Scottish Parliament, 27 January 2011

268 contributions from 79 members. The official report.

Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7769, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill will introduce a new regime to better protect the people of Scotland from the risk of flooding from reservoirs.

In recent years, incidents at reservoirs here and in other countries have led us to review Scotland’s legislative framework for reservoir safety. For instance, in August 2008, a near failure of the dam at the Maich fishery in Renfrewshire required the evacuation of residents downstream, the closure of public roads and the activation of emergency works to prevent an uncontrolled release of water. That near miss had the potential to cost lives and to cause extensive damage to property and infrastructure but, as the Maich was less than 25,000m3 in capacity, it was not regulated under the Reservoirs Act 1975.

The 1975 act is based solely on capacity. Under it, all reservoirs of more than 25,000m3 in capacity have the same inspection and supervision requirements. The bill will introduce a new system of regulation that is based on the level of risk that each reservoir poses. That makes sense for two reasons. First, reservoirs with no communities downstream will be subject to less regulation and will benefit from significant savings. Secondly, reservoirs that are close to businesses and communities will be more rigorously assessed to provide the highest level of protection.

We have set the minimum volume for regulation at 10,000m3 on advice from the Institution of Civil Engineers that that is the level above which an uncontrolled release of water could cause injury or death. All managers of reservoirs that have a capacity of more than 10,000m3 will have to register their reservoir with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Registration will be free for the first six months to encourage reservoir managers to register early. Once a reservoir has been registered, SEPA will classify it as high, medium or low risk. If reservoir managers are unhappy with the risk classification of their reservoir, they can appeal.

Managers of low-risk reservoirs will need only to register, to keep basic records, to put up an emergency information board and to produce a simple flood plan. Managers of medium-risk reservoirs will, in addition, have to appoint a qualified civil engineer to supervise the reservoir and will have to have the reservoir inspected when that is recommended by the supervising engineer.

High-risk reservoirs will have to be inspected regularly. With high and medium-risk reservoirs, the reservoir manager will have to carry out any mandatory repairs and maintenance works that are specified by the inspecting engineer to maintain the safety of the reservoir.

The role of the Institution of Civil Engineers has been a central feature of reservoir safety for more than 30 years. The knowledge of the engineers will continue to be invaluable to reservoir managers and to SEPA, which will take on the enforcement role for reservoir safety from local authorities. SEPA will hold a central register of all reservoirs in Scotland and will receive details of any maintenance and construction work that is taking place from the appointed engineers.

Under the 1975 act, local authorities are constrained by the limited enforcement mechanisms that are available to them. Professor Richard Macrory’s 2006 review on improving regulatory compliance found that, in many cases, criminal prosecution may not be the most effective sanction. The report concluded that flexible and risk-based tools were more likely to achieve the desired outcome. That is why we are creating a more flexible and dynamic system of enforcement, in line with the Scottish Government’s aim of better regulation. That will give SEPA access to a more appropriate and effective range of tools to encourage compliance, which should further guarantee the safety of the public.

During the bill’s development, we have taken steps to engage with the public, key stakeholders and other experts. The overwhelming majority of respondents to our public consultation were in favour of the implementation model that is set out in the bill. Our reservoir safety stakeholder group has provided crucial insight into reservoir safety issues and has contributed to the bill’s development.

I take the opportunity to thank the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee for its diligent scrutiny of the bill and for its support for the bill’s general principles. I also thank the many individuals and organisations who gave evidence to the committee. I would like to mention some of the key points that the committee raised in its stage 1 report and some of the amendments that the Government intends to lodge at stage 2.

The committee highlighted the potential costs that may be incurred by individuals, but the cost of maintaining a reservoir properly should be balanced against the potential cost to a reservoir manager of dealing with the consequences of the failure of a poorly maintained dam. The bill is designed to reduce the risk to the public and to reservoir managers.

We are open to considering whether provision for financial assistance should be made but, for the reasons that I have mentioned, we will do so only in the limited circumstances in which the costs of bringing a reservoir up to the required standard are clearly impossible for a small business owner to pay.

The committee also highlighted areas in which some unintended practical problems could arise as a result of the current drafting. To that end, I confirm that we are considering lodging amendments at stage 2 to resolve those issues. The proposed amendments will, for example, require SEPA to consult the ICE before publishing guidance on the risk designation process; remove the requirement for an inspecting engineer to be appointed at all times; and make it clearer that routine maintenance that does not affect the safety of a reservoir is not mandatory.

I have given a rapid account of the bill’s main features and some of the key changes that we expect to introduce at stage 2. We will work closely with local authorities, SEPA, Scottish Water and others to put in place the appropriate regulations, guidance and resourcing to take that forward.

In conclusion, the Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill represents a crucial step towards achieving our aspiration of managing effectively the risk of flooding in Scotland. Through the bill, Scotland will introduce a modern system of risk-based reservoir management that puts public safety first.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

At this stage, I advise members that I am in a generous mood and can offer all speakers an extra minute.

I call John Scott to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Every so often, a committee of the Parliament has the privilege of considering a bill that captures the imagination of the Scottish people and provokes excited debate across the land but, on other occasions, a committee considers a bill such as the Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill. In case that sets too flippant an opening tone, let me add that it is undoubtedly a very important bill that one day might save lives. It is also a bill with possible drawbacks, including the challenging financial implications that it might have for some individuals. That is a serious business, to which I will return later.

I can sincerely declare that I enjoyed the stage 1 scrutiny, in part because of the illuminating testimony of our expert witnesses and in part because I am a civil engineer by training and find such matters fascinating anyway. I got the impression, though, that other committee members perhaps enjoyed themselves more than they had expected to, tapping into hitherto unexploited reserves of enthusiasm on issues such as the relative merits of concrete and puddle-clay dams, and the statistical probability of a peat slide. I expect that some members will wish to refer to such issues in more detail, and we all look forward to that.

The committee has produced a thorough report, and I thank my colleagues for their diligence. I thank Maureen Watt, who chaired proceedings in her usual efficient and good-humoured way. As she is away on parliamentary business this week, I have stepped into her shoes, as it were. I also thank the Scottish Parliament information centre and the clerks, who, as usual, have done a sterling job.

The committee took evidence from SEPA, Scottish Water, the Institution of Civil Engineers, an energy company, an angling club operator, an insurer and the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change and her officials. We received more than 20 written submissions from councils, charities, landowners and large and small businesses, for which I thank them all. I reiterate that our scrutiny of what is a long and technical bill has been thorough.

In evidence, engineers, in particular, raised concerns about various technical issues. I did not sense that any of them was hugely important, but they underline a key recommendation of the committee, which is that the Government must maintain a dialogue with the ICE during the amending stages and, if the bill is passed, in the lead-up to implementation. It is crucial that the technical provisions—the nuts and bolts of the legislation—appear to be workable to the people who rely on them. It is only fair to add that the Government has so far demonstrated a willingness to listen, which is encouraging.

It is also important for the Government to maintain a dialogue with reservoir managers. I appreciate that there is a stakeholder working group that serves as a forum for stakeholders to air their views and as a conduit for the Government to relay information. I suggest that the information-relaying role needs to be stepped up, particularly in relation to the cost implications for reservoir managers, because there are some worried people out there.

One of our witnesses was a gentleman who runs an angling business. He ended up owning a reservoir as an indirect result of water authorities selling off redundant reservoirs to the public some years ago. He raised the prospect of the bill leaving people like him unable to meet the maintenance costs that will arise under the new regime, and equally unable to afford the eye-watering one-off cost of reservoir decommissioning. Our report described that as a catch-22 situation. We might also have said that such people are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. I hope that the minister will be able to address that issue. It is to be hoped that only a tiny minority of reservoir owners will be in that position, in which case the way might be open for the Government to provide help, as the minister hinted in the committee and—if I heard him correctly—commented this morning. I would certainly welcome that.

As the minister was keen to stress, most reservoir managers might not incur significant extra costs and, in some cases, bills might go down. I certainly hope so, but the stage 1 evidence was contradictory on the point. An example is the annual subsistence fees that SEPA proposed to charge reservoir managers. It emerged that the authority to charge those fees is missing from the bill. There is also uncertainty about the level of fees. SEPA indicated the low hundreds of pounds, but the financial memorandum suggested a far greater range. There is a slight sense of policy being made on the hoof, which also concerned the committee.

I conclude by noting that Scotland has a good reservoir safety record, with no fatalities in almost a century. That is despite having some of the oldest working dams in the world—splendid feats of engineering such as Loch Thom and the Greenock Cut above the Firth of Clyde. That is a tribute to generations of Scottish engineers and, I suppose, an indication that the current legislation has not served us too badly. However, the committee has been persuaded that the bill should proceed on the basis that it will take a more flexible approach, with the level of risk matching the level of inspection. As our report says, we expect SEPA’s overall regulatory regime to be

“as light touch as possible without compromising safety”,

so that costs to managers are driven down.

I note that the minister expressed an interest in lodging stage 2 amendments. I restate the importance of on-going Government dialogue with the experts in order to improve the bill. I hope that that leads to a steady trickle of Government amendments rather than an uncontrolled dam burst but, either way, the committee looks forward to reconsidering the bill at stage 2.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Labour members, too, support the general principles of the bill, which requires all reservoirs with a capacity of more than 10,000m3—we were told that that is four Olympic swimming pools—that lie above the natural level of any part of the surrounding land to be risk assessed and categorised by SEPA according to risk. The bill maintains consistency with the United Kingdom Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and modernises the regulatory regime, which is currently fragmented. Although there have been no fatalities in Scotland due to reservoir flooding since the 1920s, there have been serious incidents, as the cabinet secretary said. Climate change and increased precipitation will also increase risk, so a more consistent approach is to be welcomed.

As others have said, the bill is technical and does not involve many policy issues. However, because of its size and technicality, a number of drafting issues were picked up by witnesses who gave evidence to the committee and they will have to be clarified by amendment at stage 2. For example, the bill appears to require all water-bearing structures that are attached to a controlled reservoir to be inspected, which could be interpreted as meaning that all the kilometres of tunnels that are attached to a reservoir are also to be inspected, which would be very onerous. It is important that those drafting issues are rectified at stage 2. It is also a matter of concern that they were picked by external consultees and not by the bill team. I seek the cabinet secretary’s assurance that all amendments will be thoroughly checked for any further inconsistencies. I realise that we are all galloping towards 22 March, but it is important to get the bill right.

The committee debated the proposal from some witnesses that the only factor that should be considered is the risk to human life. Although that should be paramount, Labour members strongly support the retention of environmental and cultural heritage as aspects that must be considered. I would be concerned if risk to the environment were excluded from consideration when assessing how the risk of a reservoir should be categorised.

The bill will have implications for some reservoir owners who are currently excluded from the 1975 act but who will be caught by the new legislation. Some reservoir owners might be uncertain about whether their reservoir exceeds the threshold volume and the bill is not clear about who will pay for the inspection that will be required to assess whether the reservoir requires to be risk assessed. We would welcome clarification on whether SEPA will provide that service and, if it will, what the financial implications are for SEPA, as they are not included in the financial memorandum

The Minister for the Environment and Climate Change also suggested that there might be some financial support for owners, and the cabinet secretary referred to that again today. There might be assistance for some reservoirs that are included in the regulation for the first time and I am interested to learn further what those provisions might be. I appreciate that such assistance should be available only in particular limited circumstances when the reservoir owner cannot afford the cost of registration or the cost of decommissioning the reservoir.

I would also like to see some consideration of SEPA’s budget. We know from the draft budget that SEPA’s budget will decrease in 2011-2012 by 11 per cent to £4.9 million. I know that SEPA is in the process of consulting on better environmental regulation with the aim of developing a proportionate risk-based approach that would reduce complexity and introduce efficiencies. I support that approach in principle and I wish SEPA every success with the consultation and further implementation of its approach. However, a budget reduction of 11 per cent when SEPA has already been given additional responsibilities in flood risk management, for example, will make things difficult.

The financial memorandum states that the costs to SEPA are difficult to estimate at the moment because we do not know how many new reservoirs will be included under the legislation or what category they might fall into. It estimates that there will be a one-off cost of between £1.7 million and £2.9 million, and staffing costs of £2.19 million for the implementation period up to 2016. Thereafter, there will be revenue costs of £0.41 million per year. SEPA will be able to charge reservoir owners to fund its administration costs, but the financial memorandum still estimates that the cost to SEPA could be around £4.12 million until 2016. That is almost as much as next year’s budget reduction, so I would welcome reassurance from the cabinet secretary that the money can be found without detracting from SEPA’s other responsibilities, which are quite onerous in some respects.

Overall, we are supportive of the bill. I suppose that we are looking forward to stage 2, although I suspect that it might be a rather technical process.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am pleased to speak for the Scottish Conservatives in the debate. It might not be the most controversial debate, but it is important. I put on record my thanks to the members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, including my friend the deputy convener, John Scott, for a thorough and useful stage 1 report, which has helped me to prepare for the debate. Thanks should also be recorded to the committee’s clerking and support team, and to all those individuals and organisations who gave written or oral evidence to the committee. SPICe’s Alasdair Reid produced a helpful briefing paper on the bill and the Law Society of Scotland also submitted a briefing for the debate.

The Scottish Conservatives share the Scottish Government’s recognition of the specific need to enhance reservoir safety and to seek a clear legal and administrative framework for the construction and management of controlled reservoirs so that the risk of uncontrolled releases of water and their consequences can be reduced.

The debate is of particular importance to my region of the Highlands and Islands. The Highland Council area has the highest number in Scotland of reservoirs holding 25,000m3 or more of water—127—while my native Argyll and Bute has the second highest number, at 76. I expect that both areas will remain near the top of the tables for the most reservoirs when the bill brings all the smaller reservoirs above 10,000m3 under the auspices of the new system. With the push towards new hydro schemes, there may also be pump storage areas that are made into new reservoirs.

