing the nature of the journeys that we all undertake. Buses are very much a part of the solution and of efforts to encourage modal shift from cars. Bus services represent a credible alternative. The Government is focusing a great deal of its attention on two principal approaches to encouraging the greater use of bus services and ensuring that we expand support for environmentally friendly bus services.

We have been considering the bus service operators grant, which is paid to support bus services. We recently entered an agreement with the Confederation of Passenger Transport to increase the funding for the BSOG to £66.5 million a year. The Government intends to move to a reconfigured scheme that delivers increased benefits for the money that is invested. From April, the Government will include an incentive for the operation of low-carbon vehicles, including hybrid vehicles, which will equate to an increase of 100 per cent of the grant for each low-carbon vehicle. As part of the agreement with the CPT, we will work with it to consider how the BSOG can change in future to become more closely aligned with Government aims, including those on climate change.

I recognise that local government is best placed to identify the actions that are necessary to deliver local transport aims. That is enshrined in the concordat, and includes the tendering of local bus services. Good-quality vehicles that can be used flexibly can be effective and can promote modal shift. However, the decision whether to purchase bus vehicles in order to reduce tender costs is for local government to consider. In principle, I support any initiative that improves the provision of services and tackles emissions.

For its part, the Government has provided £1 million in funding to enable Strathclyde partnership for transport to purchase up to five hybrid buses and to provide information on their performance. That will allow an assessment of Government intervention, the effectiveness of hybrid vehicles in contributing to emissions reductions, running costs and value for money of hybrid vehicles. I understand that the tender process for the initiative is well under way, and that Alexander Dennis is one of the companies involved in that process, which gives the company an opportunity to access a procurement initiative funded by the Scottish Government for leading-edge, low-carbon vehicles. Members from all sides of Parliament must accept that there has to be a full and open procurement process for any such activities. That is the requirement of the law, and the Government must operate within that context.

The bus industry is a series of private-sector companies operating in an open market. The Government supports the operation of the open market, balanced with intervention by local authorities where required. What I would like, and what Government policy is designed to achieve, is a focus on increasing innovation in the types and use of vehicles that are emerging. That is what Alexander Dennis is achieving with low-carbon technology, service provision, customer service, marketing and infrastructure.

Given its flexibility, efficiency and accessibility, bus transport is an essential part of growing our economy, now and in future. The bus industry has a contribution to make to climate change and modal shift, and, in Alexander Dennis, to increasing the opportunity for one of Scotland’s major manufacturing success stories to continue to make a significant contribution to the development of the Scottish economy.

I move amendment S3M-5973.1, to insert at end:

“and notes changes to the Bus Services Operators Grant scheme promoted by the Scottish Government that will promote more environmentally friendly buses.”

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Encouraging more people on to buses, thereby tackling climate change, which we were talking about earlier, and easing congestion, would be easier if all the buses that we want people to use were pleasant and modern and provided easy access for all ages and abilities. That means that we need to encourage and support research and development in bus design. Alexander Dennis Ltd is at the forefront of such innovation. I am proud that Britain’s biggest and Scotland’s only bus manufacturer produces the UK market-leading range of single and double-deck chassis and bodies from its manufacturing centres in Falkirk, Guildford and Scarborough.

We are right to be concerned about the difficulties that ADL faces as a result of the recession. As has been remarked already, the workers at its Falkirk plant have been on a reduced working week since September. That not only shows the fragility of the market at the moment but demonstrates the tenacity and determination of those workers. A modern, accessible, well-designed, flexible fleet—I am not referring to bendy buses—means that buses could become the transport of choice for many more people. It also means that, as Charlie Gordon said, buses could provide a variety of different services. Local authorities are already finding that greater efficiencies are to be won through the integration of school bus services, supported services and social-work vehicles. Sophisticated information technology systems have allowed that progress, when for many years it was only imagined. Buses that once would have been parked in the depot between 10 o’clock and 4 o’clock are now being used during the day to meet other transport needs.

Strathclyde partnership for transport has gone down the route of purchasing fleet but it is not necessarily a model that will be applicable throughout Scotland. As a model 3 regional transport partnership, SPT is funded differently from the other RTPs, and is therefore almost uniquely placed to be able to afford to purchase, maintain and store buses. Although there is room for a great deal of improvement in some of the buses running on the streets of our cities, we should not lose sight of the fact that major bus companies in Scotland have spent more than £500 million on new low-floor, greener vehicles over the past 10 years. Mr Gordon says that I am calling for something that is already in place. That is not the case. The green bus fund is flawed. It does not take old buses out of commission and it has not been enough to stimulate growth and new jobs.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This is the first that I have heard of the Liberal Democrat proposal for a bus scrappage scheme. Such a scheme would happen at UK level. Will Alison McInnes explain what her party has been doing at UK level to introduce the proposal?

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

The scheme is something that we have been campaigning on, and that we will introduce. I am sure that we will speak about it in the budget next week. However, through the consequentials, it will clearly have an effect in Scotland.

We are challenging the Labour Party to go further than its proposals this morning. Our amendment outlines the benefits to be had from a low-carbon bus fleet and, as has been said, calls on the Government to introduce a bus scrappage scheme in next week’s budget. Labour has a golden opportunity next week to take up our suggestion and give tangible support to the bus manufacturing industry. We have suggested that we would invest £60 million in a bus scrappage scheme that helps bus companies to replace old polluting buses with new low-carbon ones and creates jobs.

As much as 20,000 tonnes of CO2 would be saved as a result of such a scheme. Diesel emissions, particularly from older vehicles, are, of course, the biggest problem in our large towns and cities, and poor air quality has serious implications for public health; indeed, it causes tens of thousands of premature deaths in the UK each year. Our proposal would have a significant impact on reducing air pollution and carbon emissions. It would also create an economic stimulus. It could result in as many as 200 new jobs for Scotland. The economic boost to bus manufacturing would be considerably greater than that from the grant scheme that Labour has proposed, and companies such as ADL would be given greater certainty.

It is good that, as John Swinney said, ADL workers will return to a five-day working week from April. That follows the news that ADL is the first manufacturer that supplies the British market to have a double-deck hybrid—the Enviro400H—certified at Euro 5. Bringing in a bus scrappage scheme in the budget would be an acknowledgement that the Government values ADL’s research and development efforts. Such a scheme would also support a strand of the UK bus and coach industry’s greener journeys campaign by driving investment in low-carbon buses.

The Government introduced a car scrappage scheme to boost demand for new cars and stimulate car manufacturing. That was justified on economic, employment and environmental grounds. The same applies in this context. We urgently need a scrappage scheme for buses and coaches.

I move amendment S3M-5973.2, to insert at end:

“; notes that a number of UK cities, including Aberdeen and Glasgow, did not meet EU air pollution targets in 2009; further notes that poor air quality causes tens of thousands of premature deaths across the UK each year; believes that a bus scrappage scheme, making grants available to bus operators to replace old, polluting buses, would have a serious impact on reducing air pollution and carbon emissions, and further believes that the benefits to the environment and the economic boost to bus manufacturers will be considerably greater if the UK Government announces funding for a bus scrappage scheme in the Budget on 24 March 2010.”

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Partly due to a pull-out, members can now, if they wish, have a minute more to speak than they expected.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Perhaps you should have waited until after I had spoken, as that would have shortened the process a bit more.

I was amazed by the aggressive nature of Charlie Gordon’s opening speech; indeed, I was nearly knocked off my perch. If that is Charlie Gordon’s approach to consensus, I would not like to hear him when he is angry. I get the impression that an election is on the way. We had better be careful about how we go. However, the Conservatives will support his motion, whether he likes it or not, because Alexander Dennis Ltd is a genuinely national and European leader, and possibly a world leader. Its plant at Falkirk is an example of a Scottish success.

In his opening speech, Mr Gordon mentioned Margaret Thatcher and her impact on manufacturing. Statistics now exist that indicate that the decline of manufacturing has accelerated by a factor of three in 13 years of Labour government. That figure alone makes it all the more notable that ADL has succeeded as well as it has.

I, too, welcome the news that ADL workers will be able to return to full five-day working. That appears to indicate that jobs will be protected. However, we need to be careful about how we proceed.

I will support the motion and the Government’s amendment. I am not sure whether I can support the Liberal Democrat amendment because I want more information about the cost of the proposed scrappage scheme. We need to know that.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I do not in any way wish to put words into Mr Johnstone’s mouth, but should he not be asking where the money for the scheme would come from? That is a fair question to ask the Liberal Democrats, who have lavish spending commitments.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Indeed. I want to know the cost of the scheme because we know that the spending commitments that the Liberal Democrats have made over the past 12 months in the Scottish Parliament alone total well in excess of £10 billion. We must be careful about how we allocate expenditure.

There is another thing that I want to know. In his closing speech, perhaps the cabinet secretary can expand on remarks that he has previously made. How can money that is brought in through such a scheme be used effectively to support companies such as ADL without incurring the wrath of European legislation on how tendering processes are conducted? It is important for us to find ways to support innovative companies such as ADL, but it is essential that we do not make the mistake of simply providing new Government money and opportunities for the bus industry without ensuring that they will deliver the benefits across the board that we want.

Charlie Gordon mentioned the proposal on expanding free bus travel, which Labour came up with before. We have had a whole debate on that but, unfortunately, I still do not have an answer to the question that I asked during that debate. Where will the money to expand the free bus travel scheme come from? I do not even need a specific indication of where there would be a cut. I want to know whether it is the Labour Party’s intention to take money from the existing free travel scheme—that is, to change entitlements in order to create additional money in the scheme—or to put additional money into it from a point outside it. That is a key issue, which will become more relevant if we are to consider how we can use money effectively to support schemes such as the free bus travel scheme.

Finally, we have mentioned before SPT’s success with its purchasing policy. There are some things that Charlie Gordon and I do not agree on, but perhaps he and I do agree on the treatment of SPT over the years. It is regrettable and disappointing that it does not have the powers that it once had, which would have allowed it to expand its opportunities in the area that we are discussing.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

How many times over the years have we heard about good ideas, products and innovations that have been developed in Scotland but which have not, unfortunately, come to anything or have been taken on and developed by others elsewhere, who have then benefited from them? It is clear that we are discussing a product that has been designed, developed and delivered in Scotland and which can make a difference not only here but elsewhere. It would be a tragedy if we let that go for whatever reason—as a result of neglect, carelessness or wringing our hands because we think that there is nothing that we can do.

Some of the debate is predicated on the question whether there is a need for investment in buses. Alison McInnes was right to talk about the significant investment that many major bus companies in this country are making. I pay tribute to them. I recently met representatives of Arriva in our area, who explained to me exactly what the company has been doing to develop local bus services. We need to recognise the exceptionally difficult climate in which bus operators are operating. Their margins have been cut, and passenger numbers in some areas are down because of the recession and changed employment patterns. If we are going to ensure the survival of those companies and their investment, it is incumbent on us to do something about that.