I will ask the minister to comment in more detail on two specific areas. The first relates to whether the probability of an uncontrolled release of water from a reservoir or just the consequences of such a release should be considered. Alex Macdonald of the Institution of Civil Engineers raised the issue in his evidence to the committee, and I have sympathy with the view that the consequence should be the key driver.

Secondly, given the concerns that have been expressed about the impact on small businesses and not-for-profit organisations that run reservoirs from both compliance and decommissioning costs, what if any costings has the Scottish Government done on the options for taking reservoirs off small operators’ hands? I was interested in the committee’s comments on the issue in its report. At paragraph 40, it states:

“There is uncertainty over the status and likely level of annual or subsistence charges likely to arise under the Bill. The Committee recommends that this be addressed as a matter of urgency, so as to provide greater certainty to stakeholders, particularly those persons who anticipate becoming managers of medium or high-risk reservoirs under the Bill and who are confused by the financial implications of this.”

At paragraph 44, it states:

“The Committee notes the Minister for Environment and Climate Change’s recognition that the Bill might lead to difficulties for some reservoir managers, and welcomes her tentative indication that the Government might consider providing some sort of assistance in extreme cases.”

Like the committee, I seek further clarification on what sort of assistance the minister and the Scottish Government might have in mind.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

I am pleased to contribute to the debate. I should probably begin by declaring an interest as I live just a few miles downstream from the Megget reservoir, which has a capacity of 61,400,000m3 and, being nearly 1,100ft deep, is deeper than any Scottish loch or British lake. I take more than a passing interest in reservoir safety as any breach of the Megget would most likely result in my home ending up at Berwick-upon-Tweed.

Joking aside, I note that the regulation of our numerous reservoirs is an important matter due to our reliance on many of them and the close proximity of settlements to some of them. Indeed, the example that the cabinet secretary gave of the Maich fishery in Renfrewshire is cited in the policy memorandum and serves as a reminder that complacency on reservoir safety is not an option. In that regard, I welcome the Government’s attempt to look more closely at the matter.

The bill has particular relevance to my region, the South of Scotland. I believe that all of Edinburgh’s water comes from the region, and there are numerous reservoirs dotted around the area, with 38 in Dumfries and Galloway and 26 in the Borders. Of course, not all reservoirs are used for drinking water and many of them are utilised for recreation. As members will know, Penwhirn near Stranraer and Alemoor near Hawick are both excellent fishing locations that are enjoyed by many.

I plan to touch on a few aspects of the bill that I feel are worth highlighting, the first of which is the relatively contentious issue of the proposed threshold volume. Members will be aware that the Reservoirs Act 1975 is largely responsible for setting the current safety requirements surrounding large raised reservoirs. It was that legislation that introduced the 25,000m3 threshold but, interestingly, the act still did not cover the Skelmorlie reservoir in Ayrshire, the failure of which in 1925 resulted in the sad loss of five people.

The bill puts an extra burden on to SEPA and, as Elaine Murray said, there will be a cost to that organisation. The cost is estimated at more than £4 million in the next five years, so I would be interested in hearing how the cabinet secretary foresees funding that cost, especially in the light of SEPA’s diminishing budget. Will we see an increase in fees from SEPA across the board, or will an extra burden be passed on to consumers through water rates?

Clearly, a reservoir need not be greater than 25,000m3 to have the ability to cause great harm to life and property. The Government has realised that and sought to address the issue in the bill, for which I am grateful. I am aware that RSPB Scotland and the Association of British Insurers have opposed the lowering of the threshold, but I think that we need to be guided by those who have direct experience in the field. That is why I am comfortable supporting a threshold that was set largely thanks to professional advice from the Institution of Civil Engineers and which has been supported by SEPA, local authorities and even the Scotch Whisky Association.

I note that the committee supports the lowering of the threshold, but I share its concerns that the Government failed during stage 1 to articulate adequately the rationale behind the use of the 10,000m3 figure. The fact is that each reservoir is unique, and increased capacity of a reservoir does not equate to greater risk. Indeed, some reservoirs in excess of 25,000m3 will pose no risk to life or infrastructure because of their remoteness, but a 10,000m3 reservoir that is being held back by an embankment dam near a village certainly does pose a risk.

The Liberal Democrats support the bill at stage 1, but I look forward to some clarifications in the minister’s summing up.

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

At the start, let me comment on and condemn the inconsiderate behaviour of the cabinet secretary towards the back benchers who will speak in the debate. There has been little disagreement on the bill: all parties are supportive and there are but a limited number of points on which there is any disagreement. There were of course some technical issues, but the cabinet secretary has already informed the committee of steps that will be taken to resolve several of them.

When there is little disagreement and therefore only a limited number of discussion points, is it not rather inconsiderate of the cabinet secretary to reduce further the discussion points by agreeing with the committee’s proposals? A cabinet secretary who listens to the committee can clearly make it very difficult for humble back benchers such as me to find points of discussion.

Although the bill is uncontroversial, recent events in Renfrewshire show the importance of reservoir safety: four Olympic swimming pools can do a fair bit of damage.

It is fair to say that, barring a few quibbles here and there, we all broadly agree on the bill. Therefore, let us quibble.

It was suggested by some witnesses that, in determining the risk status of a reservoir, only human life should be considered and that other factors—cultural, archaeological and ecological—should not feature in the calculations. I note that the Government has given an assurance that risk to life will be the paramount consideration, and rightly so. However, I believe that there is no need to specify that in the bill. It would be necessary to do so only should there be a possible conflict between the needs to protect archaeological, ecological or cultural sites and human life, but such a conflict clearly cannot arise. At least, it should not arise, and it is certainly easy to ensure that it does not do so.

In order for such a conflict to arise, it would have to be the case that a low level of hazard to ecological or cultural factors would result in a downgrading of risk. In effect, we would balance disparate factors in a form of arithmetic, giving so many points for each factor and subtracting points if there is little risk to any given factor. That would surely not be a logical way to determine the aspect of risk, and I am sure that it is not one that would be used by those doing so.

If a substantial number of people live in the inundation area, the risk category should be high, regardless of the lack of risk to other factors. However, if there are few or no people living within the inundation area, should the reservoir automatically be low risk, even if a major archaeological site lies in the inundation area? Let us imagine a dam built near Skara Brae. Even though no lives might be at risk, is the risk to such a major archaeological site not enough to raise the level of risk by which the dam is defined? There is a real possibility that specifically raising one factor higher than all the others might result in the other factors being downgraded. That would be necessary if there were a potential conflict between the factors, but there is not and nor should there be.

A second point of concern for me is the designation of reservoirs as posing a low, medium or high risk. Risk is determined by two factors: the probability of the dam failing and the likelihood of the loss of human life or damage to significant sites within the inundation area. Herein lies the problem. When people see the word “risk”, they are likely to think of the risk of dam failure. What will be the impact on those who live below a dam if they suddenly find that the dam is labelled as high risk? One morning, they think that they are safe; the next morning, they are told that the dam above them is a high-risk dam. Of course, a high-risk dam may have an almost zero probability of failure; indeed, our history of limited dam failures suggests that that is the case. However, inadequate or malicious reporting—far be it from me to suggest that our press ever report inadequately or maliciously, but let us imagine for a second that some might—could easily result in an unpleasant psychological shock to those living below the dam.

I therefore urge the cabinet secretary to reconsider the use of the word “risk”. If the dams were labelled as category 1, 2 or 3, any reporting of a dam’s category would have to be accompanied by a clear explanation of how a categorisation is arrived at. Furthermore, a label such as category 1, 2 or 3 would not of itself be alarming, as opposed to someone suddenly finding that they are living below a dam that is described as high risk—which might prove very alarming indeed. I appreciate that this may seem a rather minor point, but it is one with considerable potential to impact both on an individual’s sense of security and on house prices.

This is a worthy bill and the committee is agreed that it is a commonsense bill. I have chosen to concentrate on a few specific areas mainly because, to be brutally frank, there is not much to be terribly excited about. It is a sensible bill containing sensible, uncontroversial measures. I urge the cabinet secretary to try not to introduce too many of them—it does not make for exciting debate.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am grateful—I think—for the opportunity to speak in the debate. The cabinet secretary set out clearly the reasons for the bill, including the incident in Renfrewshire that gave rise to recognition that there was a gap in the armoury of reservoir protection. John Scott carefully and clearly set out the committee’s considerations of the bill, which have been thorough. They would not have been as thorough had it not been for the contribution that John Scott made, which on balance was very helpful. There were times, such as when he was explaining the intricacies of Mohr’s circle, when I began to wonder how valuable his contribution was, but it genuinely proved to be so. As a civil engineer, he was able to pick up on issues that lay members such as I were unable to and he made a big contribution to improving the committee’s stage 1 report.

As Bill Wilson said, Governments would generally not introduce such a bill unless there were an absolute need to do so—the Scottish Government has certainly not done it for fun. In many respects, it is just a technical bill, and there is no reason why we should not support it. In so doing, however, it is our job to point out areas where further clarity may be required, such as the definitions in the bill. Bill Wilson made a rather interesting point about the risk categories that are used in the bill. That is one of the areas that the Government might have another think about.

As Jamie McGrigor said, the Highlands and Islands region that I represent has more reservoirs than any other part of Scotland—indeed, any other part of the United Kingdom, I imagine—because of our history and topography. Therefore, the implications of the bill are of particular interest for the region that I represent.

As John Scott rightly said, the industrial revolution gave rise to the creation of many of the structures that we are now having to regulate and think more about. He mentioned Greenock, which has a number of reservoirs around it that fed power to industries there. In today’s world, however, those structures, which were originally conceived and constructed for engineering purposes and to drive industry, have assumed new significance in society and are used for recreational purposes, principally fishing. They have also become havens for wildlife and for improving biodiversity. In maintaining those functions, the current reservoir managers face different challenges.

Also, as Bill Wilson and John Scott have pointed out, since the construction of many of the reservoirs we have built housing and other forms of occupation below them, potentially in inundation areas, if there were to be any catastrophic breaches of the reservoirs in the future. Given that history and the age of the structures, some of which are 150 years old or older, it is important that we review our laws to make sure that we have the required protection to ensure people’s safety into the future.

As other members have said, the bill takes a risk-based approach, whereby the higher the risk, as defined by the number of people who would be affected by a breach or any other problem with the dam, the more regulation is imposed. The lower the risk, the more light-touch the regulation will be. That seems entirely appropriate as a way of dealing with the matter.

The size of the reservoirs that are to be regulated is coming down from 25,000m3 to 10,000m3. I probed that in the committee and, on the basis of the evidence that we received, it seems to be an entirely reasonable level for regulation—nobody particularly disagreed with it. I was concerned that there might be implications for the promotion of modern small hydro schemes as part of our renewables drive, which might be caught up in unnecessary regulation that would add cost and be a disincentive to the creation of more of those schemes. However, I am glad to say that I have been reassured, through the committee’s scrutiny of the bill, that that will not be the case for the most part.

Elaine Murray raised an important point about the nature and extent of the inspection regime. Scottish and Southern Energy gave us evidence on the potential interpretation of the current provisions, which could include all pipes and inlets to a reservoir. If that were the case, that could cause significant difficulty for SSE and other energy companies. When the Minister for Environment and Climate Change gave evidence, however, she indicated that the Government will consider issuing guidance on the matter, which is what Scottish and Southern Energy is looking for. That guidance will be provided and will helpfully clarify the situation.

The thing that I found most difficult to come to terms with in the bill, if that is the right way of putting it, was the problem that was identified by one witness who inherited a reservoir and is looking after it so that it can be used for recreational purposes. That is a laudable social objective, as the reservoir provides good recreational enjoyment for many people. Suddenly, however, that person could be faced with bills that they would find difficult to contend with. The best option for them might be to decide not to continue to allow use of the reservoir and to decommission it. However, they would then find themselves in the catch-22 situation to which John Scott referred, as they would not have the cash to do that either. That is a genuine problem, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will continue to explore ways of solving it.

Presiding Officer, I am happy to stop now, but I am also happy to continue if you want me to fill more time.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am happy for you to have another minute, Mr Peacock.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

In that case, I will make another couple of points.

Another point that was raised with the committee was the significance of the planning authority in giving consent for development below existing reservoirs or for reservoirs to be constructed above existing developments. There was quite a lot of debate about the need for the right balance to be struck. I take the view that planning authorities would act responsibly and would always take into account the increased risk either in constructing properties below a high-risk reservoir or in allowing development to take place in circumstances in which there would be a risk to people. We should leave it to the good judgment of planning authorities to make the right decisions. Nevertheless, I would not be against further guidance being issued to planning authorities in the light of the bill to ensure that they correctly interpret their duties.

The bill is a sensible measure and I am happy to support its general principles.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

As we know, the Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill is a technical bill that has been drawn up through need. For example, there is no central database covering reservoirs in Scotland. Currently, each of the 32 local authorities in Scotland is responsible for regulating the reservoirs in its area, which has led to a fragmented and inconsistent approach to record keeping and enforcement across the country. However, given the fact that we are in the business of making sure that registration leads to regulation, we must be careful that the bill does not add to the costs of reservoir owners and users. At the same time, we should not increase the bureaucracy that is likely to arise from classification, enforcement and giving advice.

We all recognise that the committee’s work on the bill has been carried out with a desire to ensure that people are safe, that the reservoir structures, which are quite old, are well maintained and that we can find ways in which to incorporate reservoirs as a natural part of how Scotland looks. We must recognise that, although some of their uses have changed, reservoirs are very much a part of the landscape of Scotland.

Concerns about flooding and the potential for breaches in dams cannot be too far from the minds of those of us in the Highlands. For example, anyone who drives on the road between Dingwall and Ullapool and passes Loch Glascarnoch dam—one of the great hydro dams of the 1950s—will recognise that the houses and the inn at Aultguish that are just below the dam are in the kind of place that Peter Peacock talked about, which was not covered by detailed planning regulations when the dam was constructed. I am not saying for one minute that there are dangers in the structures there, as they are well maintained, but it is important to recognise that there has to be a clear understanding in civil engineering terms of the capacity of the relevant dams.

The fact that the bill will increase the number of dams that Scottish and Southern Energy has responsibility for from 80 to 90 means that the structure of and safety issues around more and more structures will be examined. I welcome that. Most people recognise, when they drive along the roads, that a lot of the structures are quite old, and we all hope that they are maintained in the best possible fashion.

It is interesting that people are creating new dams. I want to speak about an example of one such dam, although I am not sure whether I can confirm that it is the size of four Olympic swimming pools. Last summer, Lighthouse Caledonia, one of Europe’s leading producers of farmed salmon, wanted to safeguard water supplies to its salmon hatchery at Loch Carron, on the Applecross peninsula, and lower rainfall meant that it wanted to increase the size of the reservoir by 30 per cent. It was able to carry out the necessary work, including the installation of a new pipe system, in six weeks. It is a fairly small dam, but it has an effect on the areas around it, and its environmental impact will be measured. I am delighted that it will be possible for us to ask SEPA to consider such developments, as the relevant parliamentary committee in future will be able to consider how the process of regulation, registration and enforcement is taken forward. The bill will allow that to happen, and I am delighted that we will be able to place something on the statute book before the end of March—I hope—that will be of use to many people across the country.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Like other colleagues, I thank the committee’s witnesses and clerks, as well as the committee members, for their work on the bill. We also had some useful briefings from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Scottish and Southern Energy.

Although, as everyone has said, the bill is technical, that does not mean that it is not important, and there is a job to be done over the coming weeks to ensure that the issues that colleagues and witnesses have raised are dealt with.

Elaine Murray acknowledged the importance of climate change, noting that we will have stormier and more unpredictable weather. We therefore need to examine structures that people might not have thought about for decades and ensure that risks are properly assessed.

The background to and purpose of the bill are straightforward. What emerges from the committee’s report is the range of details that need to be pinned down at stage 2. That will be a difficult job because of the short time available. The committee makes the striking point that it was a challenge to scrutinise every aspect of the bill in the limited time that was available to it. The fact that the bill is not seen as being exciting does not mean that that scrutiny does not need to take place, so I hope that that will happen. I ask the cabinet secretary to make clear before stage 2 what he believes will need to be changed at stage 2. Ministers have not had much time to consider that since the report was published last week. We all took notes during the cabinet secretary’s opening speech, but a written comment would be helpful.

I will focus on the questions that are not answered in the committee’s report. It would not be surprising if those who own or manage reservoirs were nervous about the implications of the report, some of which are fundamental to their work, such as knowing whether a reservoir is or is not within the threshold. Having a threshold seems eminently sensible, but it will be challenging for people to find out whether they have crossed it. Other important issues include timescales and the cost of studies. There will be costs to people who manage reservoirs, and we could do with more clarity from ministers about that.

There are particular issues about responsibility. Responsible owners will manage their reservoirs well and ensure that they are kept to a high standard. However, we should understand people being nervous about the process. Like Elaine Murray, I agree that giving SEPA responsibility for managing the process makes a huge amount of sense, because of its existing flooding expertise, the fact that flood maps are already being drawn up for river basins and the fact that flood catchment areas are being extended. However, as Elaine Murray pointed out, SEPA is undergoing cuts, and even though, in the big scheme of things, it does not seem that the work that the bill will give to SEPA will involve a lot of money, it will either push other priorities aside or it will require changes to be made. We would like ministers to confirm that they do not think that the new responsibilities will be a problem for SEPA or that they will dislodge other important work.

There are concerns about the cost of the legislation. We need to make clear exactly what financial support the Government is prepared to offer. The cabinet secretary mentioned that in his opening remarks, and I would welcome more detail. For example, there is a need to pin down exactly what the cost implications would be for community groups in situations in which Scottish Water offered a community a reservoir that it no longer needed but which the community wanted in order to take advantage of the recreational opportunities that it provided. In that situation, would there be a dowry from Scottish Water? Who would be responsible for registration and for any works that happened after the reservoir was transferred? Such communities would need to be aware of the financial implications. There is also a question about smaller businesses that exist on a shoestring and do not make a lot of profit. John Scott and Peter Peacock spoke effectively about that.

This is a technical bill. I remember sitting through the debates on the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005, which involved discussions of the cost of implementing the regulations. Such matters might not look huge in the big scheme of things, but the related issues of costs and timescales can be important to those who are affected by them. We need clarity about such matters before stage 2.

I want to end on planning issues. If developments are built downstream, there is a question about costs and who takes on the bigger risk. That is fundamental. The committee is clear that the developer should be responsible and that there should be clear planning guidance. We all know that planning guidance cannot be wished out of a hat instantly. Dealing with such issues takes time. In implementing the bill, consideration must be give to responsibilities. From the minister’s evidence to the committee, it seems that the Scottish Government’s view is that, once the regime is in place and reservoirs that are over the 10,000m3 threshold are covered, it will be up to those who build below a reservoir to take on the risk. I take Bill Wilson’s point about the word “risk” flagging up concerns, but I think that developers will have to factor that into new developments. People must consider the issues carefully.

I am concerned that, because the bill has been labelled as technical, everyone thinks that it can be rushed through Parliament. The fact that we were all delighted to hear that another debate was being scheduled for this morning exposes that view. However, stage 2 of the bill will be important in teasing out the issues that I have mentioned, which are important to those who will be affected. The committee has recorded that it felt rushed at stage 1. I hope that we can make stage 2 a meaningful stage in the progress of the bill, so that we can get the detail right. In that regard, it would be helpful if, before then, ministers were up front about the amendments that they intend to make and their views of the committee’s recommendations.

Once stage 2 has begun, it is hard for members to plug gaps if the Government does not deal with matters that it has been assumed it will deal with. Anything that the cabinet secretary can do today to allay people’s fears, clarify points of detail and give the committee more certainty before it gets into the nitty-gritty of stage 2 will do the Parliament and the owners and managers of reservoirs a great service.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

This has been a productive and fairly consensual debate, with some worthy contributions from members on all sides of the chamber. Peter Peacock, Rob Gibson and Jamie McGrigor all mentioned that reservoir safety is very important in the Highlands and Islands. I noted its relevance to my own region of the South of Scotland, which has many reservoirs that feed Edinburgh, and thereby affect Sarah Boyack’s constituency.

Sarah Boyack and Elaine Murray mentioned climate change and its effect on reservoir safety. To go back to my example of the Megget reservoir, the earth dam there was recently reinforced with more stone, because the winds and waves have been higher and stronger than originally calculated when the dam was built.

Several members have noted that when the bill receives royal assent, SEPA will acquire many additional powers as the recognised enforcement authority for reservoirs. Those powers will include serving enforcement notices on reservoir managers, appointing relevant engineers and imposing monetary penalties when an offence has been committed.

It is clear that SEPA will be burdened with many new responsibilities on top of its already extensive remit, and that will be costly, as Elaine Murray, Sarah Boyack and I pointed out. The Government’s own figures reveal that the full implementation of the bill will cost SEPA £4.2 million in the period up to 2016. It is expected that £0.34 million of that will be spent in the next financial year alone on recruiting just five new staff members—I hope that that is not an example of high pay coming into Government again. I am interested to hear from the cabinet secretary the Government’s plans for how SEPA will meet those additional costs. That is important, particularly when one considers that the spring budget revision for 2010-11 showed that SEPA’s spending was £48.2 million, and its budget for 2011-12 is £10.4 million less than that.

I am aware that an enabling power could allow Scottish ministers to let SEPA recover some revenue by transferring some of the costs to reservoir managers. However, that would only slightly reduce SEPA’s resource figure, and it would risk higher water rates. I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary addressed that point.

There is a wider issue in terms of burdening managers of reservoirs that are not regulated by the 1975 act with costs that they will find difficult to meet. Now that the threshold will rightly be lowered, many smaller and perhaps privately owned reservoirs that are used for angling will be included. Peter Peacock gave examples of such reservoirs, and I mentioned some that exist in my own region.

A glance at the committee’s recommendations in its report reveals that it is awaiting clarification on a number of points relating to costs. It would be unfair to expect some reservoir managers to absorb all the costs without assistance, and I am glad that the cabinet secretary has stated that the Government is considering assistance in certain cases. I would like to know where we are with that. Many of those reservoir managers operate without the luxury of extensive resources or deep pockets, and we must be mindful of overburdening them. Like the committee, I await further clarification.

However, there is certainly much to be lauded in the bill, and it has clearly benefited from a consultation exercise with high-quality responses. The bill is important for safety. Peter Peacock mentioned that many dams are more than 50 years old. In fact, many are more than 100 years old. Lowering the threshold and creating a central register of reservoirs are sensible ideas.

Ultimately, I support the general principles of the bill. However, we require further clarification from the Government on a few issues, with a particular focus on whether assistance will be provided to reservoir managers and how SEPA will operate as an enforcement authority despite the cuts to its budget. I look forward to scrutinising the bill as it progresses through the Parliament, and I will support it at stage 1.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

This short debate has been useful, and has contained some good speeches. As I suspected at the beginning, it has been consensual, as befits the subject. However, I am sure that the cabinet secretary will want to address a few points.

Reservoir safety is the key aim of the bill. I live on Loch Aweside in Argyll, and I well remember the events of 1992, when a combination of circumstances led to an 18ft wall of water being released from the Loch Awe barrage dam. A dam does not have to break to cause damage—there can just be an exceptional release. In that case, it washed away a three-arch-span Thomas Telford bridge and did untold damage to the banks of the river and to angling interests. The rubble of the bridge and the damage to the banks can still be seen today.

We have seen the power of water and flooding recently in news bulletins from Australia and South America, and we must not forget the collapse of the reservoir that held toxic waste in Hungary. Those incidents must all make us very aware of the danger of the collapse of reservoirs, and the bill is important in that respect.

I will not add a great deal to my earlier remarks, but I ask the cabinet secretary to give a clear assurance—for which the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee has also asked—that the Government remains committed to substantial dialogue with the Institution of Civil Engineers and other key stakeholders in the subsequent stages of the bill.

On the finances, and the extra charges that may come from the bill, there seems to be a huge discrepancy. According to the financial memorandum, the SEPA charges and costs for supervision and reviewing and testing flood plans vary from £525 to £21,000. Supplementary evidence from SEPA states that the annual subsistence charges will be in the region of £100 to £300. There is a vast disparity in the figures, and I hope that the cabinet secretary can clarify what the charges for small businesses—which they have not previously had to pay—are likely to be.

The Scottish Conservatives are otherwise happy to support the bill and to allow it to move to stage 2.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Peter Peacock referred in his speech to John Scott’s role on the committee, given his experience as a civil engineer. I concur with those remarks: John Scott exhibited an enthusiasm for the bill that was possibly not mirrored by all his colleagues on the committee, and he certainly brought some extremely useful expertise. I also acknowledge the role that Peter Peacock and Sarah Boyack played in filling up some of the time in this debate by exceeding their five minutes.

The bill is technical, and generally consensual. However, Jamie McGrigor was quite right to remind us in his closing speech of the serious consequences of flooding that we have seen across the world, even in the past year. It is easy to be flippant about consensual matters, but the issue at stake is serious, and we should bear that in mind.

Sarah Boyack, Peter Peacock, John Scott and other members referred to the concerns of reservoir owners. It is not just big companies that own reservoirs; private individuals, small groups and non-governmental organisations are also among those that do. Owners are worried that the bill will place new regulatory burdens on them if they happen to have one of the estimated 1,150 new reservoirs that are likely to come into its scope. That is not a reason to oppose the bill, but RSPB Scotland, in its briefing for the debate, points out that some bodies of water that will be captured by the bill are managed for wider public benefits such as biodiversity, rather than for commercial gain.

As the cabinet secretary said, consideration is being given to how to assist reservoir owners, but has consideration been given to some sort of scale of charges for different types of reservoirs that are managed for different reasons? Sarah Boyack mentioned that community groups have taken on land, including reservoirs, from Scottish Water, without realising that there might be extra financial burdens.

Public liability insurance has not been mentioned in this debate, but we considered it in the committee. There was general agreement in the committee that reservoir owners should be encouraged to take out public liability insurance if at all possible, and should possibly even be obliged to do so. The costs of that should decrease and the availability of insurance should increase if all reservoirs in Scotland are in such a scheme. Currently, 662 reservoirs are regulated under the 1975 act. As I said, the bill’s financial memorandum estimates that 1,150 reservoirs will fall under the scope of the new regulation. That number of reservoirs could be the basis for an insurance scheme, which would assist reservoir owners and those who might be affected by the consequences of any breach of regulation.

Bill Wilson, Peter Peacock and Sarah Boyack made important points about planning. Bill Wilson was concerned about the consequences of designation and Peter Peacock talked about the consequences for subsequent development. It is unclear how the designation of a reservoir will affect subsequent planning decisions or how subsequent development might affect the designation of a reservoir. A reservoir might become higher risk if somebody builds downstream of it, which could result in the reservoir owner incurring additional expenditure through no fault of their own. We would like clarification of whether a developer would be liable for the additional costs if a development caused an increase in costs to a reservoir owner. The committee suggested that that would be a good idea.