Despite the investment by good bus companies, too many buses—certainly across Scotland’s central belt—still leave a lot to be desired. We have buses that are not fit for purpose and that, frankly, verge on the dangerous, as well as buses that emit noxious gases at an unacceptably high level. Buses are often not just uncomfortable but unreliable. That is the issue that we should address if, as Charlie Gordon described, we are to have a bus industry and a bus service that are not only fit for purpose but attractive, so that we bring passengers back on to the buses.

Alexander Dennis Ltd produces a cutting-edge product. There is no doubt about the technology and the contribution that it can make. The cabinet secretary was absolutely right to pay tribute not just to the company and its management, but to the workforce for the sacrifices—I use that word advisedly—that it has made. It is a dedicated and skilled workforce that was determined to keep the product and to keep the jobs in the local community. I wonder whether the company would have survived without the sacrifice and commitment of the workforce. I pay tribute to the workers and to their trade union for everything that they have done to give the company an opportunity for the future.

We should ask what we as a Parliament, with our appointed Government ministers, can do to make a difference. John Swinney said that it is a matter for local government. That is correct up to a point, in that it is a matter for local government if that is how we choose to play it. However, it can be a matter for the Parliament and its Government ministers if we and they choose to do something about it.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I hope that Mr Henry will come on to the fact that the Government has made available resources specifically to ensure an uptake of low-carbon buses, through the reconfiguration of the BSOG and through the particular grant that we have made available to Strathclyde partnership for transport.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I acknowledge that but, in a sense, it proves my point that the matter is not just one for local government—Government ministers can do something. The question is whether what they have done is sufficient. However, I pay tribute to ministers for what has been done.

One thing that can make a difference is a spend-to-save initiative, which I saw when I was leader of a council. By putting in money up front and encouraging expenditure by various departments, we ensured that they did something more efficiently and effectively and saved money. Some of the measures to which the cabinet secretary referred are in that direction. We can spend to save through Government initiatives that save jobs, reduce running costs and protect our environment.

The question is whether we can unite around not only the motion but the principle of ensuring that Alexander Dennis Ltd and its dedicated workforce have a fighting chance for the future. We should and can do that, for the best.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

No speaker in the debate will have anything but praise for Alexander Dennis Ltd, which is one of the world’s leading bus builders. ADL is at the forefront of the manufacture of green buses with reliable hybrid single and double-decker buses that produce fuel efficiency savings of about 30 per cent. The company is to be warmly commended for its work in the sector. Similarly, I am sure that all members will share the concern that workers at ADL have been on a three-day week. A shaky economic climate has meant that, unfortunately, fewer customers have been seeking to invest in fleets. However, with the economy edging towards recovery, I believe that a cutting-edge company such as ADL can soon be going from strength to strength. I am pleased that the company will move back to a five-day working week in April.

Charlie Gordon’s motion is well intentioned and there was much to agree with in his speech. However, the first question that is raised by his motion is about the legality of his call for the Scottish Government to fund grants for the acquisition of ADL buses in particular. Is that a call for the Government to hand money to local authorities on the strict condition that they purchase products from a particular local firm? Unfortunately, there is a distinct possibility that that would breach European state aid and procurement laws.

Secondly, surely it must be for the regional transport authorities and local authorities to secure best value in the way that best fits their local circumstances. SPT has made savings by purchasing buses and recovering the cost through savings in payments to bus operators. However, as the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK has pointed out, SPT might well be in a unique situation as regards purchasing, maintaining and storing buses, and other partnerships might not be able to secure best value in that way.

We can support the bus industry in ways that are different from those to which Charlie Gordon referred. If we want to help public transport operators, particularly bus operators, we should consider lobbying the UK Government for a change in vehicle excise duty. The current scheme does not provide anywhere near enough incentive for the use of low-pollution buses, so more work can be done on that.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s recent £740 million three-year funding package for the Scottish bus industry. In particular, I welcome the improvements that have been made to the bus service operators grant scheme so that hybrid and low-carbon vehicles, such as those made by ADL, will receive grant at twice the normal rate. I am also pleased that the Scottish Government has given a grant of £1 million to SPT for the purchase of low-carbon vehicles, although it was not for any specific company.

It would be remiss of me to take part in a debate on public transport without raising the subject of the Edinburgh trams. Lord Foulkes raised the issue in the earlier debate on climate change but, unfortunately, he is not in the chamber now. One wonders how many low-carbon buses could have been bought had every other party in the Parliament voted to spend the money for that scheme—£545 million and rising—on that green technology rather than a tramline that will replicate the most popular bus route in the city. We could have revolutionised Edinburgh’s entire public transport system and safeguarded, if not expanded, Scottish manufacturing jobs in the process. We would probably even have had enough money left over to share with Mr Gordon’s constituency. Instead, we will get half of a white elephant that is built in Spain, tested in Germany and, most likely, stored in Croydon, because the construction of the depot to store the trams is running two years behind schedule. That is a sad reflection of Labour’s transport priorities when they win a vote in Parliament.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I, too, am pleased to take part in the debate. As other members have done, I thank the workers at Alexander Dennis Ltd and give them my support. As members have acknowledged, they have worked hard to develop new buses and have made sacrifices in difficult economic circumstances. As someone who is married to an individual who was made redundant when British Leyland’s Albion works in Glasgow closed—when the bus industry was last under pressure—I understand the pressure that people will have been under and the worry about their jobs.

Alison McInnes rightly commented that people want decent buses to travel on but, in parts of my constituency and more widely in Ayrshire, people want any kind of bus to travel on. People tell me that it is impossible for them to use public transport because it does not run at the times that they need it to get to work or take up leisure opportunities. That is a problem in rural areas, but not exclusively there, because people in some housing schemes, too, feel isolated in the evenings and at weekends. We have also had problems with timetabling changes, as a result of which buses no longer join up with local rail services or services are not at times when people need them. I make those points to take advantage of the minute of leeway in my speech.

To return to the subject of the debate, the proposal is that we should consider what can be done to make more opportunities available for bus operators to renew and refresh their fleets. We must give that proposal serious consideration. I was recently at a meeting in my area at which there were representatives of a couple of small local bus firms. They feel that there is no incentive for firms, particularly small firms, to refresh their fleets. They recognise, as I do, that some bigger operators have invested in new buses, but they argue that that is difficult for smaller firms because of the tendering process, the length of contracts that are awarded and a range of other issues.

I ask the minister, when he responds to the debate, to answer one point that those firms raised with me. If a group of small operators wished to work co-operatively in the tendering process but to retain their identity as individual companies, would they be able to do that? Would the Scottish Government assist them in developing mechanisms to allow them to do so? Perhaps the minister could look into that further.

School buses have been mentioned. Part of the problem in my area is that the buses on the school run tend to be the oldest ones, which are not used for any other purpose. They are brought out in the morning to do the school run and are not used again until later in the day. Surely it is not too much to expect that our children are carried in up-to-date vehicles. That would set an example to them about what is appropriate for public transport and it would get them into good habits, so that when they do other things, they take public transport, instead of simply relying on being dropped off by car.

I return to the point that small businesses in my area raised with me. When I asked them what would help them and what kind of incentive would enable them to invest in new buses, the person who spoke to me described something that sounded remarkably like the green bus fund that has been developed south of the border. He was not aware of that scheme but, nonetheless, what he described sounded remarkably like it. I simply put that point on the record and invite the minister to respond to it.

My final point is about meeting accessibility criteria. My fear is that, as we approach the deadline for compliance, people will seek to extend it because they have not been able to comply. That will simply not be good enough. We know that the deadline is coming and we know what needs to be done. We need to ensure that everyone can meet the deadline. We have the opportunity: we have a firm and a workforce who are ready and willing to take on the challenge. We need support from every level of government to ensure that that skilled workforce, unlike my husband, are able to continue to work in this important industry in the future.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I want to focus my remarks on Alexander Dennis Ltd, the UK’s biggest bus manufacturing company, which is headquartered in my constituency, where it employs 900 people. It is the biggest manufacturing company in my constituency and, outwith the local authority and NHS Forth Valley, it is probably the biggest employer. Therefore, it plays a very important part in the economy of the Falkirk area.

The recent economic downturn has had a serious impact on the company. In the past year, I think that four or five of the major bus operators in the UK have significantly reduced their capital spend on purchasing buses. Some have gone from an annual capital spend of £50 million to £70 million on buses every single year to a planned capital spend of only £15 million to £20 million. That has had a serious knock-on effect on companies such as Alexander Dennis.

As a number of members have said, the workforce has played its part in trying to address the economic difficulties that the company faces and, for a number of months, has been on a three-day week. The economic downturn has also had a serious impact on Alexander Dennis’s supply chain—many of the small and medium-sized companies that supply it with parts and materials. I know that Scottish Enterprise has been working hard with those companies to try to sustain them through the downturn.

Like others have done, I pay a personal tribute to the significant contribution that the workforce at Falkirk has made in going to a three-day week to support the company through the downturn. The move back to a five-day week in April has been realised only because of the significant contribution that the workforce was prepared to make when the company found itself in economic difficulty.

It is also important to recognise that Alexander Dennis has a very good future ahead of it. We should not create the impression that the company is not capable of growing and developing and returning to the level that it was at before the economic downturn. I know that the company is very keen that the idea does not take hold that it is not capable of moving towards a good future.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that, for many years, I have pressed him regularly about providing greater support to the bus industry and the bus manufacturing industry. One of the key issues that Alexander Dennis has often raised with me—I believe that the company raised this with the cabinet secretary when he visited the factory—is how to create incentives for bus operators to move towards having more environmentally friendly buses. It suggested to me that the BSOG mechanism could be used to create such an incentive. I am particularly pleased that the Government has gone down that route, because the company’s view is that it is a more sustainable way of encouraging bus operators to move towards low-carbon and hybrid buses.

I want to focus on hybrid buses in particular. Alexander Dennis is not just a UK or European leader but an international leader in hybrid bus technology. All the independent assessments of hybrid bus technology point to Alexander Dennis being a world leader in that respect. However, one of the challenges that Alexander Dennis has faced is in creating a platform so that bus operators recognise that hybrid buses have serious benefits for them. For some time, the company has been looking for a way to create that platform so that bus operators in Scotland and the rest of the UK can see those practical benefits. Despite the financial benefits of reduced fuel costs to the bus operator, hybrid buses are significantly more expensive than normal, less environmentally friendly buses—they are £100,000 to £150,000 more expensive. It is therefore difficult to get bus operators to buy into making that move unless they can see the practical benefits of it. That is why I welcome the £1 million that has been given to SPT to create the platform that the company has been looking for.

Cathy Jamieson talked about compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The bus operators have a timeframe for single-deck buses to be DDA compliant by 2015 and for double-deck buses to be compliant by 2017. I would not like to see any slippage in that timeframe, because that would undermine the potential benefits for companies such as Alexander Dennis and the wider environmental benefits. I know that that matter is outwith the minister’s competence, but I hope that he will take the opportunity to make representations to UK ministers and seek an assurance that they are not looking for further slippage in the timeframe, which would be a retrograde step that would damage companies such as Alexander Dennis in the future.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I welcome the chance to speak in this debate about an issue that is important to many of my constituents and to many communities throughout Scotland.