We also touched on the assessment of the risk of failure. Jamie McGrigor asked whether it is the probability of failure or the consequences of failure that have to be taken into account, or whether it is a combination of the two, and, if so, how those are weighted. There was disagreement during the evidence sessions about whether examination of the structures of a reservoir and its maintenance are sufficient to assess risk appropriately. We have talked a little about climate change. Climatic factors such as increased rainfall and events such as peat slides, which we were advised are fairly common in Scotland, can change the level of risk that is associated with a reservoir.

Jim Hume touched on the consultation on the guidance. Chapter 9 of the bill, which is entitled “Civil Enforcement, Emergency Powers and Further Offences”, gives SEPA the powers that it requires to enforce regulations. Many of the provisions are framework ones that give ministers the powers to create civil enforcement measures. Section 85 requires SEPA to publish guidance on how it will use the powers. Several organisations expressed concern about the breadth of the powers and said that they would welcome consultation on their implementation. As I think John Scott said, it would be helpful if SEPA consulted civil engineers and others before publication of the guidance so that, when the act is implemented, the guidance is available and stakeholders and reservoir owners are aware of their responsibilities.

I have probably used up my time, Presiding Officer.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

There is no necessity to speak for the sake of it.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I was wondering about that.

I look forward to stage 2, when I hope we will address the various technical issues that have been raised.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I have been instructed to speak slowly, so I am sure that this will be at a good pace, Presiding Officer.

I am pleased that we have had an opportunity to debate the Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill, which ultimately will make Scotland’s reservoirs much safer. We have more than 1,000 reservoirs in Scotland, of which about 660 are currently regulated. The bill will capture many of those that are not currently regulated, to protect the public.

As John Scott said, we all like bills that capture the public’s imagination. Although we cannot pretend that this bill does so, the consensus is that it is an important bill nevertheless, given the consequences of flooding for communities and property. In the past few days and weeks, we have seen such consequences from around the world on television. When a reservoir collapses or is breached, it can devastate communities, as we know from our history and from events around the world, most recently in Hungary, where there was the dreadful incident to which members have referred.

As Elaine Murray said, the bill complements the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. That shows that the Scottish Parliament is taking account of extreme weather conditions, our changing climate and the potential impact of flooding. Wherever possible, we must provide a safeguard against those.

I am pleased with the debate and I am grateful to all the members who have spoken for their insights. I assure the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee that the Government and I, as the cabinet secretary, will respond to its stage 1 report. As Sarah Boyack said, we have not had much time to do so, as the debate has happened rather soon after the publication of the report. The debate has been helpful, but I intend to give a much more detailed response to the committee in the coming days. I hope that that gives members some comfort.

I am confident that our proposed stage 2 amendments will go a long way towards meeting the majority of the committee’s remaining concerns. It has been good to explore some of those concerns in more detail during the debate. We will reflect on the concerns that have been expressed as we prepare the stage 2 amendments.

Further thanks are due to the various stakeholders who have helped to shape the bill through their expertise and active participation in the consultation process and all the meetings that have taken place. All that good work emphasises the widespread support for the bill, which is important, and the agreement on the need to put in place a new and robust system for managing reservoir safety in Scotland. As members have requested, we will continue to work with all stakeholders as we proceed.

I will address some of the issues that members have raised. The issue of costs crept up in a number of speeches and we heard about the potential for those who own or run reservoirs to incur more costs. I am keen to point out that, if someone cannot afford to maintain their reservoir in a safe condition, they should perhaps not own a reservoir in the first place. As a society, we want only those who can afford to own and run reservoirs to do so—they need to be able to put in place the measures that must be taken to protect the public and local communities. If someone cannot do that, perhaps they should not own a reservoir in the first place.

The new regime will help reservoir owners who, because their reservoir is low risk, have perhaps been paying a bit more than they need to. They might not have to pay so much in regulatory costs in future because the new regime will be risk based. Whereas some people will have lower costs, others who are brought into the regime will face costs for the first time. We do not want any business to go bankrupt because of the potential costs of keeping a reservoir safe. That is why I indicated in my opening speech that, as the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change said to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, we will consider whether there is a case for assisting people in the specific circumstances in which they have a small business that would be made bankrupt because of the regulatory costs that they have to pay.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

If a risk designation changes from low to high because of the bill, who will be responsible for the extra cost burden?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

There will be costs for owners and managers of reservoirs that have a higher risk designation under the new regime. SEPA will work with all owners of reservoirs to address issues of extra cost. Much effort will be put in to ensure that we minimise the costs, but someone has to pay somewhere.

Many members mentioned the financial burden on SEPA of taking on board responsibility for the bill. The Government will work closely with SEPA to ensure that it has the necessary resources. As we all know, SEPA has been going through several changes in recent months and years. In effect, those changes are making it a good-value and hyper-efficient organisation, which is what we all want.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the cabinet secretary clarify whether SEPA will pick up the cost of the initial risk assessment?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

A lot of work is taking place between SEPA and the Government. Much of the cost to which the member refers will be picked up by SEPA and the Government. However, as the member knows, SEPA will be able to recover much of those costs from reservoir owners and managers—that is only right—and the fee scales are laid out in the bill’s financial memorandum.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I have a lot of sympathy with the cabinet secretary’s arguments about the need for people to be able to pay for the maintenance of their reservoirs. However, the issue is to do with those people who do not know whether their reservoir holds 10,000m3 or less. Who pays for the assessment of whether they need to be captured by regulation—SEPA or the reservoir owner?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I know that costs are of great importance to many committee members. I will clarify that point, as well as the numerous individual debates within it, when I write to the committee in response to its stage 1 report.

Bill Wilson said that there was total agreement on all issues between the Government and members in the chamber. It was perhaps unfair of him to say that, because it meant that we did not have much to debate. However, I assure him that, although I welcome the positive stage 1 report, there are a couple of issues in it on which the Government does not agree.

The first is recommendation 13, which suggests that weirs

“should be excluded without qualification”.

We do not think that that is appropriate because in Scotland, certain large structures that hold back large quantities of water are commonly described as weirs rather than dams. We do not want weirs to escape regulation so it is important that we do not rule them out.

The second is recommendation 19. In response, I note that although we would encourage reservoir managers to take out public liability insurance, we do not support making that compulsory because it would place additional ancillary costs on some reservoir managers. Indeed, our position is supported by the Association of British Insurers. I say to Bill Wilson that there are some issues on which there are grounds for debate in the weeks ahead.

Peter Peacock discussed the implications of the bill for the planning system in respect of the role of reservoirs. “Scottish Planning Policy” already states:

“Planning authorities must take ... flooding from all sources ... into account when preparing development plans and determining planning applications.”

Reservoir flood inundation maps and flood risk management plans will therefore inform decisions alongside other planning considerations. We have to keep a close eye on that. If there is further need to update guidance to local authorities, we will ensure that that happens.

Bill Wilson discussed the weighting of the various criteria that are considered when the level of risk posed by any individual reservoir is being looked at. I put it on record that risk to life will always be of paramount consideration, but environmental and cultural heritage also have to be considered because they are important factors when the risk posed by any individual reservoir is looked at.

Jim Hume mentioned the threshold of 10,000m3 and asked how that threshold was decided and what its significance is. The threshold is based on advice from the Institution of Civil Engineers and others, but regulations under the bill will allow any reservoirs with a smaller capacity to be brought within the bill’s ambit.

We do not want to bring reservoirs into public ownership—Jamie McGrigor touched on that, among other issues. We prefer reservoirs to be owned and managed by the private sector, organisations or individuals, as long as they are aware of their responsibilities to keep their reservoirs safe. That is the really important point.

Ironically, I see the Presiding Officer indicating that I am now running out of time, so I will finish. We all recognise that the bill is an important one that will protect the public. We recognise that work is still to be done, which is why the bill will be implemented in a couple of stages and why the new reservoirs that it will capture have until 2015 to be registered—we have a few years between now and then to capture them.

The bill is also about taking on board the potentially devastating consequences for communities, life and property of flooding caused by a breach or collapse of a reservoir.

I commend the bill to Parliament and thank members for their contributions today.

Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of motion S3M-7704, in the name of John Swinney, on the financial resolution to the Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill. The question on the motion will be put at decision time.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in paragraph 3(b)(iii) of Rule 9.12 of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act.—[Richard Lochhead.]

Dementia Strategy

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7793, in the name of Shona Robison, on the dementia strategy.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I welcome this opportunity to update Parliament on the dementia strategy and the progress that we have made in implementing it since June.

I start on a sad note. Many members will be aware that Jim Jackson, who was Alzheimer Scotland’s first chief executive, died unexpectedly on 12 January. As well as being chief executive of Alzheimer Scotland, he was deeply involved in dementia research at an international level. I know that members will want to pass on their sympathies to his family.

Many people with dementia and their carers do not receive the services that they need or want, despite the level of resources already in the system—an estimated £1.7 billion—to support people with dementia. The number of people with dementia is expected to double in the next 25 years. That is why we said that we are not looking for more of the same services and that we need to reshape fundamentally the model of care for people with dementia.

We are working closely with our partners in health and social care in the statutory, voluntary and private sectors to work out which are the best ways of making the changes that we need in dementia care. At each stage of the someone’s journey in dementia there are things that we need to do better. We need to give better support after diagnosis; we need to improve people’s experience when they are in general hospital settings; and, at all times, we need to ensure that people are treated with dignity and respect. The strategy reflects our endorsement of the cross-party group on Alzheimer’s “Charter of Rights for People with Dementia and their Carers in Scotland”.

We identified two key areas on which we intend to focus: ensuring that people receive the right information and support after diagnosis; and improving the care and treatment of people with dementia in general hospital settings. To deliver on those objectives and on the strategy’s overall objectives, we are committed to a series of actions over the next three years. I will set out some of those actions and provide an update on our progress.

We are developing standards of care for dementia. One of the strongest messages from people with dementia is that all too often the nature of their illness means that they struggle to protect their rights. They do not always have access to the services that they need, and there is still too much stigma around and discrimination against people with the illness. Work on the standards is under way. We have commissioned the Mental Welfare Commission to develop the standards, and that work will be completed later this year.

We are developing a skills and knowledge framework for dementia. Staff who work with people with dementia need the right skills and knowledge if they are to deliver services in a way that treats people with dignity and respect. We, NHS Education for Scotland and the Scottish Social Services Council have started the first stage of that work, which is being led by a programme board that is chaired by the chief executive of Alzheimer Scotland, Henry Simmons. It will be completed this year.

We intend to provide funding of £300,000 to support Alzheimer Scotland to build on its pilot of specialist dementia nurses in national health service boards so that one such nurse can be introduced in each board area in Scotland. We have already seen the impact of dementia nurses, working to support other staff, on the quality of care and safety of people with dementia in care homes, at home or in hospital.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I welcome the minister’s provision of that funding. Will she say how it will be protected from leaking into other areas of NHS activity?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Through our normal NHS performance management arrangements, we will ensure that there is a specialist dementia nurse in each health board area and that the resource I mentioned goes there.

We need transformational change across the health and care system that goes beyond changes to individual elements of the system. We invited partnerships of NHS boards and local authorities to test in one area how whole-system redesign of services for dementia could be achieved. I was hugely impressed by the number of partnerships that entered into that process and by the enthusiasm for tackling the challenges. We are providing funding and support for three demonstrator sites—Midlothian, Perth and Kinross and North Lanarkshire—and that work has started.

We will continue the work to increase the number of people with dementia who have a diagnosis. Getting a diagnosis of dementia is frightening, but it is also a way to access information and support. We set a target to increase the number of people who are registered by their general practitioner as having dementia. We expect to meet the health improvement, efficiency, access and treatment target across Scotland ahead of schedule and we will continue to monitor progress.

Last year, the Big Lottery Fund announced that it would invest a share of £50 million in supporting all aspects of the lives of people with dementia and their carers after diagnosis. Such person-centred early intervention is key to ensuring that people can live well with dementia and is a great example of partnership working between the voluntary and statutory sectors.

We need to promote positive care to prevent behavioural issues from arising or reaching a crisis point and we need to consider how we use psychoactive medication. We will do research to consider in more detail how psychoactive medication is used in dementia treatment across Scotland, to understand better the right level of prescribing. For some people, such medication is the right choice, but we must ensure that medication is used appropriately.

We will continue to support world-class research into medical treatments for dementia and into the delivery of care. We established the dementia clinical research network for Scotland in 2008 and have supported it with funding of more than £1 million. Alzheimer Scotland has highlighted that network’s importance. People with dementia and their carers have a major role to play in bringing about change by becoming partners in research and we encourage them to continue to do so.

I am clear that the strategy needs to deliver tangible results quickly if we are to achieve change on the scale that is needed to meet the challenges that we face. We have established a monitoring and implementation group that involves key partners who are ensuring that we continue to make progress. More important, the group is considering whether the care and treatment of people with dementia are improving. It will publish a report at the end of each year and will make recommendations on what needs to be put in place in 2013 as a successor to the strategy.

I am pleased to move the motion. We have no issue with accepting the amendment.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the progress being made by the NHS, local government, scrutiny bodies and partners in the voluntary and private sectors, including Alzheimer Scotland and the Scottish Dementia Working Group, in delivering the commitments set out in Scotland’s first dementia strategy, building on the Scottish Government’s establishment of dementia as a national priority and on the Parliament’s Cross-Party Group on Alzheimer’s Charter of Rights for People with Dementia and their Carers in Scotland, and further welcomes the Big Lottery Fund’s investment in support for people with dementia and their carers after their diagnosis.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I declare my interests as a fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and a member of the Scottish Association for Mental Health.

I very much welcome the debate—this must be the fastest response to a parliamentary question calling for a debate that had been promised. I also welcome the Government’s good record on the issue.