The Labour motion has two key elements: promoting adaptable buses and encouraging the Scottish Government to support companies such as Alexander Dennis Ltd. I will say a few words about both issues. The motion highlights the work that SPT has done in recent years to secure best value for subsidised bus contracts and to drive up fleet standards. Over the past few years, SPT has taken a range of steps to improve the quality and reliability of bus services in the west of Scotland. Clearly, that has been achieved in the context of a fully deregulated bus market, which is largely determined by the commercial free will of private sector bus operators. Its five-point bus action plan has been adopted by all the constituent local authorities and has the support of the traffic commissioner for Scotland. SPT’s bus wardens have worked to ensure that bus operators run services according to published timetables that meet minimum standards and provide adequate information to members of the public. In addition, in recent years SPT has been purchasing buses as a way of reducing the cost of subsidised services and ensuring the highest possible standards in terms of vehicle quality.

As other members said, DDA compliance is important, as are reducing emissions and improving fuel efficiency. Those improvements have led to significantly lower contract costs that have—in turn—enabled SPT to run a greater number of subsidised services. That is increasingly important, given the context of the deregulated market, which is not delivering for people in the west of Scotland. SPT has been left to pick up the pieces.

The first buses of the type that I have described have already paid for themselves through the reduced cost of the subsidised service over the lifetime of the contract. Strathclyde partnership for transport is keen to continue with the approach and it wants to ensure that buses that are purchased are adaptable to a range of uses. As Charlie Gordon said, the model that SPT is following is in line with Sir John Arbuthnott’s recommendations. By purchasing smaller buses that have flexible seating configurations, SPT will ensure that buses rarely lie idle in a yard. A typical day for such a bus might see it start with an early-morning subsidised service, followed by a school run and community and local authority work, perhaps in partnership with the National Health Service. In the afternoon, the bus might be used for demand-responsive transport services before it returns to school work and on to evening subsidised services for villages and towns. In that way, the SPT can ensure that a publicly-owned asset, whether it is an SPT bus or one that is owned by a local authority, is fully utilised. I appreciate that other passenger transport executives cannot do things in the same way as SPT, but perhaps they can learn from its example.

As other members have done, I want to say a few words about Alexander Dennis Ltd, which has a worldwide reputation for constructing buses of the highest quality. Many of my constituents work in its Falkirk factory. It is important that we do everything in our power to support companies such as ADL, particularly in the current economic climate. It is to be hoped that some public money can be used for what should be a win-win scenario for everyone: purchasing high-quality buses to enhance public transport while also protecting valuable local manufacturing jobs is something on which we all have agreed this morning. I am pleased that we can agree on that, but Labour also urges the Government to continue to do all it can—indeed, to do more.

I have no doubt that the deregulated bus industry is not delivering for many of my constituents, particularly those who live in smaller towns, villages and rural communities. My colleague Charlie Gordon was a little too modest in not mentioning his member’s bill on the subject. I am disappointed that more members did not support it.

One way or another, we need to have a more regulated bus industry—one that may well deliver profits for operators, but which also delivers services to communities that are becoming increasingly isolated.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We move to wind-up speeches.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

There is little doubt that Charlie Gordon’s heart is in the right place. Better buses are a laudable aim, but we need to use the head over the heart if we are to implement a reliable and green boost to the bus production economy. Our doing so not only will benefit current bus users but may attract more people to take the bus, rather than the car.

Alison McInnes was using her head when she called, in our amendment. for a statement of support to be made for the whole bus production industry. I hope that Alistair Darling will make such a statement in his budget statement next week. If he and his Labour colleagues are willing to do so, major investment would be made in a bus scrappage scheme that may well mirror the huge success of the car scrappage scheme. It would provide jobs not only in Scotland, but throughout the UK, and it will ensure new and existing passenger benefits from better buses, which is exactly what Charlie Gordon and his colleagues seek.

Members have mentioned the Strathclyde partnership for transport. The help with the purchase of five hybrid buses, as outlined by Mr Swinney, is a very welcome move, but there has to be better co-ordination between SPT and other areas throughout the country. Alison McInnes referred to SPT’s being funded differently, which puts it in a position to afford such purchases—a position in which many areas of the country do not find themselves. Alex Johnstone agreed with, I think, Cathy Jamieson on treatment in that area.

I am surprised that no mention has been made of the community transport benefits of using smaller buses, particularly in our rural areas. Perhaps the cabinet secretary might touch on that in his summing up. Most members rightly spent time in their speeches talking about Alexander Dennis Ltd and welcomed the fact that, in the very near future, the company is moving from a three-day week back to a five-day week. I join members in welcoming that move. As Alison McInnes said, Alexander Dennis Ltd is not only at the forefront of research and development, but producing some of the best goods in the country. Alex Johnstone rightly said that the return to five-day working will protect jobs. Let us hope that the company continues to grow. The local member, Michael Matheson, did well in highlighting the position of the company in his speech.

Many members touched on emissions standards, which is a crucial area for many of us who want to see not only newer buses but greener buses being introduced in the near future. Shirley-Anne Somerville referred to the 30 per cent fuel saving from fuel-efficient buses. That is a reasonable target, although it could go even higher, depending on the quality of the buses that will be produced in the future. Charlie Gordon referred to the global benefits of reducing emissions. He was absolutely right in saying that, and I hope that he and his colleagues will join the Liberal Democrats in doing what we can to persuade colleagues at Westminster to ensure that a bus scrappage scheme is introduced to maximise efficiency and reduce the emissions of buses throughout the country.

Benefits from having such new buses are already being felt throughout the country. I have seen plenty such benefits in my area of west Fife, including low-floor and better quality buses that many more people are now getting to use. Alex Johnstone reasonably asked where the funding for the Liberal Democrat bus scrappage scheme will come from. I say to him and the Parliament that the Liberal Democrats’ fully costed green economic package to stimulate the whole UK economy, including job creation, is part of a £3.3 billion redirection of spending.

The Liberal Democrats will support the Labour motion and I hope that Labour will support our amendment in the same constructive manner in which it was lodged. Most important is that I strongly urge Charlie Gordon and his Labour colleagues to get on the phone to Alistair Darling straight after the debate to urge him to include a bus scrappage scheme in his budget next week.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

The debate has been a pretty good one with broad consensus across the chamber. The first area of obvious consensus has been praise for the work of Alexander Dennis Ltd. Every front-bench member stressed that work in their speeches: indeed, pretty much without exception, members have mentioned the company. Michael Matheson’s comments captured well the sense of that.

The second area of broad consensus was on the type of buses that ADL and other companies produce. Charlie Gordon referred to the ALX300, which has a host of benefits including that it is DDA compliant and that its seating is flexible in number and configuration, which means that it can be used for demand-responsive transport services, which is an issue on which the Scottish Conservatives focused in our response to the previous Scottish Executive’s bus inquiry of a couple of years ago.

There was also broad consensus on the next step in promoting hybrid buses, which have not only all the benefits of the ALX300 but other important environmental benefits that will be key in the future. There is much on which all members can agree.

The last part of Mr Gordon’s motion asks for grants to be funded

“as a matter of urgency ... for acquisition of ADL buses by transport authorities and by commercial bus operators”.

I ask whoever closes for the Labour Party to address that issue, as there are two broad questions that need to be answered if Labour members are serious about the proposal’s being funded

“as a matter of urgency”.

The first question concerns the legality of what is requested. Numerous speakers have referred to the issue. The suggestion that central Government money be given to transport authorities and bus operators to purchase from one named supplier asks very serious questions about procurement law and state-aid law in relation to the European Union. Have those who lodged the motion sought a legal view on what they are requesting? If so, I would be interested to know what responses they have received. That is a key question, because if the scheme is not legal it will be kicked into touch.

Secondly, I would be grateful if whoever closes for the Labour Party would provide further particulars on the size of the grants that are sought. What individual grants are Labour members seeking? What is the overall size of the pot, when the transport authorities and operators to which the motion refers are added together? I am seeking not an exact figure, but a ballpark figure. The cabinet secretary mentioned changes to the bus service operators grant and the £1 million or so that SPT has been given for its procurement process. I got a distinct sense from all the Labour members who have spoken today that they are asking for something in addition to that. It is important to know what is requested and where that money ought to come from.

My colleague Mr Johnstone outlined our position on the motion and the amendments. There is much that has been agreed, and it has been a constructive and useful debate. However, the questions that I have posed need to be answered.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The comment that found getting currency in today’s debate most challenging was Mr Tolson’s proposition that the head is ruling the heart in the Liberal Democrats. I am not sure that I normally accept that logic in Liberal Democrat contributions. It is interesting that Mr Tolson was able to marshall a sense of what would be included in the spending that would provide the bus scrappage scheme, but provided scant detail on from where the money would come . I say that bearing in mind that the Liberal Democrats are signed-up supporters of the savage-cut approach to public expenditure. Questions remain about the issues that are at stake.

Cathy Jamieson asked an interesting question about collaborative procurement among smaller operators. She will appreciate that I cannot give her a definitive answer today, but I will certainly examine the suggestion, which would help us to address the question how smaller operators can contribute to improving fuel efficiency in the bus fleet.

In her speech, Cathy Jamieson acknowledged and answered some of Mr Brown’s questions about the procurement methodology. I will try to be helpful to Mr Brown. The Government has provided £1 million of funding to enable Strathclyde partnership for transport to purchase up to five hybrid buses. There has had to be a full and open procurement process in order to ensure that the purchase is compliant with procurement legislation. The question about the last part of the Labour motion is entirely fair. It is important that we do not mislead members of the public into thinking that we can ignore procurement legislation when we spend public money in this fashion. The tender process for the Government contract is well under way, and Alexander Dennis is one of the companies that is involved. In that process, it will be able to deploy the approach and the technology that it has developed so effectively at its plant in Falkirk.

That brings me to another distinguished contribution—that of Mr Matheson, who has a constituency interest in Alexander Dennis. He was right to say that he has persistently pressed ministers to do all that we can to ensure that there is enough incentive in the bus service operators grant system to enable different operators to make a greater contribution to the purchase of low-emissions buses. Mr Matheson and others have accepted positively the changes that we have made. I hope that, after the scheme is implemented on 1 April, we will see greater participation in the process.

Mr Henry was correct to highlight the danger of letting good ideas out of our grip. That is an important issue. As part of the work that it does to support business, the Government tries to encourage not only the development and retention of our manufacturing technology here in Scotland but its promotion, from that base, to an international audience. The focus of Scottish Development International is on internationalising access to the bus technology that Alexander Dennis has developed, which is a tribute to the Scottish manufacturing tradition.

Perhaps the only discordant note in the debate was sounded—uncharacteristically—by my colleague Shirley-Anne Somerville, who ventured to ask how many low-carbon buses could have been purchased for £545 million. The answer is, “One heck of a lot.” There are always choices to be made in public expenditure. The Government did not want to choose to spend £500 million of Scottish taxpayers’ money and £45 million of Edinburgh local authority revenue on the tram project. We could have made a greater impact in respect of low-carbon vehicles if back in 2007 Mr McNeil and all his chums—Mr Tolson, Ms McInnes and their friends and, I am afraid to say, Mr Johnstone and Mr Brown—had not given parliamentary consent to the Edinburgh tram scheme.

It is incumbent on those who have voted for rather expensive public transport projects to think twice before asking the Government to spend even more money on additional schemes, without telling us where the money will come from, when the Government is doing all that it can, through the investment that it has made in low-emissions vehicles and the reconfiguration of the bus service operators grant, to support the continuation of the excellent manufacturing tradition that is encompassed by Alexander Dennis at Falkirk.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This morning, much has been said about the work that the workforce and unions—Unite and the GMB—at Alexander Dennis have done in partnership with the company to give it a fighting chance of having a future. I add my support to those comments. It is not easy for a convener, a full-time official or a shop steward to speak to their members about taking difficult decisions that may not have the desired impact. I am pleased that it looks likely, because of the effort that the workforce has put in—not forgetting that some people have lost their jobs along the way—that the company will have some sort of future and, it is hoped, will return to a five-day week in the near future.

However, we cannot be complacent about the situation, which is our main reason for seeking this morning’s debate. We want to ensure that, at Parliament and public levels, people are aware of the effort that the company, the employees and the unions have put in in getting themselves to the current position, and of the fact that Alexander Dennis has a potential future. That future can be supported by MSPs, hopefully on a cross-party basis, at five o’clock, but also by the Scottish Government and local authorities in the decisions that they take day to day.

John Swinney was right to acknowledge the role of the company and the unions and to highlight the fact that Alexander Dennis is moving back to a five-day week. I was pleased that the cabinet secretary took time to pay tribute to the workforce for the work that it has done.

However, it is not just about supporting in principle what could happen at local government level or what could be decided by the Scottish Government; Labour members want an active approach, in which Government goes out and says to local government and people who have an interest in taking on bus-building contracts, “Here are the things we can do, and this is the approach that the Scottish Government wants contractors and local government to take.” That has happened at UK level. Such an approach informed the thinking behind the £30 million green bus fund. The green bus fund is not only an important pot of money but a brand that is out there and is being sold as a concept, in an attempt to capture the imagination of bus manufacturers, bus operators and local authorities throughout the UK, and to show them how they can work together to deliver not just greener buses and better services, but manufacturing opportunities.

Gavin Brown asked for a ballpark figure. We welcome the £1 million that has been provided to SPT, which will help the organisation in the contractual process that it will go through. We hope that Alexander Dennis, too, will benefit from that in some way. However, in the context of the green bus fund, a comparable consequential spend in Scotland would probably be about £3 million. That is the ball park that we are in.

Alison McInnes made excellent points about the integration of services, as did Cathy Jamieson. The way forward is to use much more effectively the school and social work buses that are empty for part of the day or that run only at certain times. It is frustrating to see schoolchildren being picked up at 8.30 am by the oldest bus in the fleet, which has smoke belching out of the back. Anything that can be done to improve integration must be welcome.

Alison McInnes laid out some of the detail of a bus scrappage scheme. It will be interesting to watch what Liberal Democrats do at UK level to push forward the idea. I have not phoned Alistair Darling yet, because we are not allowed to use our phones in the chamber, but I will text him when I get out of the chamber, to see whether he is around.

I offer a word of caution about points that Alex Johnstone made. Many parties are concerned about what has happened to the manufacturing sector in the UK—and in many other developed countries—during the past few years. We need to talk up manufacturing opportunities, as Michael Matheson said, and we must consider how Government spend in Scotland can support such opportunities.

That brings me to procurement. The motion considers how Scottish Government and local government spend can support the bus manufacturing sector in Scotland, but we acknowledge that there are legal hurdles and that a procurement process must be followed. However, there are things that we can do, for example by using community benefit clauses and other contractual obligations, to start to push at the boundaries of the procurement process. We must do that, because the public want to know how far the money that is spent in Scotland reaches into the communities and workplaces in which they live and are employed. People will start to ask more regularly what is delivered for the money that is spent. Labour members will work with the Scottish Government and with other parties to identify a way of pushing out the boundaries of the procurement process.

Hugh Henry talked about the need for an active approach from Government. We need the industrial activism that involves approaches to employers and consideration of the procurement opportunities that will come up in Scotland during the next few years. Government must try to work hand in hand with employers to ensure that Scottish people and Scottish workers benefit from contracts. We must ensure that that happens as public spending contracts during the coming period.

Cathy Jamieson and Karen Whitefield made excellent points about the support for Charlie Gordon’s proposal for a regulation of bus services bill. I am disappointed that the proposal did not attract sufficient support in the Scottish Parliament. I think that most members, regardless of their views on bus regulation, agree that we need a national debate about the level and appropriateness of services in our communities. I am sure that such a proposal will be made again at some point.

Points about the supply chain were well made by Michael Matheson, who identified a concern for all manufacturing companies.

We reassure Alexander Dennis and its workforce that the debate is about not just highlighting their problems but ensuring that they have a future. The Scottish Parliament wants to get behind them and give them all the support that they need. The workforce and the company deserve that.

Stones (Recycling)

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to recycle unused stones located on rural land for construction projects. (S3O-9957)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Decisions on the suitability for reuse of unused stones on rural land are best taken at a local level. Not all unused stones are suitable for construction.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Unused large stones are a common feature of many fields and could provide a cheaper, more environmentally friendly alternative to disruptive quarrying practices. Will the minister undertake, along with local authority officials and construction companies, to examine ways of encouraging the use of such stones in construction projects, which would reduce carbon emissions and damage to the environment?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member makes an interesting point. Like many people in Scotland, I live in a house in a steading in a rural setting, which makes use of stones that were found around the farm when the steading was converted. That is a traditional approach to building, which commends itself in many instances.

Local authorities could impose planning conditions on the design of buildings in the countryside, to ensure that we use such stones, which people have been digging out of arable land throughout the world for some 8,000 years.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Mr McLetchie is not present to ask question 2. That is regrettable. As I have said before in the chamber, if a member does not turn up to ask their question, supplementary questions are ruled out. Also, question 2 has brought the Deputy First Minister, who will not have to answer another question during general questions, to the chamber. That is highly regrettable.

Public Sector Efficiency Savings

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive what percentage of efficiency savings made by the public sector in 2008-09 is attributed to the sale of surplus assets and underspends due to staff vacancies. (S3O-9885)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Public bodies reported savings made through improved asset management of £82 million in 2008-09, which represents 9.8 per cent of the £839 million total. The figure is not restricted to asset sales, but will include savings that were generated through better use of assets, such as energy efficiency measures, generating income from assets or better fleet management. Public bodies were not asked to report savings due to staff vacancies.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

In his 2006 report, “The Efficient Government Initiative: a progress report”, the Auditor General for Scotland recommended that the Government ensure that

“all reported efficiency savings are calculated using suitably robust methodologies”.

In his report, “Improving public sector efficiency”, which was published in February 2010, the Auditor General noted that the Scottish Government

“does not validate reported savings”,

and he went on to say:

“There is a risk that public bodies are reporting efficiency savings which are actually cuts in service as they have adversely affected the quality or level of service provided.”

Is the cabinet secretary concerned about that? What is he doing to address the matters that the Auditor General raised in his report?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In the Audit Scotland report, the scale of the achievement of Scottish public bodies is acknowledged. I have said this before in the Parliament, but it is important to remember that in 2008-09 the efficiency savings programme realised savings of £839 million, which exceeded the target of £534 million by more than half. The analysis of performance that Audit Scotland has provided is welcome, and the whole process of efficiency achievement is a central part of managing the challenge in relation to public expenditure that we will face in the years to come.

Of course, the Government will look at Audit Scotland’s report. However, I point out that Audit Scotland is positive about the achievements that have been made and the mechanism that the Government has deployed to ensure that we deliver the efficiency savings programme that the taxpayers of Scotland expect us to deliver.

Teacher Numbers (Reductions)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is committed to reversing the reductions in teacher numbers that have taken place since May 2007. (S3O-9882)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Employment of teachers is primarily a matter for local authorities. However, the Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that Scotland has the right number of teachers to meet the needs of our pupils. That is a logical step that I am sure would appeal to all in these straitened times.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

So, if the Scottish Government remains committed to maintaining teacher numbers in the face of falling school rolls, as it promised in 2007, why do the public sector employment in Scotland statistics that were published yesterday show a further year-on-year fall in teacher numbers of 600? If it is up to local councils to make good on the Scottish National Party’s manifesto promises, what message does the cabinet secretary have for the 11 out of 13 SNP-run councils that have cut teacher numbers since the SNP gained power at Holyrood?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

My initial message is not to believe Labour press releases. Even the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities delivered a statement yesterday that chided Mr McNulty for the way in which he had presented something in his press release. The reality is that the biggest fall in teacher numbers in the 2009 teacher census came from Glasgow City Council, which accounted for 28 per cent of the 1,348 lost teaching posts.

What the member needs to look at—this is where reality should kick in—is that the cost to local authorities of employing 2,000 more teachers would be roughly £80 million per annum. If the member is committing herself to the wrong number of teachers for our schools at this stage, it will cost her another £80 million, which is yet another spending pledge at a time when not one member of the public believes a word that Labour says about this.

Rural Petrol Stations (Closures)

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive how many petrol stations in rural areas have closed in the past 10 years. (S3O-9870)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I answered a similar question—S3W-27817—on 28 October 2009 with an extract from the interdepartmental business register, which is maintained by the Office for National Statistics. Although the figures do not provide a precise answer to the question asked, the latest statistics suggest that there may have been a reduction in the number of rural petrol stations over a 10-year period of about one third.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister may be aware of the serious situation that is faced by filling stations with attached retail premises, some of which have just seen increases of 50 per cent or more in their rateable values that may well threaten their viability. Does the minister agree that we cannot afford more closures of petrol stations in rural areas? If so, can he tell us what action the Scottish Government will take to try to address this serious situation?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

There are two parts to my answer. First, we congratulate many of the rural filling stations as they diversify into other business areas, meeting local needs and, as they broaden their potential income base, giving greater long-term security. Following representations from the industry, the independent Scottish assessors are reviewing the methods used for the valuation of petrol stations.

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

Prices at many petrol stations in the Highlands are at very high levels right now. Besides hitting customers, those prices may well bring closure nearer to the petrol stations in view of cheaper fuel being available at centrally based supermarkets and areas further south in Scotland. Has the minister had any discussions with HM Treasury with regard to possible changes to the taxation regime that might assist motorists, petrol stations and the local economies of remote and economically fragile areas of Scotland? If he has not had such discussions, will he consider approaching the Treasury as soon as is practically possible?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I suspect that there are few subjects on which we have had more correspondence with the Treasury. In particular, we have drawn its attention to the experience in Corsica—I think that I am correct in saying this—where the European Union has agreed that prices may be supported in a way that ensures that rural and remote areas such as Corsica can have prices that meet local needs. We absolutely commend that approach as one that is appropriate to Scotland. We need support from the Treasury on it, which we have so far not had.