Good health is a mirage. As soon as one treats one condition successfully, another becomes a problem. When I was a student, tuberculosis was finally being eliminated as a major scourge and cause of premature death through the introduction of vaccination, and heart disease was becoming the major concern. The rate of heart disease is now declining significantly in all western countries, and cancer is the current major concern, but dementia will be the next one. That was recognised as early as the 1980s by the programme planning group, of which I was a member, which resulted in the Timbury report.

The central message of that report was that 30 per cent of people over 80 would have dementia and that creating suitable domestic settings and reducing social isolation would help to ameliorate the condition. At that time, no treatment or cure was available. We now have some treatment, but we have no cure.

The number of people whom the report estimated would be affected was too low. We pitched numbers for the early 2000s at 55,000 to 60,000, but the estimated figure now is about 70,000. That reflects a significant increase in life expectancy.

What are the challenges, which are for all of us as politicians? Successive Governments have made contributions. In 2005, a commitment was given to an integrated care pathway, which was developed by 2007. Every health board had reached the standard of stage 1 by 2009. We have the new dementia strategy and the charter of rights, which are important contributions that underpin the progress that needs to be made on all fronts.

Those measures are important and worth while but, as the minister said, the challenges lie not in words but in actions. First, we must have the data and the evidence base to enable us to delay the onset of the condition, to reduce deterioration, to manage the condition and to treat it.

I should probably also declare that I still hold an honorary professorship at the University of Stirling, where I did research on dementia. The dementia services development centre at Stirling is celebrating its 25th year. It is a world-class, world-leading centre. Will the minister say whether its core funding will be maintained as part of the Government’s excellent work on dementia? The practical, evidence-based approach that the centre has promoted has made a major contribution to the knowledge, training and wellbeing of many Scots families and to the knowledge and training of health and social care professionals who provide support.

The second challenge is for health professionals to provide early diagnosis. I pay tribute to the Government and my GP colleagues for the increase of 5,000 in registered numbers in the past two years and for the potential for 40,000 of the likely 70,000 to be registered by the end of the year. That shows that we have a long way to go, but the challenge is being met.

The third challenge, which families have emphasised and which is underpinned in the strategy, is that of providing good-quality information. That is vital to allow families to adapt the domestic setting early for the dementia patient. Such adaptation is essential to reduce anxiety, distress, behavioural difficulties and deterioration.

Early assessment of and support for unpaid carers are important. Unpaid carers contribute about £1 billion of the £1.7 billion cost of dementia, but monetary estimates underrate carers’ true value. They provide continuity, which is a major challenge. If I had one wish, it would be for our services to provide continuity to dementia patients. Community care is hard enough for the elderly. We have seen the shocking “Panorama” programme that showed patients with 30 or 40 carers a month. Last month, a constituent of mine had 11 carers, and that was in an area where social care is regarded as being quite good. For people with dementia, continuity is fundamental.

Everyone prefers to remain at home, and two thirds of patients do so, but that means that we must create a new approach in which packages include a rapid 24/7 emergency response component. If elderly patients with dementia fall—even if they do not have a fracture—they are more likely to end up in hospital than are elderly patients with other conditions. We need much more of the intermediate and emergency services such as those in north-east Fife in my constituency and those in Lanarkshire. Rapid response and reablement services can prevent admission.

I am not content with the inspection of care homes that takes place. We need to set new standards for training requirements in care homes. We must ensure that every care home has an emergency response arrangement. Scotland has almost no community geriatricians, although England has them, yet 40,000 of our elderly are in care homes and 70 per cent of those people have dementia.

Our amendment says that we must consider the specific challenge of palliative care. Far too many patients with dementia enter hospital to die. The position is not good for people with dementia, their families or the health service.

We must develop reablement services for when patients leave hospital, such as the highly successful service that Peter Gabbitas runs in Edinburgh.

In the hospital setting—which I do not have time to deal with—dementia patients need good nutrition, better pain management and an end to boarding out, which must be banned. We must have dementia-friendly rooms for such patients, so that they have the potential to come out of hospital.

I have not had time to deal with alcohol-related brain damage, which is an important and growing problem; antipsychotic medicine, which the minister mentioned; telecare; assistive technology; or rights, which are important.

I commend the Government for its work and support its motion, along with the two additions on carers and palliative care that our amendment proposes.

I move amendment S3M-7793.1, to insert after “Carers in Scotland”:

“; recognises the crucial role played by carers both paid and unpaid; notes also the challenge of ensuring good quality palliative care for people with dementia”.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I share our sympathies for the passing of Jim Jackson of Alzheimer Scotland, who was a well-kent face in the early days of the Parliament.

It is undoubtedly important for the Parliament to debate dementia—we have had Government debates as well as members’ business debates on the subject. The estimated 72,000 people in Scotland with dementia should expect no less.

Everyone assumes that dementia is Alzheimer’s, so it is important to make it clear that 62 per cent of people with dementia have Alzheimer’s; 17 per cent have vascular dementia; and 11 per cent have mixed dementias. There are other groups, too. Richard Simpson made a good point about alcohol-related brain damage, which can happen to young people.

The Government’s strategy was announced last June, and although it has taken seven months to secure the debate, it is nonetheless welcome. I welcome the information update that the debate has provided and I look forward to the first-year progress report, which is due this June.

The Conservatives very much welcome the strategy—there is really nothing to disagree with in it. However, we want better implementation through better training and a better understanding of the condition. The target to increase the number of people with a diagnosis of dementia to 39,500 by March 2011 is welcome, but more important than meeting that target is that each and every person with dementia, and their families and carers, benefit from the diagnosis. We do not want a tick-box approach that says, “You’ve had your diagnosis, hen. Get on with it.” We need to know that people have benefited from better support and care, better training for family carers and paid carers, and better understanding of the condition.

I appreciate that time is short and that the minister could not talk about everything, but I welcome what she said about psychoactive medication.

We also need to know that hospital discharge is being better planned. It is clear from people at my surgeries that we are not quite there yet in the Highlands. That is a critically important point.

In the most recent debate on dementia, in October 2009, Robert Brown and I both raised the issue of the shortage of psychologists for people over 65. That group makes up 20 per cent of the population but gets only 5 per cent of the psychology workforce. Again I ask why. What is being done to ensure that older people get the psychological support that they need? I fully agree about the importance of diagnosing people with dementia, but surely giving them the right support also includes addressing their psychological needs.

I understand that there is an excellent clinical psychology rehab service in Glasgow, which works with older people to reduce mental health problems that are preventing their recovery from physical illness or surgery. The service works with patients and provides training, advice and clinical supervision to non-psychology colleagues in hospitals and the community. The service has been able to recognise and overcome psychological problems in older people, which has resulted in quicker recovery for patients and a reduction in the need for aids, adaptations and home care. Surely that is the type of service in which we should be investing.

We cannot ignore the fact that behavioural challenges such as wandering and aggression can arise in the care of people with dementia. Those are most often treated with medication, commonly antipsychotics. Although medication is often seen as a quick fix for those problems and in some cases is the most appropriate solution, it does not always address the root cause of the behaviour and can also have problematic side effects. I understand that behavioural management can be an effective alternative in many cases. There is no doubt that investing in more posts in psychology for the elderly can improve outcomes and reduce the impact of depression, anxiety and dementia. Strangely, I could not find any mention of depression or mental wellbeing in the strategy.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member should wind up.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Despite those issues being raised in the most recent debate on dementia in 2009, we have fewer psychologists for older people in Scotland now than we had then.

I recently visited someone in hospital in Inverness who was very much a country woman—she had lived in the country all her life. She was not allowed to open a window or go outside; she was not allowed fresh air. If we are going to make progress we need to treat people as individuals, not as prisoners.

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

I associate my party with the remarks that have been made about the sad passing of Jim Jackson.

On behalf of my party, I welcome the announcement that money will be directed to specialist dementia nurses. Multiple sclerosis nurses in particular are a success story of which we can be proud.

I emphasise Richard Simpson’s point about the continuity of care. I have met constituents who have had a change in the lady who comes to bath them, which can put them badly wrong. Richard Simpson talked about unfamiliar faces—that is a difficult issue, and we have to avoid it.

I illustrate that with my experience, which is nothing to compare with that of Dr McKee or Dr Simpson. In the 1970s, my grandmother started on that sad decline. She stayed with us at home, and it gradually got worse and worse. It reached a point at which my parents could not cope. Perhaps to my everlasting shame, my grandmother ended up in Craig Dunain in Inverness—everyone from the Highlands knows what that is. I am about to use unparliamentary language but I do so to illustrate the point. The hospital was known locally as the loony bin. My grandmother was in there with people with mental problems, schizophrenia and other conditions. Her further descent and her death were appalling and have haunted me ever since. I will say in our defence, though, that that was the early 1970s and there was no alternative. Medical science had not advanced to the stage that we are at today.

My first point, then, is that we should recognise the progress that has been made, which is hugely important to the dignity of not just the patient but the family. Let us chalk that up as a success story.

In 2007, Oliver Sacks wrote “Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain”. This important quotation has stayed with me:

“I have seen deeply demented patients weep or shiver as they listen to music they have never heard before, and I think they can experience the entire range of feelings the rest of us can, and that dementia, at least at these times, is no bar to emotional depth. Once one has seen such responses, one knows that there is still a self to be called upon, even if music, and only music, can do the calling.”

There is a message there about the nature of dementia. We might think that someone with dementia is away with the fairies, but in fact there are human emotions and real feelings there. The best carers remember that.

We are grateful to the cross-party group on Alzheimer’s for the “Charter of Rights for People with Dementia and their Carers in Scotland”. The charter talks about people with dementia thus:

“The illness severely compromises their ability to protect their own rights; because of this people with dementia are often at greater risk of violence, injury or mental abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or financial exploitation.”

It goes on to say:

“Caring for someone with dementia can be stressful because of the complex, unpredictable and progressive nature of the illness and may have a profound social, emotional, physical and financial impact on carers”—

this is the important point—

“including increased risk of stress related illness such as depression.”

If there is one thrust to my speech it is to emphasise, as other members have done, the role of and support for the carer. If we think about who a carer is, we can refer to the film “Billy Elliot”, in which, early in the story, Billy goes out looking for his granny, who has wandered away into a wasteland. That poignantly reminds us of what caring is all about.

The dementia strategy is a good strategy and this is an essential debate. My party will be associated with the work that is being done by the minister and the Government, and with the Labour party amendment, which I warmly welcome.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I welcome this debate on the dementia strategy for Scotland. The loss of cognitive ability in a previously unimpaired person has many ramifications in the field of not only health but social services, as well as in all those areas, social and professional, in which we interact as part of everyday living.

As dementia is an impairment with no obvious physical manifestations, the outsider encountering someone with dementia is often totally unprepared and may act inappropriately, thus increasing the perceived stigma of the condition. I welcome whole-heartedly the progress that has been reported today and support all the statements that have been made.

I turn to an important aspect of the strategy that Mary Scanlon ably developed and which has not received the attention it requires: the nature of dementia. Throughout the strategy document, the term “dementia” is used as if it is a disease entity—indeed, reference is frequently made to the need to diagnose dementia. The terms “dementia” and “Alzheimer’s” seem to be used interchangeably and yet, as Mary Scanlon said, the term “dementia” is a description of a condition that can have several causes. As the treatment and detailed prognosis depend to a certain extent on the exact nature of the condition that is causing the symptoms of dementia, the causative condition is as important a diagnosis to make as the simple diagnosis that the person is suffering from dementia. Certainly, most cases of dementia are caused by what we call “Alzheimer’s disease” or simply “Alzheimer’s”.

Alois Alzheimer was a German psychiatrist who spent some time at the University of Tübingen, as did our own Professor Christopher Harvie. I suspect that they did not meet, given that Alzheimer researched the subject at the beginning of the 20th century. [Laughter.] Alzheimer described the condition that afflicts those under the age of 65 as “pre-senile dementia”. For those over that age, it was known as “senile dementia” and considered an almost inevitable consequence of growing old. Indeed, as recently as when Richard Simpson and I were medical students, both terms were commonly in use. As I am now comfortably over the age of 65, I am glad that things have moved on a little in this respect. Although we now realise that all cases of dementia that involve certain degenerative changes in the brain tissue can be classified as Alzheimer’s, treatment to arrest the progress of the condition has so far been unsatisfactory and those with Alzheimer’s certainly need the help that is outlined in the strategy.

There is, however, another and not uncommon cause of the condition, the development of which we know a little more about. In multi-infarct dementia, as the name suggests, damage to the brain is caused by a number of small strokes. Although it is impossible to reverse the damage that has already been done, it may be possible to reduce the chances of further damage by paying attention to failings in the circulatory system. High blood pressure should be treated, smoking stopped, diabetes brought under control and anti-platelet or cholesterol-lowering therapy prescribed where necessary. None of those interventions, with perhaps the exception of smoking cessation, will help in Alzheimer’s. A positive diagnosis is therefore essential.

Dementia can also be caused by, among other things, taking drugs, having an underactive thyroid, alcohol excess and depression. I will say a little about the latter cause. It is quite common for those with Alzheimer’s to suffer from depression, which will benefit from treatment, but severe depression can cause dementia. In that case, treating the depression can improve the dementia. The diagnosis of depression and positive treatment of the condition is therefore most important.

I concede that less than 10 per cent of those presenting with dementia have a disease process that can be reversed, but without careful investigation we may well miss those we can help. That is why I contend that any dementia strategy must have careful investigation and accurate diagnosis as key components.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

First, I associate myself with other members’ comments about Jim Jackson, who was a founding member of the cross-party group on Alzheimer’s. He made a significant contribution to this agenda. I apologise ahead of time for being unable to stay to hear all the wind-up speakers. I should have left for Brussels at six o’clock this morning, but I stayed because I wanted to contribute to the debate.

I welcome the strategy, which is a step forward, as well as the further information that the minister provided this morning. There is much to be commended in the strategy, including recognition of the difficulties that people with dementia and Alzheimer’s face in the hospital environment. There is also recognition of the need for improved access to diagnostic testing in the community. That builds on the first cross-party group on Alzheimer’s report on admission to accident and emergency. Developing dementia-specific standards of care is very important. The two measures that I have mentioned will alone improve outcomes for people with dementia.

Respecting people with dementia and their families as equal citizens and giving them the dignity that they deserve costs nothing, yet we still have a long way to go in that regard. Only last week, I was contacted by a family member—his sister is a dementia sufferer—who saw the charter of rights displayed on a notice board in her care home. He took it down, read it and found himself encouraged; he could see the implications for his sister. That is where the good news stops. He then asked the care home management and staff about the charter, including what status it had and how he could get more involved. Their response was that they knew nothing about it other than that it was displayed. Empowering people is key to improving outcomes for this vulnerable group. Adequate ownership and staff training is absolutely vital in that regard. As Mary Scanlon articulated, the distance between policy and practice is still significant. The reality of day-to-day life for families and individuals who are coping with dementia is nowhere near close enough to the aspirations, ambitions and policy on dementia.

Time is limited, but I want to say a few words on an issue that I have not spoken about in the past and which may make uncomfortable listening. It relates to the Labour amendment. Unfortunately, Alzheimer’s is a terminal illness. When I speak at conferences where people who suffer from the illness are present, I often find it difficult to make points on the subject because I do not want to sound too gloomy. In the chamber, we have rightly spoken frequently about the importance of early diagnosis, but we have shirked away a little from the difficulties around end-of-life care. This is a time when families need a huge amount of support and I have come to the conclusion that a lot of work still needs to be done in this area. The medical difficulties and dilemmas for the Alzheimer’s sufferer in terms of decisions on eating and drinking—including on feeding tubes—aspirating and choking and the use of antibiotics, for example, means that this time is a huge emotional rollercoaster for the families, given that their relative is a frail elderly person who, by the very nature of their illness, lacks capacity. It is important that we support people who have to make those end-of-life choices and decisions. I am happy that I took the opportunity to raise that today.

I turn to system failures. In every debate in which I mention them, I say that I hope that we can consign them to the dustbin of history. Unfortunately, yet another report has been published that underlines just how far we have to go. I refer to the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland’s “Best of Intentions” report, which looked into the case of Mrs I, an elderly woman with dementia. On admission to hospital, she was described as suffering from malnutrition and having been severely neglected despite being known to health and social services. Lack of co-ordination and a single point of contact were identified in the report as contributing factors to Mrs I’s poor care and treatment. I truly hope that the work that is being undertaken on an integrated care service will finally address those challenges.

There are things that we can do that do not cost money, but which need real political backing. We can spend money better and target more appropriately the personalised care that helps to keep people at home and in their community for as long as possible. We also need to ensure that resources are made available and protected where necessary. For those at the end of this journey, whether at home or in care, we must ensure that their care is the best—it needs to be of the highest possible quality. The people we represent deserve nothing less than to live the best life that they can and to die with dignity.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Irene Oldfather described Alzheimer’s as a terminal illness. That reminded me of what Clive James said in his autobiography:

“Don’t take life seriously; you won’t get out of it alive anyway.”

In other words, we are all going to die; something will kill us. Laughter has a place in every care home.

We must ensure that we have environments in which quality of life includes the whole range of human emotions that people suffering from dementia are capable of enjoying. It will be different for each person, so care must be tailored to each person. If we are to do that, the focus must be on diagnosis—and early diagnosis.

Jamie Stone covered some of the range of difficulties that people with dementia and their families can experience. I suggest strongly that, while mental capacity exists, people should get the kind of advice that will enable them to deal with future mental incapacity. Like some other members, I guess, I have already made arrangements for my future mental incapacity—to which my wife refers from time to time—by putting in place a power of attorney, so that arrangements are in place if I get into a position of mental incapacity in the legal sense. Early diagnosis and good advice to carers and families helps them to do that and removes one of a wide range of burdens that they will experience during the progression of the condition that is dementia.

Ian McKee talked about the changing nomenclature and descriptions that have been attached to the condition. As someone who for at least 50 years has taken an interest in genealogy, I have probably read thousands of death certificates, because they contain a lot of information. The modern system of certification was introduced in Scotland in 1855. On certificates from that date onwards—including certificates for members of my family—you see the term “senile decay” or “senile dementia”, with an indication of the period of time over which the person concerned suffered it. The diagnosis is relatively imprecise and imperfect, but it is clear that dementia is not a new condition but has been with the human race for a long time.

We must also focus on the fact that the burden that we place on carers—the expectations that we may have of close family members—can create illness, especially psychological illness, in those carers. It is important that they get the right kind of support. The gamut of emotions that many carers experience is not dissimilar to bereavement, but without the opportunity to move to the final phase of bereavement—accommodation, which involves putting in place happy memories of the person who has been lost and coming to terms with that loss—because the loss of the person from their carer’s life is postponed by their condition, even though their mental capacity to interact with the carer may already have departed.

I have a dear friend whose wife is suffering from dementia. She distresses him so much that he has not seen her for four years; she has been unable to communicate with or to recognise him for well nigh 10 years. The condition of that very elderly gentleman tugs at my heartstrings whenever I talk to him about his wife.

My sister-in-law has just retired—at the age of 73—as a mental health nurse, working in a care home for the elderly mentally infirm, and my mother used to chair the local mental health services committee in Cupar in Fife, so I have had a lifelong interest in this issue. There are absolutely no easy answers to it, but the document that the Government has produced and the good heart that has been seen in all participants in the debate should give us great encouragement that we are on the right track.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I associate myself with the remarks that other members have made about Jim Jackson. I also pay a warm tribute to Irene Oldfather for the work that she has done. I hope that members agree with me that no other member has done more to champion the cause of people who suffer from dementia. I have always admired her enormously for that. I hope that she will forgive me if I mention the very recent loss of her mother. That is a painful loss for anyone, and she spoke particularly courageously this morning in light of her recent loss.

Although it is important to welcome the progress that is being made by all the parties that are mentioned in the Government’s motion, which celebrates—quite rightly—what has been done, there is, as always, much to be done, especially given the scale of the problem that we face. I welcome the new financial resources for specialist nurses that the minister announced this morning. I agree with and support Richard Simpson’s amendment, which underlines how critically important it is for us to support carers; Stewart Stevenson highlighted that issue particularly well in his speech. I am pleased that the minister has indicated that the Government will support Richard Simpson’s amendment; this has been and will continue to be a consensual debate.

The minister spoke of how world-class research will be supported. I am familiar with the work that other members have mentioned, especially the work of Professor June Andrews and the dementia services development centre at Stirling University, to which Richard Simpson referred.

Those who know me will know—I am sure that I will see a little smile on Ian McKee’s face in a minute—that my first port of call in any health debate is to ask what is happening across wider Europe and the European Union. When preparing for the debate, I was pleased to read that 20 countries are teaming up to study Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia, in the first test of the new approach to research in Europe.

More than a year ago, the Commission outlined that the recommended measures will encourage EU countries to pool resources for research, so that they do not duplicate efforts and waste precious funds. That must be welcome news for us all. Nearly 85 per cent of public money for research in Europe is spent on purely national ventures, so it is interesting to see that the EU is taking this tack.

EU leaders endorsed the joint programming concept on condition that projects were voluntary and aimed at a European or global issue. Dementia, which is a permanent or progressive decline in mental ability, was seen as a good subject for a pilot project, because it is a growing problem in all EU countries and the costs of care are huge—about €30 billion across Europe in 2005. It is hoped that the project will inspire joint research in other areas, including climate change. The then Commissioner for Science and Research said that if countries co-ordinate their efforts

“we will see a major step ahead”.

About 7.3 million people in the EU have some form of dementia—a number that is expected to double over the next 20 years, as life expectancy increases. As other members have said, Alzheimer’s is the most common cause, accounting for 70 per cent of all cases of dementia. As we know, there is no cure for the disease, which robs people of their memory and ability to think. The pilot project is part of a broader action plan that the Commission has drawn up in response to the anticipated rise in incidence of dementia. I hope that the Government and civil servants will take a close interest and be involved in that research. I am sure that Professor June Andrews will.

Dementia has touched my life in a variety of ways. It affected my husband’s grandmother, my sister-in-law and my friend Mary, who died recently in a home in Dalgety Bay; she was a Labour Party member and the dearly beloved wife of Bob, who is also a close friend. As Stewart Stevenson described, it really tugs at the heartstrings to speak to such people when one knows what impact the condition has had on their primary carers and wider family and friends, and the loss that is felt. My sister-in-law described losing her mother from dementia as the long goodbye, because it is never possible to have the grieving process and the relief from grief that others sometimes experience, although everyone’s form of grieving is different.

On a good note, as Jamie Stone said, progress has been made. Things have progressed hugely since my husband’s grandmother was in a Fife Regional Council-run home in the late 1970s and early 1980s. More recently, I visited the specialist new Benore care home in Ballingry, in my constituency, designed by June Andrews of the specialist dementia services development centre. Referring to what Stewart Stevenson was saying, environmental factors are highly important in the design of any unit. If we can make units in the sort of environment where the Benore care home is set, it can serve as a prime example for other such units across Scotland.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I very much welcome the debate. As many members have said, this is a hugely important subject and, given the changing demographics, it will continue to be hugely important for many years.

Like other members, I pay tribute to Jim Jackson of Alzheimer Scotland, who made a hugely important contribution, and to the work of Irene Oldfather and the cross-party group on Alzheimer’s.

I will focus on the inappropriate prescribing of drugs to people with dementia, starting with the potential dangers of labelling and treating dementia as just a medical issue. Rather like dyslexia or autism, the term or label “dementia” can help to explain what can be a range of often difficult behaviours. We can see a range of changes in people as they age—it is incredibly common for such changes in behaviour to occur as people get older.

The bottom line is that people with dementia are individuals with their own personalities and their own needs, and one of our biggest challenges is around how families and other care providers can meet those very individual needs.

We know what constitutes good practice in supporting older people with dementia as individuals, and we have heard about the work that has been done in Stirling, but we are still a long way from providing the sort of support that meets individuals’ cognitive needs, to which several members have referred.

There is a common medical response to dementia and some of the behaviours that are associated with it, and I wish to focus on the prescription of psychotropic, antipsychotic drugs.

In 2008, the all-party group on dementia at Westminster concluded that

“the widespread inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotic drugs is an unacceptable abuse of the human rights of people with dementia”,

and that the “time for action” was therefore now. I very much support that conclusion.

It is no coincidence that many members who have spoken in the debate have discussed their own personal experiences of the failure of our system to meet the needs of family members. My own mother was prescribed antipsychotic drugs in a hospital setting. She was a 90-year-old with mild vascular dementia and had been admitted to hospital following a fall overnight, and she was rendered absolutely senseless by those drugs. The prescribing of those antipsychotic drugs was done with no reference to her family and it was a real struggle to get her taken off them. When she did come off them, she immediately regained her cognitive function—and retained her status as Scrabble champion in our family.

A 2010 study by Guthrie, Clark and McCowan stated:

“Antipsychotic prescribing to people with dementia in the United Kingdom is ... common and much of it is likely to have little benefit and cause harm. Stopping antipsychotics is not associated with significant increase in behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia”.

There has been updated guidance on inappropriate prescription, but we know that it is still widespread. That is simply not good enough. There is an urgent need for medical reviews for older people across the board. Prescribing antipsychotics will stop only if GPs stop it. Work is being done on that by the Government, and I very much welcome that. We now know enough about the damage that is caused and the lives that are lost through the inappropriate prescribing of drugs.

It is time to stop talking and to take real action on the matter. I call on the Government to step up its actions, as that could make a very real difference to people’s lives.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Not unexpectedly, this has been a very consensual debate. The dementia strategy that was prepared and published in June last year was warmly welcomed and continues to be warmly welcomed by people across the community. That has been reflected in the speeches that we have heard in this morning’s debate—in which we have heard the medical and clinical expertise of Dr Richard Simpson and Dr Ian McKee and about the involvement of other members in the cross-party group on Alzheimer’s over a long period.

Mary Scanlon made a particularly useful contribution, reminding us that Alzheimer’s, which is the most common term that we hear bandied about, is not the only cause of dementia. Rhona Brankin has just referred to vascular dementia in her speech. There are other related diagnosed and labelled conditions that we might not speak about—there has been no mention of Korsakoff’s syndrome or other issues. Generally, there is recognition across the Parliament that the dementia strategy and the co-ordinated working of all the partners involved has gone at least some way towards resolving some of the challenges that we have faced in the past and towards addressing the ones that we will continue to face. We have a growing elderly population. Consequently, the challenges relating to dementia will continue to grow.

As other members have said, there will not be too many of us who do not have a connection to someone who has been touched by the condition, whether in our family or a friend, and whether historical or contemporary. I am no different in that regard.

Periodically, my young daughter and I, like many fathers and daughters, have a difference of opinion. She is wont to say to me, “You have to be nice to me, daddy—I’m picking your care home.” By coincidence, I worked in a care home in 1994, and I am afraid that it was an oxymoron to refer to either “care” or “home” in that regard. My concern is that, notwithstanding the progress that we have all been speaking about, the provision of training, support and inspection has not yet reached a level where we can all be comfortable about any of our children saying such a thing and know that it is not a negative observation.

We need to address this, because challenges exist. Many care homes, particularly in the private sector, have a high level of churn among staff, with inadequate training. As Richard Simpson said, it is critical to maintain continuity and for relationships to build up between carers and people who suffer from the condition. If regimes are not rigorous or professional enough, there is a danger of not improving the living environment.