Forth Replacement Crossing (Procurement)

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will provide an update on the procurement processes for the Forth replacement crossing. (S3O-9912)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

We remain on track, subject to parliamentary approval, to award the principal contract in spring 2011 and complete the project by 2016.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Like me, I am sure that the cabinet secretary hopes that the replacement Forth crossing will be a legacy, in terms of not just infrastructure, but employment and training. Is he in a position to give a cast-iron guarantee that community benefit clauses will be part of the procurement process for the future Forth crossing, which will hopefully provide wider benefits in terms of training and apprenticeship opportunities for local people, and opportunities for supply-chain companies to benefit as well?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The question of community benefit clauses is very important. I certainly would want to give Mr Park the assurance that that will be a central part of what the Government takes forward as part of the procurement exercise on the Forth replacement crossing. Community benefit clauses, of course, exist in one of the other major procurement projects in which the Deputy First Minister has been involved, for the Southern general hospital in Glasgow.

Mr Park’s other point, which is equally important, is about the importance of ensuring that there is a long-term, beneficial impact on employment patterns within the area. Certainly, as we have been able to achieve in a range of different infrastructure contracts around the country, we would be looking for new opportunities for apprenticeships to be achieved as part of the procurement activity that is under way. That certainly will be uppermost in the mind of the Government as part of the procurement process for the Forth replacement crossing.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

During my recent conversations with the business community in Fife, including the Federation of Small Businesses, the issue of awarding Government contracts to small and medium-sized businesses was raised. Such businesses are aware of the restrictions on the public procurement process, but they seek fair consideration when contracts are being awarded for large construction projects. Will the minister encourage main contractors to consider using local suppliers to help Scotland’s small and medium-sized businesses to survive and grow, as well as to reduce the carbon footprint of the construction projects?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I have a great deal of sympathy with the point that Mr Tolson has raised. Indeed, in its approach to procurement, the Government has tried to increase the opportunities and avenues for small companies to be able to tender for public sector contract activity. One of the most effective ways in which we have done that is through the establishment of public contract Scotland, which is a web-portal system that enables local suppliers to register their interest in whatever speciality or trade skill they are involved in, whether it is construction, joinery or whatever. Government contracts are advertised in an easy-to-access portal, so there is an increased opportunity for small companies to access that contract base.

Mr Tolson was a participant in the debate that we have just had on bus services, and I think that he will accept that there are elements of procurement legislation that we must observe to ensure that the procurement process is fair and open. However, I believe that public contract Scotland increases the opportunities that are available for smaller companies to obtain that form of business.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary is well aware of the unsuccessful bidder premium of up to £5 million that will go to the losing bidder. Does he share my view that that must count as the oxymoron of the day and that it is a case of the taxpayer subsidising failure?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Such matters are always a judgment. Clearly, any party that is involved in the tendering process for this very big contract will incur significant expenditure. The judgment that ministers must weigh up is whether it is appropriate to put in place a payment of that sort to encourage broader competition for the particular tender. It is therefore a matter of judgment, but I appreciate Mr Stewart’s sentiment. However, if as a result of not providing the £5 million payment, we did not have an open competition and, in fact, had only a single tender, I am not sure that the taxpayer would be best served in that case any more than they would by the approach that Mr Stewart has set out in the concerns that he has expressed to Parliament today.

Oil and Gas Extraction

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Department of Energy and Climate Change about future extraction of oil and gas in Scotland. (S3O-9935)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Through my co-chairing of the PILOT initiative, which brings together Governments, industry and other stakeholders to discuss issues relating to the oil and gas sector, we have regular dialogue with the UK Government on a range of issues, including production. As part of the current refreshing of PILOT targets, we look forward to continued dialogue with the UK Government to ensure that we achieve the best possible output from the Scottish waters.

Although the North Sea is a mature oil and gas province, substantial reserves remain. According to the recent 2010 Oil and Gas UK activity survey, there are up to 25 billion barrels of oil equivalent still to be recovered from the North Sea. The vast majority of those reserves lie within Scottish waters.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Is the minister aware of recent comments by emeritus professor of international energy studies at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, Peter Odell, who said that the UK Government should follow Norway’s example by setting up a hydrocarbons authority that would ensure that public interest is paramount in exploiting future offshore oil and gas production? Does he agree that the best way to ensure that Scotland maximises the potential of our natural resources is for us to follow Norway’s example and have all the powers of a normal independent country?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am very much aware of Peter Odell’s comments and in general agree with the concept that greater involvement of authorities is necessary to ensure maximum benefit from the remaining reserves. With a pension fund that is currently valued at more than £270 billion, Norway is a good example of where we can be.

We continue to make the case for Scotland to receive greater direct benefits from oil and gas production. On 30 July 2009, the Scottish Government published “An Oil Fund for Scotland: Taking forward Our National Conversation”, which set out the case for transferring a share of the wealth generated from oil and gas production to a fund for long-term investment purposes. In addition, in November 2009 we published our national conversation paper on energy, which set out the benefits to Scotland of acquiring greater powers over a range of energy matters, including oil and gas. We continue to make representations on that matter.

Planning (Agricultural Land)

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive what importance in the planning system is given to using prime agricultural land for development. (S3O-9876)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is Scottish planning policy that development on prime agricultural land should not be permitted unless it is an essential part of the settlement strategy or is to meet an established need where no other site is available.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Two recent housing developments on prime agricultural land in the Highlands have been approved—Ness Gap at Fortrose on the Black Isle is grade 1 agricultural land, which I understand is very limited in the Highlands, and the Tornagrain development on the A96 is also prime agricultural land, used previously to grow cereals. Given that food security and self-sustainability remain important issues to future food production in Scotland, will the minister consider re-examining planning policies to ensure that our best agricultural land is safeguarded for agricultural use?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is clear that I cannot comment on specific planning applications because of potential involvement for ministers as a whole. However, we have recently published the consolidated Scottish planning policy, in which we take a stronger line on such developments than was set out previously. We are also developing a land-use strategy this year as part of our responsibilities under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and I am sure that matters such as the one raised by the member will be taken account of.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Will development on prime agricultural land, or indeed on brownfield sites, still be subject to local negotiation of planning gain, or was The Herald correct this week to report that planning gain was to be abolished?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Herald was entirely mistaken in suggesting that it is our intention to abolish planning gain. I wrote to The Herald immediately after the publication of its article to make matters plain. It is clear that the system would benefit from a review of the processes, but where developers are making significant impacts in communities and on the transport network, it is important that they step up to the plate to make their contribution to addressing those problems with their money.

Engagements

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2280)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland. Later today I will announce an extra bank holiday in Scotland on 5 June 2012 to mark the Queen’s diamond jubilee celebrations. The people of Scotland have a special affection for Her Majesty the Queen and I am sure that the chamber will welcome the opportunity to join in the celebrations being planned to mark Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

While we are on celebrations, yesterday saw 20,000 new apprenticeship places achieved. Labour fought hard to get those apprenticeship places in the budget and we are delighted to see 20,000 youngsters getting that start in life. However, Michael Levack of the Scottish Building Federation says that the number of apprentices in training is about to drop by half. Will the First Minister promise us that he will not let that happen?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am delighted that Iain Gray is jointly celebrating the hugely substantial achievement of 19,991 modern apprenticeships having started in this financial year. That exceeds the target of 18,500 and the year is not over, so I suspect that we will get beyond the 20,000 mark. However, I have to say that I am somewhat puzzled. My memory is that Labour voted against the budget last year and then this year voted against it again, when even more apprenticeship places were proposed. Be that as it may, I am confident about the uptake of the apprenticeship positions. Iain Gray will remember that, to enable us to do even more, in January an additional £4 million was allocated to a new scheme: the apprenticeships grant scheme. That scheme opened on 11 January and was fully subscribed by 4 February, giving 4,000 additional apprenticeship places. That is very recent information, which suggests to me and, I hope, the chamber that these incentives to giving our young people a chance in society are working and will continue to work.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Not for the first time, the First Minister’s memory lets him down. We voted against the budget for this year because it did not have these apprenticeship places in it. When the Government put the apprenticeship places in, we voted for it. The truth is that if it had not been for us, these apprenticeship places would not have been in the budget.

There was good news for Britain as a whole yesterday, when unemployment went down by 33,000, but it was bad news for Scotland, where unemployment went up by 16,000. Scotland is going backwards under Alex Salmond. What is his excuse?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

If I can first correct Iain Gray’s memory, Labour voted against the budget despite the apprenticeship places being on offer—given Mr Swinney’s constructive proposals. Then, when it realised the great mistake that it had made and that it had defeated the budget by accident, it scrambled to try to redo the thing the following week. It was not Mr Gray’s outstanding moment in parliamentary politics.

It is vital that we continue to support the apprenticeship schemes, because they make a huge difference to the lives of young people. Yesterday, I met a youngster called Ryan McDonald, from Tranent, which makes him one of Iain Gray’s own constituents—indeed, it makes him a constituent of Anne Moffat, if I am allowed to mention that name in Iain Gray’s company. Ryan McDonald was made redundant last year. He then went to college and, just before Christmas, under the adopt an apprentice scheme, the Edinburgh Construction Group was able to continue his apprenticeship. That shows in real and human terms the effectiveness of the schemes that the entire Parliament adopted.

As far as the economic situation that we face is concerned, there is recovery in the Scottish economy, but it is extremely fragile. Therefore, is it not time for us to unite as a Parliament to demand that there be no cuts in public spending in Scotland next year, to demand the accelerated capital spending that Iain Gray supported in the pre-budget report—before he was snubbed by Alistair Darling—and to demand a reflationary package to tackle recession? It is vital that recovery is not choked off by a lack of public investment.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

There is a recovery in Britain, where unemployment is falling, but across all four key employment measures, Scotland is underperforming in comparison with the United Kingdom as a whole. Economic output in Scotland is falling faster than it is in the UK as a whole—that has not happened since world war two. Two thirds of all the jobs that have been lost in the whole of the UK over the past few months have been lost right here in Scotland. Something is going wrong.

The First Minister takes the credit for the number of apprentices. Will he take the responsibility for unemployment going up in Scotland while it goes down in the country as a whole?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Let us just remember that it is a point of fact that unemployment in Scotland is lower than the UK average, as it has been in every month of this Administration. Iain Gray asks about taking responsibility, but I have been doing a little bit of research. Unemployment is lower in Scotland than it is in the UK as a whole, employment is higher in Scotland than it is in the UK as a whole and economic activity rates are higher in Scotland than they are in the UK as a whole.