The minister reinforced her view on funding, and that is welcome, but I hear anecdotally—as do other members, I am sure—about what is happening with the range of specialist nurses who have been provided for various conditions throughout the health services. We are getting the message that they are under increasing pressure to move into more general areas of practice, with those working in acute care returning to wards, for instance—away from the very purpose for which they were recruited. I ask the minister please to ensure that pressure is brought to bear on health boards such that, notwithstanding the pressures on board finances, such things are not allowed to slip in the way that they seem to be doing.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I well remember, from when I entered Parliament in 2003, the strenuous efforts that were being made then by the late Jim Jackson of Alzheimer Scotland, and by the cross-party group on Alzheimer’s, led by Irene Oldfather, to raise awareness of this devastating condition and to achieve better support and care for those people across Scotland who are affected by it.

The cross-party group’s commitment to helping people with dementia and their carers led to the development of the “Charter of Rights for People with Dementia and their Carers in Scotland” and to the acceptance by political parties that dementia must become a national priority. The Scottish Government’s publication of Scotland’s national dementia strategy was therefore warmly welcomed as a first step towards improving dementia care and support.

Dementia has always been around and has always caused stress and turmoil—for sufferers in the early stages of its development and for friends and families as the disease progresses. However, as the population ages, dementia is becoming more common. There are 72,000 people with dementia in Scotland and the figure is predicted to double in 25 years. As families become more dispersed and more elderly people live on their own, caring for people with dementia becomes a significant problem for society, which must be faced up to.

It is difficult and bewildering for people who are in the early stages of dementia and their families to come to terms with the gradual loss of memory and skills that leads to a loved one becoming a mere shadow of their former self, often lacking confidence and becoming depressed as they lose their ability to cope with the pace of modern living. I am pleased that Mary Scanlon and Ian McKee stressed the need to deal with depression in dementia sufferers, which is important.

It is key to patients’ welfare that their condition is diagnosed as early as possible, so that they and their carers can get access to the information that they need and the support services that can help them to live as normal as possible a life at home and delay, or indeed avoid, the need for admission to residential care.

If we are to achieve the best care for dementia sufferers, there must be an act of partnership between national Government, local government, the health service and the voluntary and private sectors. The skills and knowledge of staff in health and social care settings need to be improved, to ensure the dignity and respect to which people are entitled, as we heard from Hugh O’Donnell. As of right, people should have access to services that provide the appropriate support, care and treatment.

In the implementation of the dementia strategy, two key areas on which we need to focus are the availability of quality support and information for people with dementia and their carers following diagnosis and the need to respond better to dementia in the general hospital setting by considering alternatives to hospital admission and by better planning for discharge into the community, as Mary Scanlon said.

On the latter point, Conservatives think that there would be significant benefit if Lord Sutherland’s recommendation that health and social care budgets be merged were implemented. A single budget for health and social care and a common commissioning policy, to eliminate duplication, would lead to better continuity of care between the hospital and the community, which is important. It would reduce delayed discharges from hospital and ensure a better service for people and a faster response to addressing their needs. Such a joined-up approach would potentially lead to savings in administration costs, which could be ploughed back into front-line services.

We are happy to note the progress on the implementation of the dementia strategy. We particularly welcome the announcement of funding for specialist nurses and support for continuing research into the condition. Of course, all that is work in progress. Demands on services will continue to grow and it is important that scarce resources achieve best value in dementia care. It is proven that admission to residential care can be delayed if there is better support at home for patients and their families, and even a short delay can release resource to improve home care and support.

Careful monitoring of how the strategy operates during the next two years will feed into the review that is planned for 2013. I hope that the strategy will evolve after that, as progress is made on meeting the needs of people with dementia and their carers. The work that has been done so far is commendable, as members have said, but it is not complete. I hope that future Scottish Governments will continue to regard dementia as a national priority and focus on the needs of sufferers and their carers.

We will support the motion and the amendment in Richard Simpson’s name.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Let me begin by talking about success in early diagnosis. An additional 5,000 people have been registered during the past couple of years and we are likely to meet the target by the end of March. However, as Mary Scanlon said, if registration is simply a tick-box exercise to record diagnosis, it is not sufficient. We must use the opportunity that is presented by having a cohort of newly diagnosed individuals to ensure that research is undertaken into which non-pharmacological interventions, such as self-help and carer action, work. I hope that such studies will be part of the research that the minister said is being funded through the Scottish dementia clinical research network.

Members talked about legality and consent, and Rhona Brankin talked about the inappropriate use of antipsychotic medication. People are regarded as having capacity under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000; it is only towards the end that capacity is so impaired that people are unable to participate in decisions. We need to address the matter carefully. I welcome what the minister said about antipsychotic medication, the use of which remains widespread. We need to understand when it is appropriate to use such drugs and ensure that they are not used inappropriately. As Jamie Stone said, it is hugely important that we protect vulnerable people.

The dementia integrated care pathway, which started in 2007, is an important advance, but standards of care of the sort that the minister mentioned in relation to the Mental Welfare Commission are also important. Irene Oldfather talked about the need to ensure that the standards are applied throughout the area of care. From April, inspection will be undertaken by social care and social work improvement Scotland rather than the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care, but it is important that the care commission’s regime of inspection of the suitability of the care home environment for dementia sufferers is toughened and includes a review of the use of antipsychotic medication. There should be a tough regime in that regard. The MWC’s report, “Best of Intentions”, which has been mentioned, showed how far we still have to come. As well as monitoring and annual reports, we must have a close inspection regime.

Members talked about training. The joint training by NES and social services is important. When I lectured in social work at the University of Stirling, I found it difficult to get social workers and doctors to undertake training together. We must make the effort to improve multidisciplinary training.

Carers also need training. It is not just about providing good information, although that is a good start, which is stressed in the strategy. We need to go further and provide good, effective support to enable carers to develop the right approach. Carers need training, support and respite. The Government has done quite a bit on respite and that work needs to continue. Carers also need emergency plans, because a source of stress is their concern about what will happen to the cared-for person if they are ill. Stewart Stevenson talked about the importance of carers and their need for such support.

I welcome the funding for specialist dementia nurses and the pilots for the system—although I must ask what happened after the joint futures pilot in Perth and Kinross 11 years ago, which was supposed to merge elderly health and social care but proved incredibly difficult.

Big Lottery Fund funding will be important, as is the research network funding. Helen Eadie stressed the European dimension to collaborative research. In the current period of austerity we need research to be focused and to take place in a number of countries.

As Ian McKee and Mary Scanlon said, there are many types of dementia. Only 60 per cent of sufferers have Alzheimer’s. Members mentioned vascular and multi-infarct dementia. There is a form of vascular dementia that is known as Binswanger’s disease, which I do not know much about; there is also dementia with Lewy bodies and frontal lobe dementia.

I did a case study on a patient who had alcohol-related brain damage. The individual had 11 separate case records. Everyone was doing their best, but the person was trapped in the revolving door of increasingly frequent admissions to hospital, which were hugely expensive and never resolved the issue. By tagging all the notes and indicating that people should phone or come to me, I was able to get the patient into an alcohol unit pending a guardianship order. I regret that it took six months to get the order and the wait cost the taxpayer £60,000, because the patient would not agree to move to a care home. There is a problem that we need to deal with in that regard.

We have not talked about issues such as assistive technology and telecare, which are important. We talked a little about palliative care, which is the new challenge. The dementia services development centre at the University of Stirling will run new courses on the subject.

We did not talk about new treatments that are coming along, so I end on a note of hope, as a tribute to Jim Jackson. There is the potential for vaccination against dementia, and if research is successful it might lead to a repeat of the tuberculosis story. Our successors in the Parliament might come to the chamber to talk about the next disease on the list of health challenges that we must face.

I welcome the progress that has been made and the efforts of Government. I welcome the support for the motion and for the amendment in my name.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I welcome the many very good speeches that have been made during this important debate. The quality of debate demonstrates that members have taken an interest in dementia over a long time and share a real commitment to influencing a transformation of dementia care and support.

That commitment is also shared by the range of individuals and organisations throughout Scotland that contribute to the dementia strategy’s implementation. I have been impressed by local partners’ enthusiasm for the strategy. There is a real appetite for making the changes to which many members referred.

I also give particular recognition to people with dementia and their families and carers for their huge contribution to the dementia strategy in the working groups and consultations leading up to the strategy’s publication and, now, its implementation. We felt that it was really important to hear from those who are directly affected by dementia and from their carers.

I mention in particular the Scottish dementia working group for its huge role in all the work. All its members have a diagnosis of dementia and they have campaigned and raised awareness of the need for better dementia services since 2002. I was gratified by the amount of time that they devoted, and continue to devote, to that work. They bring valuable expertise to the agenda.

It is also appropriate to mention the MBE that was awarded in the new year honours list to James McKillop of the Scottish dementia working group for services to people with dementia. The honour reflects the considerable value of his contribution to that area of public life. It is great to see recognition of that.

I turn to some of the points that were made in the debate.

Richard Simpson mentioned the core funding for the continuation of the dementia services development centre. It receives section 10 core funding under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which will continue into 2011-12. Future years will be considered at the appropriate time, but our support for the centre has been made clear.

Mary Scanlon touched on depression and mental health and wellbeing. We are writing to boards with the applied psychology report, which identifies the need to increase the workforce, particularly in response to the needs of older adults, so we are picking up on some of the issues that she raised.

Jamie Stone gave a personal account of his family’s experience of dementia. He acknowledged that things have moved on a long way from the 1970s but, as many people said, there are still challenges. I think that it was Hugh O’Donnell who said that we still have challenges within our care sector.

Irene Oldfather has had to leave to get her flight, but it was good that she rearranged things to take part in the debate. I recognise her role within the cross-party group on dementia. She made some important comments on end-of-life care, which is incredibly difficult for families. Ian McKee also picked up on that point.

Irene Oldfather also mentioned the Mental Welfare Commission’s “Best of Intentions” report, which reminds us that, although huge progress has been made, there is still more to do.

Helen Eadie talked about the long goodbye. I have heard that phrase before, as I am sure we all have. It captures some of the difficulties in personal relationships. Stewart Stevenson laid out what that really means for partners or other family members who feel the loss even though the person is still alive. Those are difficult emotional issues to deal with.

Rhona Brankin talked about her family’s experience of the use of antipsychotic medication. The situation that she described is exactly what we want to avoid. She mentioned the updated guidance on prescribing, which is a good thing, but she indicated that more work needs to be done to stop inappropriate prescribing and I acknowledge that. Richard Simpson talked about this too. We need to research and understand where it is appropriate to prescribe antipsychotic drugs, because there will be cases in which it is appropriate, but we absolutely must stop inappropriate prescribing, and the case that Rhona Brankin described was one of those.

I thank members for their speeches in a very good debate. I will be happy to keep them informed of the progress that we make.

Broadband (Rural and Remote Areas)

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it has made on delivering next generation broadband to rural and remote communities in light of its “Speak Up for Rural Scotland” consultation. (S3O-12805)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish Government published its statement “A Digital Ambition for Scotland” in October 2010. It makes clear our aspiration for next generation broadband to be available to all by 2020. The statement is being followed with a comprehensive digital strategy for Scotland, which will be published soon. The strategy will contain specific actions that will enable the achievement of our ambition and ensure that rural and remote communities are not left behind.

Scotland is set to reap early benefits from the United Kingdom Government’s recently published UK-wide broadband strategy. We successfully made the case for one of the UK’s rural market testing projects for next generation broadband to be located in the Highlands and Islands. That project is expected to bring more than £30 million-worth of infrastructure improvements to the region. Work is also under way to progress a substantial project in the south of Scotland in a second bidding round.

Additionally, in December 2010, the Scottish Government announced the five winning bids for the LEADER broadband challenge fund, under which €1 million will be distributed to support small-scale rural broadband projects.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for his comprehensive answer. He may be aware of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly project, which has brought together Cornwall Council and BT to deliver 100 per cent coverage of faster broadband cost effectively through a network that will be open to all communications providers equally, which will potentially benefit more than 10,000 businesses. Will he undertake to examine that exciting project to determine whether there are similar possibilities for communities in Scotland?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I would be delighted to examine closely the project that Nanette Milne mentions. It is clear that ensuring that we are connected to the next generation of broadband is the way forward for economic development in rural and more remote communities in Scotland. If we can learn any lessons from what is happening elsewhere, we should certainly learn them, but we should also build on our existing success in Scotland.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The minister may be interested to note that the cross-party group on digital participation also discussed the subject earlier this week. Professor Michael Fourman reported on the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s recommendation that fibre backhaul should be available within reach of every accessible community in Scotland. Will the minister outline any work that is taking place with the UK Government and service providers on the implementation of that recommendation?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

We welcome the helpful and constructive contributions that the Royal Society of Edinburgh—and, indeed, Reform Scotland—is making to the digital Scotland debate. My officials and the Scottish Government are carefully considering a number of recent digital reports.

I will be happy to write to Willie Coffey about our current engagement with the UK Government. I alluded to some of it in my first answer to Nanette Milne. The issue is certainly shooting up the economic development agenda in Scotland and we welcome all contributions from all organisations.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The minister said that he wanted superfast broadband to be available to all within nine years. Does he agree that, in this day and age, when we hear about the introduction of superfast broadband, it is ridiculous that people in areas such as Corgarff, Lumsden and Garlogie in my constituency still cannot access ordinary broadband? That is the issue. Can we not just get them on to broadband before considering superfast broadband? It is easy to say that we want superfast for all within nine years, but what is happening now?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Mike Rumbles highlights the reason why we need the broadband providers to get their act together in certain parts of Scotland. There are still a few communities that are not connected, as he highlights in the case of his constituency.