However, that was not always the case. Just a few years ago, in 2002-03, Iain Gray was the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning. In every month of his term of office—which, admittedly, was limited—unemployment in Scotland was higher, not lower, than it was in the UK. Did Iain Gray accept responsibility for that, or does he want to give us the credit for having lower unemployment than the UK and, indeed, most of western Europe and America? Does he accept that we should be looking at next year’s budget and asking why the UK is the only major economy that has no stimulus package planned for next year? Does he accept that we should unite as a Parliament to ensure that Westminster does not choke off the Scottish recovery?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

When I was enterprise minister, Scotland had the highest employment rate in Europe. Scotland’s employment rate may still be marginally higher than the UK’s, but the figures for this month and last month show that the UK is catching up on us, and fast.

Our potential is huge. Scotland should be leading, not lagging. What has happened? What has happened is the Salmond slump. He talks about fiscal stimulus, but he is the one who cancelled rail links in Edinburgh and Glasgow, cancelling thousands of jobs. His Scottish Futures Trust has built nothing and has destroyed 30,000 jobs. His housing budget cuts will cost even more construction jobs. He got rid of 1,000 assistants from our classrooms. This week, another 600 teaching jobs have gone—almost 3,000 teachers are on the dole.

Alex Salmond never tires of telling us that facts are chiels that winna ding. The fact is that Scotland is going backwards under him. Does he have any ideas or does he just have more excuses?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Let me repeat: in every single year of this Administration, unemployment in Scotland has been lower than the UK average.

I remind Iain Gray of what he seems to have forgotten because, unfortunately for him, I have brought the figures along with me. In every single month from May 2002 to May 2003, when he was Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, International Labour Organization unemployment rates in Scotland were higher than the UK average. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Iain Gray claims that Scottish unemployment is higher than elsewhere in Europe. In the ILO figures, Scottish unemployment is 7.6 per cent, the European average is 9 per cent, the UK average is 7.8 per cent and the American figure is 10 per cent. Although 7.6 per cent is far too high, does Iain Gray really not know that there is an international recession—[Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

—that the UK economy led the world into and that the UK economy is now lagging behind the rest of the world in recovery? The reason for that is that in the UK, alone among all the developed economies, the Chancellor of the Exchequer plans no fiscal stimulus for next year. In the same way, he cut the Scottish budget by £500 million.

The construction industry in Scotland ain’t suffering from public sector contracts being lost; it is suffering from the private sector recession that has been induced by the Brown bust and the Darling downturn. Sooner rather than later, Iain Gray, as the Labour leader in the Scottish Parliament, will have to accept responsibility for the economic decisions made by Westminster. That is why we should unite as a Parliament to demand a budget that expands the Scottish economy as opposed to one that chokes off Scottish recovery.

Prime Minister (Meetings)

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-2281)

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)

Presiding Officer,

“Members of Parliament have to do their best for their constituents. They should do it without fear or favour”.—[Official Report, 11 February 2010; c 23793.]

Those fine words were uttered by the First Minister in this Parliament just last month. Last week, the business of this Parliament was disrupted by strike action that resulted in the cancellation of committee business, and another strike is planned for next Wednesday, when the Parliament will sit to debate Scottish Government business. Does the First Minister agree that if MSPs are to do their duty and act “without fear or favour” in this Parliament they should cross any picket line outside the Parliament and get on with what we have been elected and are paid to do?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Annabel Goldie should know, I am not responsible for the business of the Parliament. However, the business of Government will continue next week, and I will discharge the business of Government as it is my responsibility to do.

Annabel Goldie should remember that the Scottish Government is not a party in the Public and Commercial Services Union dispute; its dispute is with the United Kingdom Government over redundancy payments and agreements. At the moment, this Government has a no compulsory redundancy policy in operation.

As for giving advice to other MSPs, I accept that when our own staff are involved people will want to behave sensitively. That is presumably why Margaret Mitchell, convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee, and Bill Aitken, convener of the Justice Committee, decided not to have their meetings a week past Tuesday.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No one disputes that trade union members have the right to engage in lawful strike action. However, MSPs who are elected and paid for by the public have a primary and absolute duty to represent the interests of all their constituents in this Parliament, and from that we must not be diverted. It will be business as usual for my party if the strike proceeds. Will the First Minister confirm that he will instruct his ministers and MSPs—all of them—to cross the picket line and come to work?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As I said in my first answer, the business of Government will be discharged. That is my responsibility, as it was a week past Tuesday when business was indeed discharged.

I have to say, though, that I am totally puzzled by the direction of Annabel Goldie’s question. She is now asking me to give advice to MSPs that she was quite clearly unwilling to give to Margaret Mitchell and Bill Aitken, who are committee conveners. Does she not see something of an ambivalence in her position, as her own chairmen of parliamentary committees decided not to hold their meetings? Did they not speak to Annabel Goldie beforehand? Was it something that they did of their own volition? Before Labour members wonder whether it is just Tory ambivalence to which I refer, I noted in the papers that John Park crossed the picket line to go to the Parliamentary Bureau’s meeting. No doubt John Park felt that he had to behave in a sensitive manner, but needed to discharge the business of the bureau.

I believe that the business of Government has to be discharged and that it will be discharged. I would not criticise MSPs for behaving sensitively towards staff. However, if we want to get the dispute settled, we could do with a little less humbug and politicking and a bit more common sense.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

To save Mr Park’s blushes, it was Paul Martin who attended the Parliamentary Bureau.

Members: Oh!

Order—and I am sorry if I have caused Paul Martin any blushes.

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-2282)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I gladly apologise to John Park—and to Paul Martin—for highlighting the difficulty that he may or may not have with his fellow MSPs.

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

On the economy and Scottish jobs, the First Minister probably finds it as ridiculous as I do that Labour can gloat that one part of the United Kingdom is doing better than another, when the whole of the UK is doing worse than the whole of the rest of Europe—except Greece.

The Prime Minister said in the House of Commons yesterday that unemployment is falling, whereas it has gone up by 16,000 in Scotland. What explanation does the First Minister have for the continuing rise in the number of Scots out of work?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I do not say this to mitigate in any way the 7.6 per cent International Labour Organization figure, but in February we had our first reduction in the claimant count in Scotland for two years. We should mention that, as it is an indication that the labour market is turning. It was an incredibly small reduction, however—it is a faltering and very sensitive recovery.

Like Tavish Scott, I believe that those who are responsible for economic policy in the United Kingdom should take responsibility not just for the Brown boom but for the Brown bust. That is obvious. With the UK budget happening next week, surely the Parliament should be uniting right now to ensure that there is fiscal stimulus in the United Kingdom economy next year and that there are no cuts to next year’s Scottish budget—which we have already voted on—at either national or local level. If we do not get assurances on that—if those things are not done—that sensitive, faltering recovery will be in danger of being choked off before it can accelerate into a true, sustained recovery.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Unlike the rest of us, Mr Salmond will be able to attend the presentation of the budget in Westminster next week, and it will be interesting to see whether he does.

There are 67,000 more people out of work in Scotland this year than there were last year. Unemployment here has increased twice as fast as in the rest of the UK. Scottish retail had its worst month for more than 10 years. Yesterday’s Scottish construction monitor shows that more builders expect to cut staff than expect to recruit them. People do not understand the fact that ministers hailed a recovery in December, nor the fact that the First Minister told me in January that he had “a degree of satisfaction”. He has said again this afternoon that there is recovery.

The First Minister invariably mentions his economic recovery plan, which was described by Mackay Consultants just this month as

“a mixture of pseudo-academic jargon and a long term wish list”.

Does the First Minister have anything else to offer? When does he think unemployment in Scotland will stop going up?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

In February, the claimant count went down for the first time in two years—that is a fact. As I have said before, the recovery in Scotland is sensitive—it is not a strong recovery. The economy is on the turn, as we know from the indications, from expectations surveys and from the purchasing managers index. However, that does not necessarily mean that the economy can withstand cuts in public spending next year. That is why Tavish Scott is on extremely loose ground. The Liberal Democrats, by their own admission, were previously suggesting savage cuts in public spending. At their conference last week, we found out that that policy is no longer operational and that the Liberal Democrats are in fact going to expand public spending.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

What has this got to do with the question?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

In a speech this week, Nick Clegg talked about reducing public spending by £60 billion, which would mean a £6 billion or so reduction in Scottish public spending.

The relevance of that—which Mike Rumbles does not seem to realise—is pretty obvious. How can we have a recovery in the Scottish economy when some parties, such as the Tories, are suggesting that we should rip up next year’s budget and reduce it, other parties, such as the Labour Party, will not accept their responsibility for the mess that we are in at the present moment and other parties, such as the Liberal Democrats, simultaneously call for increases in public spending across a range of subjects while their party leader is plotting the most massive reduction in public spending of any London-based party?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The First Minister’s letter to my colleague Vince Cable states:

“The public sector must now prepare for several years of fiscal austerity”.

Those are the First Minister’s own words. Would the First Minister like to lay out what that fiscal austerity will be?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I was rather pleased with the letter from Vince Cable, because it told me that he was not planning to cut public spending in Scotland next year. However, in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research this week, Nick Clegg reversed that and outlined savage cuts in public spending.

Tavish Scott asked me what I would cut in public spending. I would cut £5 billion from the identity cards budget and £100 billion for the unnecessary Trident missiles system. If we can agree on that, perhaps we can obviate the desire of the Liberal Democrats to make savage cuts in the Scottish budget while they simultaneously call for increased expenditure on individual items of public spending in Scotland.

Youth Commission on Alcohol (Report)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the report produced by the youth commission on alcohol. (S3F-2288)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I fully agree with Michael Matheson on the need to recognise that young people have an important role in finding solutions to the problems of alcohol misuse. As such, the Minister for Public Health and Sport asked Young Scot to establish the youth commission on alcohol at the end of 2008.

We welcome the youth commission’s approach and the energy and enthusiasm that it has brought to the wider alcohol debate—unlike the Opposition parties in the Parliament. We will give the youth commission’s report careful consideration and we encourage the rest of the Parliament to do so as well. The Minister for Public Health and Sport has stated that she will write to each of the commissioners by the summer to set out the Scottish Government’s response.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The commission’s report makes some 38 recommendations, a number of which focus on providing leisure activities for young people to offer a genuine alternative to drinking. Does the First Minister agree that providing diversionary activities for Scotland’s young people has a vital part to play in challenging our binge-drinking culture? Will he inform the Parliament what action the Scottish Government is taking on that?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I very much agree that diversionary activities have a significant role to play. Since June 2007, as members will know, there has been a £13 million investment in the cashback for communities scheme. Five organisations in the Falkirk area received funding of just under £22,000 in the most recent round of cashback for communities awards that were announced in December last year. Those organisations range from the boys brigade to the youth learning support that is provided by Falkirk Council. Through cashback and other resources, more than £14,000 is being spent by the Scottish Football Association to develop football in the Falkirk area. Those are some examples of how the cashback for communities scheme is providing valuable alternatives in Michael Matheson’s constituency. Those are certainly diversionary activities, but they are also very useful activities in their own right that are being funded by that initiative.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The youth commission on alcohol’s excellent report was discussed at yesterday’s meeting of the cross-party group on drugs and alcohol, where it emerged that the central theme is that young people want a culture change in relation to drinking in Scotland. Will the First Minister pledge his Government to ensure that at least two young persons are represented on every local licensing forum? Will he also ensure, as requested by the youth commission, that his Cabinet Secretary for Justice has discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland about ensuring full and rigorous enforcement of the current legislation?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am perfectly happy to take on board those two aspects. On the second question, I will most certainly do that. On the first question, we will give consideration to that point and to all the points that the young people have made.

In that spirit, I hope that Richard Simpson will now have an epiphany on the need for minimum pricing. Like me, he will have seen Labour MP after Labour MP call for minimum pricing in England, where there is less of a problem, while Labour MSP after Labour MSP refuses to accept the reality of their party’s role in our approach to rebalancing our relationship with alcohol in Scotland.

Furthermore, I know that Richard Simpson will join me in acknowledging the belated but nonetheless welcome correction from Whyte & Mackay about the impact on jobs in the whisky industry of the proposals that are under discussion. Rational debate on the issue is absolutely necessary, just as it is necessary for no party in this chamber to reject for political reasons a minimum pricing proposal that must be part of our overall solution to rebalancing this country’s relationship with drink.

Class Sizes (Maths and English)

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

5. To ask the First Minister how many local authorities are meeting maximum class size guidelines of 20 at secondary 1 and secondary 2 in the key subjects of maths and English. (S3F-2297)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We support the objective of having smaller classes in S1 and S2 maths and English. However, I think that Des McNulty has had an unexpected outbreak of amnesia on the issue. The introduction of the class size maximum of 20 was a manifesto commitment of the previous Administration; yet, by April 2007, it had been changed to having an average class size of 20 for S1 and S2. The Labour Administration also failed to place that target on a statutory basis. That is why the Scottish Government is holding a full review of all the various class size maxima, to sort out the difficulties that the Labour Administration left behind. As Des McNulty knows, we are also taking action to address class sizes in primary 1 and will tomorrow launch a consultation on legislation to reduce the legal maximum for P1 to 25 from the level of 30 that we inherited from the previous Administration.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

It is disappointing that despite having had time to research the matter, the First Minister does not know how many local authorities are meeting that important target. Can he confirm that Scottish National Party-controlled Renfrewshire Council and SNP-controlled East Ayrshire Council are two of the local authorities that are not meeting the target? Will he give the chamber an undertaking to find out how many more local authorities are disregarding the solid commitment that was given prior to May 2007? Can he tell us why class size reductions in English and maths at S1 and S2 are being set aside in order to achieve a 20 per cent reduction in class sizes at primary 1?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

It is greatly to be regretted that Des McNulty did not listen to my answer to his first question before he ploughed ahead.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Answer the question.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Des McNulty should try to remember what target the previous Administration set.

George (Labour, Lothians)

He has not answered the question.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The previous Administration started out with a target of a maximum class size of 20—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order, order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Are you speaking to Lord Foulkes or to me, Presiding Officer?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I was asking for order from George Foulkes, First Minister. Please continue.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

With Lord Foulkes’s gracious permission, I point out to Des McNulty, who is sitting beside him, that the target started out as a maximum but, in 2007, was changed—admittedly, when he was a back bencher—to an average of 20 in S1 and S2. That is an entirely different target.

I have carried out research on pupil teacher ratios in all the councils in Scotland and can give Des McNulty the figures for the number of pupils per teacher in primary schools. The SNP-led councils have an average of 15.5; the Conservative-led councils have an average of 15.8; the Scottish Liberal Democrat-led councils have an average of 16; and the Labour-led councils have an average of 16.3. No doubt, now that he understands the targets that were set by the previous Administration, Des McNulty will join me and the rest of the chamber in calling on all Labour councils with those high pupil teacher ratios to do better than they have done before.

Violent Offenders (Assessment)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

6. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that the assessment and management of violent offenders carried out by criminal justice social work services is robust and consistent across Scotland. (S3F-2286)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government is working closely with partners to ensure the consistent assessment and management of violent offenders. The report of the multi-agency inspection of high-risk offenders, which was published last year, raised issues that the Scottish Government is committed to addressing, and we have accepted all 19 recommendations in the report.

The report recommended that the first step should be to strengthen current practice. That is why we are introducing a new, more consistent approach to risk assessment and management of offenders and more effective information sharing, and will publish new national standards for criminal justice social work later this year.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The issue relates to about 2,000 people who were released from prison on a statutory order or licence after serving sentences usually of four years or more for serious violent crime. The First Minister might be aware that the recent Social Work Inspection Agency report found that two thirds of the plans for serious violent offenders had no focus on risk management and that some social work departments did not know whether their work with offenders was effective. The report spoke about uneven and sometimes weak practice in assessment of risk. Does the First Minister agree that the report is surprising and highly worrying? In the light of the recommendations or findings, which were published only last week, will he review his Government’s plan of action to ensure that they are dealt with urgently?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As I said to Robert Brown, the multi-agency inspection team, which was made up of SWIA, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and HM inspectorate of prisons, reviewed in detail the handling of 62 offenders who were released between July 2006 and December 2007. Obviously, the bulk of the cases involved offenders who were released under the previous Administration. However, that does not obviate the fact that the 19 recommendations that were made as part of that detailed assessment should be carried into practice. That is what we have undertaken to do and is what we will do.

Given that Scotland has the lowest level of recorded crime for a generation and the highest number of police officers on our streets in Scottish history, we can move forward on criminal justice knowing that serious violent offenders will be properly assessed under the new procedures, and the Scottish public can be assured that they are safer than ever before as a result of the investment in law and order.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The First Minister might have inadvertently misled the chamber in answer to a question from Annabel Goldie concerning the cancellation of committee meetings. It is the case that the Justice Committee was cancelled, which was done on the basis that I could not guarantee a quorum for the meeting. To some extent, Scottish National Party members of the committee were responsible for that, as they could not guarantee that they would be present. In the circumstances, will you give the First Minister the opportunity to clarify the situation and to accept that his party was partly responsible?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

By your non-point of order, you have already done that.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Further to that non-point of order, Presiding Officer, could you inform me—a member of the Justice Committee—how we can correct the record with regard to Bill Aitken’s statement that SNP members, myself included, were part of the problem and made it impossible to hold a meeting of the Justice Committee a week past Tuesday? At the very least, Mr Aitken, Mr Brown—I believe—and myself were willing and able to attend the meeting and, as far as I understand it, the quorum is three.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Once again—

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

No, these are not points of order. You have got the points on the record. I suggest that we suspend until 2.15.

12:33 Meeting suspended until 14:15.

14:15 On resuming—

Respite Care

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made in providing respite care places. (S3O-9887)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The total provision of all forms of respite in Scotland in 2008-09, on a comparable basis with the 2007-08 data, stood at 174,030 weeks. That represents an increase of 1,150 weeks on 2007-08, when provision was 9,240 weeks more than that in 2006-07.

I have discussed the figures with senior representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, who accept that more needs to be done to increase further the delivery of respite weeks. COSLA leaders have discussed the issue, and the convention will hold further discussions with individual local authorities to take the commitment forward.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

The Scottish Government pledged in the concordat to deliver 2,000 additional respite weeks in 2008-09 and said in its manifesto that an additional 10,000 weeks per year would be provided, yet it delivered 1,150 additional weeks in 2008-09—as the minister said—which is about 50 per cent of what was promised. In the same period, the number of respite weeks for children with disabilities fell by 1,120 weeks, or 4.7 per cent.

The minister said that she has met COSLA but, given the seriousness of the situation, the number of affected people in our communities and the number of beds that are being blocked in hospitals, will she say what more she will do to ensure that national health service resources are not the target and that hospitals and care homes work much more closely together?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Delayed discharge is at one of its lowest levels ever, but we must of course always work to do more. I assure Helen Eadie that we are doing that.

As for the commitment, Helen Eadie will remember that the £4 million of additional resources that we provided for additional respite provision will not kick in until the next set of figures appears, which should happen around November. She is correct to say that COSLA said that it would deliver 2,000 weeks more than in 2007-08. COSLA is aware of that and of the commitment to provide an additional 10,000 weeks.

The commitment is national—it does not mean that each local authority must provide an increase in weeks. However, if some local authorities reduce their respite provision by more, other local authorities will have an awful lot more work to do to make up those weeks and deliver the additional 10,000 weeks. I point Helen Eadie in Glasgow City Council’s direction and I urge every Labour member who represents Glasgow to have discussions with that council, because it has reduced the number of respite weeks it provides by more than 3,000 since 2006-07. That is a third of the total of 10,000 weeks that we want to deliver. If Glasgow City Council denies carers in its area the respite that they deserve, that makes the situation much harder for other local authorities.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

What respite provision is made in the Highland Health Board area for carers of people with arthritis and psoriatic arthritis? What role in that does the Highland rheumatology unit in Dingwall play?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I will write to Dave Thompson about the specifics of his questions. As for Highland’s contribution to the 10,000 extra weeks of respite provision, the commitment that it has delivered has stayed more or less steady; as is obvious, we encourage the area to do more. The challenge in Highland is delivering innovative respite provision in a rural area with a dispersed population. Future respite provision there is being discussed and I am happy to write to Dave Thompson with more detail about that.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am sure that the minister shares my concern at the drop in the amount of respite care provided for children. I accept and welcome the discussions with COSLA on the general target for respite care, but will she outline what specific action she will take to reverse the decline in respite care for children?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

We should acknowledge that, overall, there has been an increase in respite provision.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No, there has not for children.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

It is true that there has been an increase: we now have 174,030 weeks of respite; in 2006-07, the figure was 163,640 weeks. By anybody’s calculations, that is an increase.

There was never an agreed breakdown of the 10,000 weeks that said that so many weeks had to be given to older carers and service users or to younger people. Having said that, I hope and expect that local authorities take account of the needs of all service user groups and their carers within the provision that they make for respite.

NHS Lanarkshire (Meetings)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive when the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing last met representatives of NHS Lanarkshire. (S3O-9897)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I meet all health board chairs regularly. The most recent meeting was on 22 February; the next one will take place on 29 March.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

My question relates to the norovirus season this year, which appears to be later and much more intense than in previous years. There have been significant ward closures. In the latest report, four closures are reported in the NHS Lanarkshire area, with 53 patients affected out of a Scotland-wide total of 257 affected patients.

Is it not time for the cabinet secretary to get her act together? In the words of Hugh Pennington, the Scottish Government continues to be reactive and not proactive. Is it not time to implement the 15-point plan proposed by Labour for tackling health care and hospital-acquired infection? Part of that plan is to increase funding for the reference laboratory and mandatory norovirus reporting. Will she, at last, take some of those crucial measures?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Andy Kerr’s nerve knows no bounds. As Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, I can stand here and tell him that we have the lowest rates on record of infection in our hospitals. That is not good enough, however—we still have work to do and I am determined that we do it. However, I know that we have the lowest rates of MRSA and Clostridium difficile on record. When Andy Kerr sat in my seat, he could not say that, because for most of his tenure as Minister for Health and Community Care, he did not even bother to collect the data on C difficile. That is the reality. Although I will repeat time and again that tackling infection in hospitals is my top priority, I will not take lessons from Andy Kerr and Labour members.

Norovirus is a serious issue in the health service. Boards are required to manage the pressures from norovirus. As Andy Kerr should be aware, the issue faces the health service every year, particularly during the winter months. We report on the incidence of norovirus—we have been doing that for the past number of weeks. In the circumstances, health boards have been doing a good job of managing the pressures and I place on record my thanks to all national health service staff who deal so well with the issue to ensure that patients are cared for appropriately.

Respite (Carer Support)

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on recent figures suggesting that many local authorities are reducing respite hours and what actions will be included in the carers and young carers strategy to ensure that reductions do not impact on its stated aim of achieving “rapid, significant and sustainable” improvements in carer support. (S3O-9914)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The concordat commitment to extra respite weeks is at a national level rather than at the level of individual councils. That said, I am disappointed at the extent to which significant reductions in provision in a few council areas have offset the good progress that has been made by others. If those authorities had just held their provision steady in 2008-09, the overall provision in Scotland would have increased by a further 6,500 weeks.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities accepts that more needs to be done to increase the delivery of respite weeks. In partnership with COSLA, the Government is developing a carers and young carers strategy. Within that strategy there will be a focus on short breaks, recognising the importance of respite for carers and the people they care for.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Given the feeble and patchy progress towards the manifesto commitment to provide an additional 10,000 weeks of respite care, is the minister aware that many carers report problems, such as having been made to jump through hoops to access respite care? Some carers get little or nothing at all, and some carers tell me that they have never had a week’s family holiday. What will the minister do to ensure that the money allocated by the Scottish Government to meet the needs of carers is used for that purpose?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

First, I recognise Cathy Peattie’s long-standing interest in the issue.

COSLA leaders have discussed the issue, and they understand that, although ring fencing no longer exists, the £4 million that was allocated—which applies not to the 2,000 weeks but to the next set of figures—was intended for respite provision.

I urge members on all sides of the chamber to raise the issue with their local authorities. Glasgow City Council received the lion’s share of the £4 million—£600,000—and yet, as I said, it has reduced respite care by 3,000 weeks, which is a third of the total that we want to achieve in extra weeks. That makes it tough for other local authorities to make up the difference. I urge Cathy Peattie and other members to make representations to their own local authorities.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In the past 12 to 18 months, 127 beds have been removed across NHS Highland, many of which were used for respite care. How can appropriate respite care be met against that background of cuts?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Respite care takes place in a number of settings, and I will certainly look into what has happened with the resources that have been freed up by the reduction in those beds. I know that Mary Scanlon has followed the discussions on the reshaping care for older people agenda, which is very much about moving resource from the acute sector into community provision to ensure that community-based services, whether in home-like settings or the person’s own home, can be provided. I will certainly look into the issue that she raises in more detail.

Nurses and Midwives (Employment)

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to secure employment for recently qualified nurses and midwives. (S3O-9904)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

We have a one-year job guarantee scheme for nurses and midwives who, through no fault of their own, have difficulties finding employment. The scheme is designed to ensure that all newly qualified nurses and midwives have the opportunity to build on the clinical experience that they gain during their pre-registration programme.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

The scheme is welcome and has been in place for eight or 10 years. Is the minister aware of growing concerns over the past six months about health boards not recruiting to nursing and midwifery posts? Does she have access to the most up-to-date information on that and, in particular, does she know how many posts are under review and how many are being actively recruited to?

Is the minister also aware of any concerns about access to the midwifery bank in Glasgow in particular? There was a problem a year or so back, so I hope that she will take that point on board and look into any concerns that prevent newly qualified midwives from gaining the experience that they need through access to the bank.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

If Ken Macintosh wants to write to me on that last point with his specific concerns about access to the midwifery bank, I will be more than happy to look into them.

On Ken Macintosh’s more general point, it is incumbent on all NHS boards to assess their requirements for nurses, midwives and other staff. We have then to ensure that, as far as is possible, we match the supply of nurses, midwives and so on to that demand, which is why we have robust workforce planning arrangements in place. As members will be aware, workforce planning is not an exact science, but it is nevertheless important that robust arrangements are in place. I am more than happy to provide Ken Macintosh with further details on how that process works.

The reason for the one-year job guarantee scheme is to recognise that, in some circumstances and through no fault of their own, newly qualified nurses and midwives will not immediately be able to access a job. The scheme means that they will have access to jobs, to ensure that the skills that they have gained during their training do not go to waste. The scheme has been in place for some time, but that does not mean that it is not worth while. Any newly qualified nurse or midwife who finds themselves without a job can access the scheme.

Junior Doctors (Recruitment in Remote and Rural Areas)

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to recruit and retain junior doctors, particularly in remote and rural areas. (S3O-9893)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The recruitment of junior doctors into postgraduate training programmes is managed nationally by NHS Education for Scotland. The process for 2010 is under way and application rates are good, at around five applications for each post. NES has developed a marketing strategy that includes material on training and working in remote and rural areas.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for that response, but she will be aware that there are real concerns about the lack of junior doctors and the impact that that will have on health care in remote and rural areas. A shortage of doctors could lead to some services in those areas becoming unsustainable.

How many unfilled junior doctor posts are there at the moment? How many posts will be available in August, and how many junior doctors will be available to fill them?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

As I said, the application rates for the 2010 round of applications for junior doctor posts are healthy. I will give the member some information on that. For the 423 posts that are recruited for in Scotland—the remainder are recruited for throughout the United Kingdom—there have been 2,854 applications, which equates to a ratio of around five and a half applications per post. I understand Rhoda Grant’s point, but the indications at this stage of the recruitment process are reasonably healthy.

Having said that, we know—Rhoda Grant knows, and I am certainly very aware—of the particular challenges that exist in recruiting doctors to remote and rural parts of the country. That is why the initiatives in our remote and rural strategy are so important: they are about trying to secure the sustainability of services in those areas.

Many of our initiatives help to make the posts in those areas more attractive. For example, a couple of weeks ago I launched the flying doctors service; many clinicians would say that the back-up of such a service makes working in remote and rural areas more attractive.

A number of specific remote and rural initiatives are under way to serve the needs of rural general hospitals, including a general practitioner rural track, and rural track specialty training in general surgery, rural medicine and anaesthetics. We are aware of the challenges, but are committed, through that range of initiatives and others, to ensuring that we can recruit to those areas and secure the sustainability of services there.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of—indeed, she has mentioned—some of the issues around recruiting doctors to some of Scotland’s smallest and most remote practices. Those include island practices such as that in Pairc on Lewis. What will the Scottish Government do to ensure that the particular issues that face island practices are addressed?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Alasdair Allan is right to point to the particular challenges for island health boards. Some of the initiatives that I mentioned in response to Rhoda Grant’s question are as relevant and applicable to island boards as they are to more remote parts of mainland Scotland.

It is important that we seek to attract clinicians to work in those areas. I take the view, as I am sure all members do, that just because someone lives in a more rural part of Scotland—as one in five of the population do—that does not mean that they do not have the right to expect the same level of access to health services. There are challenges in providing that, but the range of initiatives that are under way as part of the remote and rural strategy will—I hope—be able to address those positively.

Dounby Community Pharmacy (Decision)

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive—perhaps rather needlessly at this point—when it expects a decision from NHS Orkney in relation to the application by NorsePharm Ltd to open a community pharmacy in Dounby, Orkney. (S3O-9922)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Decisions in relation to applications to provide national health service pharmaceutical services are matters for the relevant NHS board. However, I am aware that NHS Orkney issued a news release on 12 March that indicated that the application to which the member refers has been rejected.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

NHS Orkney’s decision last week to reject NorsePharm’s application, which the minister mentioned, has been broadly welcomed in my constituency, although concerns remain in relation to the prospect of an appeal.

The minister will recall from our earlier exchanges on the matter the extent of anxiety among patients in the west Mainland of Orkney about the impact that a successful application would have on wider health care services. Last week’s decision aside, is she aware of any new application that might be made in relation to the site or which might affect the community? What assurances can she give staff and patients at the local Dounby general practice that they do not face the prospect of a cycle of applications, with all the uncertainty that that entails? In that context, and given that the relevant neighbourhood in this case is defined as Dounby village, which comprises 550 people—that calls into question the financial viability of the NorsePharm application or any future application—will she agree to look again at the current pharmacy regulations to see whether limits can be placed on the time that must elapse before relevant neighbourhood definitions may be challenged?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I am not aware of any new application at the moment, although that does not mean that there will not be any. Under the current legislation we cannot prevent applications altogether, whether it is for the same premises or for the same neighbourhood, simply on the basis that a previous application has been rejected.

We are aware of the issue, however, which was raised by a number of stakeholders during discussions in the summer and autumn of last year. We will make some proposals in our consultation, which we will issue next week, and I will ensure that the member—and indeed all members—receive a copy of that consultation.

Dentists (Aberdeen)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive what it is doing to address the shortage of dentists in Aberdeen. (S3O-9930)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Responsibility for the overall provision of national health service dental services in the area rests with NHS Grampian. The board is undertaking a range of measures to improve access to NHS dental services in Aberdeen, including the opening of the Aberdeen dental school facility in January this year. The number of dentists has increased from 270, as at September 2007, to 304 as at September 2009.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I appreciate some of the positive measures that have been taken by NHS Grampian, and I particularly welcome the opening of Aberdeen dental school, but there remains a dental health crisis in the city of Aberdeen. The Government has a core NHS target—a health improvement, efficiency, access and treatment or HEAT target—that 80 per cent of children aged three to five should be registered with an NHS dentist by 2010-11. The figure in Aberdeen South is currently 31.5 per cent, a worryingly low figure that will alarm many MSPs. That is one of the poorest levels of provision in the whole of Scotland. Does the minister expect the Government’s target to be met in Aberdeen South? If so, how will that be achieved?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Good progress has been made with the target for the registration of three to five-year-olds. The HEAT target has been exceeded in Aberdeen City, with 94.7 per cent of children aged three to five years registered with a dentist under NHS arrangements.

In addition to the number of dentists, which I set out in my original answer, NHS Grampian recorded the largest ever increase in the number of independent dentists in 2008-09. Aberdeen City has shown the largest increase in the number of such dentists, with 65 of them in post.

I am sure that Nicol Stephen is more than aware of NHS Grampian’s dental plan, which has set a target of registering an additional 125,000 people by 2012. Between June 2007 and September 2009, an additional 61,500 people, of whom 13,000 were children, were registered with a dentist in Grampian. I hope that Nicol Stephen will applaud and welcome that progress.

Of course there is more work to be done, and we are determined to ensure that that work progresses at the speed that it has already attained.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I thank the minister for informing the Parliament of the increase in the number of people who are now registered with NHS dentists. Can she tell us what further consideration has been given to making it more attractive for dentists to add to their NHS patient lists or to open their lists to NHS patients?