Of course, any schemes that we have run in Scotland have been oversubscribed, which shows the level of demand. If there were ways in which Mike Rumbles’s colleagues in the UK Government could identify more resources to help the Scottish Government to connect rural Scotland to the next generation of broadband, that would be most helpful. It is clear that demand exists; the Government and the Parliament have to find the resources to meet it.

School Nurses

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive how many school nurses there have been in each year since 2007. (S3O-12785)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Official statistics show that the number of school nurses has increased substantially since September 2007, from 385 then to 413 in 2008, 442 in 2009, and 456 in 2010. Those figures, of course, do not include other nurses such as public health nurses who work in a school setting.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister join me in praising school nurses for the work that they have done on the human papillomavirus vaccine? That vaccination programme has been a singular success. Are school nurses linked to primary care practices? Have they undertaken flu vaccinations in that capacity for those in the five to 15-year-old age group during the swine flu outbreak and the seasonal flu outbreak this year?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Richard Simpson for his words on the importance and good work of school nurses. I associate myself with those comments, echo his comments on the success of the HPV vaccine programme, and am happy to provide him with more information on the linkages between school nurses and primary care practices.

Richard Simpson has made a fundamental point. Ensuring that all the relevant professionals are properly integrated is part of our work around the further integration of health care. Richard Simpson will be aware that the bulk of the flu vaccine programme is delivered through general practitioner practices, but I would be more than happy to provide him with further information about the different health professionals who have specifically contributed to that programme.

Domestic Abuse (Children and Young People)

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of the getting it right for every child approach, what plans it has to ensure that children and young people experiencing and recovering from domestic abuse receive appropriate support. (S3O-12784)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

In 2010-11, we provided £4.16 million for the children’s services-women’s aid fund, which supports the network of children’s workers throughout Scotland. I was delighted to announce in the Parliament on 23 December last year that we will continue to fund those important local services at the same level for 2011-12.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

That answer is very welcome.

The minister will be aware of the positive evaluations of the children experiencing domestic abuse recovery pilot projects in Edinburgh, Fife and Forth valley in my constituency in a report that is appropriately entitled “Through the eyes of a bairn”. What is the timescale for delivering that important project?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We are looking at funding the CEDAR project through the new early years and early intervention fund. We are working up details on the scope and management of the new fund and eligibility for it, and we will make an announcement as soon as we can.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 4 was lodged by Brian Adam, who is not in the chamber. This is the second week in a row that he has not been in the chamber.

European Commission (Meetings)

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of the European Commission and what issues were discussed. (S3O-12811)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Administration has established strong relations with key commissioners. Most recently, Richard Lochhead met the fisheries commissioner in November; Roseanna Cunningham will see her again in 10 days’ time. In September, I had productive talks with the education and culture commissioner, and met the humanitarian aid commissioner. In early February, Michael Russell will meet the research commissioner.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Is the minister aware that the working time directive has proved problematic for heavy and abnormal load hauliers and the police, who undertake escorting duties of loads where that is necessary? Representations could be made to the European commissioners about combining the two separate sets of regulations that cover driving times—the working time directive and the regulations on drivers’ hours—which are causing confusion. Will she consider that suggestion, which would provide the opportunity to address that issue?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am not aware of any pending meetings with the relevant commissioner in Brussels, but I will ask my ministerial colleagues who are responsible for transport whether they have raised or can raise those points in any meetings or whether they can raise them in forthcoming correspondence. I will advise the member accordingly.

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

It is clear that my constituents have been clobbered by the incredibly high price of domestic heating oil during the recent cold weather period. That phenomenon may occur in other parts of the European Community. Has the minister had discussions with European Community officials about that problem, or would she be willing to discuss it with them at some point in the future in order to ascertain and identify some way of tackling it to help my constituents?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am aware that my colleague John Swinney has raised energy issues with commissioners in the past. Scotland is an energy-rich country, but we are penalised with respect to our domestic and transport fuel prices by not having responsibility for our own energy policy. Other countries can give us lessons, one of which is to have control over our own energy policy. However, I appreciate the points that the member makes. Until Scotland has control over its energy policy, we are happy to learn lessons from other countries.

Raptor Poisoning

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what progress is being made in tackling raptor poisoning. (S3O-12731)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I am sure that all colleagues in the chamber share my dismay at the continuing persecution of our birds of prey. Because of that continuing persecution, I have lodged an amendment to the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill to introduce criminal vicarious liability for employers or managers who are responsible for those who carry out offences related to bird persecution. That move is a necessary but proportionate response to the continuing blight of bird persecution in otherwise beautiful parts of rural Scotland.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Is the minister aware of the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association’s letter that suggests that raptor poisoning has been reducing of late? Does she consider that that is the case?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I am aware of the SRPBA’s letter that was recently circulated. We had a look at the figures in the information that it has given us. It used a mixture of confirmed and unconfirmed statistics, which does not reflect the true picture.

In the first half of 2010, 17 birds were illegally poisoned in Scotland. That cannot continue. Landowners who abide by the law will have absolutely nothing to fear from vicarious liability.

NHS Borders (Meetings)

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of NHS Borders. (S3O-12813)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Ministers and Government officials meet representatives of all national health service boards, including those from NHS Borders, on a regular basis.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The cabinet secretary will be all too aware of the importance of community and cottage hospitals in rural areas such as the Scottish Borders, and she might recall the previous Liberal-Labour Executive’s extremely controversial decision to close hospitals in Jedburgh and Coldstream. Does the Scottish Government agree that local hospitals in rural areas are highly regarded by the communities that they serve and that they are often much more accessible to patients than larger general hospitals such as Borders general hospital? Will the Scottish Government support NHS Borders to ensure that the remaining community hospitals remain open to continue to serve the communities that they serve?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

In general, I agree with what John Lamont has said. Community hospitals are fundamentally important. They provide a valued service to people who live in more rural communities.

John Lamont will, of course, understand that health care is not delivered in a static way. It is absolutely right that NHS boards should constantly review their operations to ensure that they are meeting patients’ needs in the most appropriate way, and people should certainly not unnecessarily occupy hospital beds. I would expect any proposed changes to any hospital, including community hospitals, to be subjected to the fullest consultation with the local community. That applies to community hospitals in the member’s constituency and everywhere else in Scotland.

Health Services (Reform)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether the United Kingdom Government’s proposals to reform health services in England will have implications for NHS Scotland. (S3O-12733)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The vast majority of the provisions in the Westminster Health and Social Care Bill affect England only, but we have ensured that the legislation allows for any arrangements that currently exist between the health service in Scotland and the health service in England to continue, where appropriate, within the proposals for health and social care in England. Most important, I can confirm that the Scottish Government remains committed to a publicly funded and publicly delivered national health service.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary, in emphasising the importance of the Scottish Government’s determination to keep the national health service public, agree with the findings of the House of Commons Select Committee on Health that the reforms that are being introduced in the NHS in England are risky and expensive?

Will the cabinet secretary expand on her reported comments that the reforms south of the border may make the stability of the NHS in Scotland more attractive to health professionals from elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Will she confirm that it is the Scottish Government’s intention to protect health spending for the duration of the next parliamentary session?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I will deal with that last point first. I confirm that, as the First Minister set out earlier this week, it is our intention to protect health spending for the duration of the next parliamentary session. That is an important commitment, which is certainly not matched by all other parties in the chamber.

On Jamie Hepburn’s questions about the health reforms south of the border, it is not for me to tell other parts of the UK how to structure their health service. Suffice it to say that the reforms that are taking place south of the border are not ones that I or this Government would introduce in Scotland. In my view, they will introduce greater privatisation and dangerous price competition into the health service south of the border, which I do not believe will be in the interests of patients.

The report of the Select Committee on Health makes for interesting reading and anyone who has an interest in such matters would find it worth their while taking the time to read it. I confirm, as I did in my original answer, that this Government remains committed to a publicly funded, publicly delivered health service that will continue to deliver the improvements that we have seen over the past four years.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

What additional costs will there be to Scottish health boards and authorities as a result of the legislative consent motion on the Health and Social Care Bill at Westminster? Where reciprocal arrangements are in place, how will they be affected by that bill?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

We are discussing those issues with the Department of Health, and the Parliament and the Health and Sport Committee will have an opportunity to scrutinise them in the context of the legislative consent motion.

An example of the arrangements whereby the Scottish Government can use services from agencies south of the border are those around the Health Protection Agency. It is important that we ensure that when we get value from such arrangements, they continue, the reforms south of the border notwithstanding, and that is the focus of the legislative consent motion.

Outdoor Education

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

9. To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to ensure that all schoolchildren experience high-quality outdoor educational opportunities. (S3O-12759)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Scottish Government believes that every child should experience outdoor learning, which we recognise can be delivered in a variety of situations.

The Scottish Government provided over £400,000 in both 2009-10 and 2010-11 to promote the use of the outdoors to help deliver the curriculum for excellence for all our young people. In April 2010, we published “Curriculum for Excellence through Outdoor Learning”, which advocates embedding use of the outdoors in learning and teaching to provide powerful learning experiences for all children and young people.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Is the minister aware that Fife Council is taking action to close Ardroy outdoor education centre, despite all the health, social and developmental benefits that it provides? It is a remarkable centre. What dialogue has he had with Fife Council on the issue, given the Government’s long-standing aim of developing outdoor educational opportunities across Scotland, which he has just outlined? The closure of the Ardroy centre will blow yet another hole in the Government’s manifesto on a key issue.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I advise Helen Eadie to keep up with the times. The reality is that although she and others may have a strong emotional attachment to the Ardroy outdoor education centre, its regrettable closure, if that is what the council decides to do, would not affect the opportunity for every pupil in Fife to have access to the outdoors. [Interruption.]

Members should know—the hollow laughs mean that some members do not know—that the Ardroy centre is not of the standard that many schools would wish and, as a result, its usage in recent years has been low. It is in close proximity to a number of residential properties and is under a formal notice from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to provide a new sewerage system, which would cost in the region of £300,000.

As many of Fife’s pupils as possible will still have access to the outdoors. The closure of the centre would be regrettable, but it would not do what the member suggested, and it was wrong for her to make such a suggestion.

Barnett Consequentials

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

10. To ask the Scottish Government whether the Minister for Culture and External Affairs has been involved in discussions about disputed Barnett consequentials at joint ministerial committee meetings. (S3O-12728)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Yes. On 22 November, ministers discussed the dispute resolution protocol. We agreed to find ways for an independent third party to provide advice on issues that were not resolved earlier in the process. I hope that that will allow us to move quickly to find agreement on the Olympics issue, on which the three devolved Administrations are united in the view that Barnett consequentials should be applied.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

In light of her experience of the Westminster Government’s propensity to rewrite the rules on Barnett consequentials to Scotland’s disadvantage, does the minister believe that Parliament should put its trust in the loosely worded no-detriment clause that is proposed for inclusion in the Scotland Bill?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The no-detriment clause in the Scotland Bill is a blank cheque for the Treasury. Experience shows that we should pin down the Treasury before the legislation is passed.

Engagements

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2857)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today, I will have meetings to discuss the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure’s announcement this morning about upgrading the A90 to dual-carriageway standard. That is not as big a project as the M74 or the M80, which is now approaching completion. Nonetheless, it is a vital part of Scotland’s road infrastructure network and I am sure that everyone in the chamber was delighted by that announcement this morning.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

This week, Labour released a list of 100 promises that Alex Salmond made to Scotland and that he has broken. Here is another one that is not in that list. In April 2008, the First Minister promised that he would never leave the city of Aberdeen in the lurch. This week, Aberdeen City Council announced that it will make 900 council workers compulsorily redundant. Those workers are in a pretty big lurch. What is the First Minister going to do about it?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government has sent a strong signal to the public sector to avoid compulsory redundancies. That is our dearest wish and our policy position. We are negotiating with our unions on pay restraint to make that possible. I am sure that the administration in Aberdeen is anxious to do that and will make proposals to make it possible in the city.

The issue of local government funding is difficult, indeed. Many people in Aberdeen are concerned that the local government funding formula has, for many years, given it a much lower settlement than those that have been given elsewhere. Of course, that formula was devised by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. Aberdeen’s settlement has been 84 per cent of the average.

In 2009, John Swinney asked the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to do a review and made proposals that could bring about greater parity and fairness. I have here a copy of the front page of the Glasgow Evening Times, showing the reaction of a senior Labour politician to the proposal for more parity in local government funding. His name was Steven Purcell. Remember him? The headline is “We must fight this ‘bribe’”. So, when a proposal was on the table to bring greater parity to local government funding in Scotland to help places such as Aberdeen, which was receiving substantially below the average, a leading Labour Party politician in Scotland said that it was a “bribe”. The Labour Party will never get away with saying one thing in Glasgow and another in the north-east of Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The Scottish National Party will never get away with saying one thing in Holyrood and another in Aberdeen. The SNP councillors in Aberdeen have not heard the First Minister’s signal. They are not doing all that they can do to avoid the redundancies. For the sake of £3 million for a voluntary redundancy scheme, they are going to make 900 workers redundant. They can find £60 million for their new council headquarters, but they cannot find £3 million for a voluntary redundancy scheme.

Of those 900 job losses, 100 will be teachers. Even in the dark days of the Tories, I cannot remember teachers being made compulsorily redundant. Rifkind, Younger, Lang, Forsyth: none of them did that or allowed it to happen. If it did not happen in Thatcher’s Britain, why is it happening in Salmond’s Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Iain Gray needs to catch up with two particular things. First, he needs to catch up with the situation in the north-east of Scotland. The council in Aberdeen is trying to avoid compulsory redundancies. That is its policy; that is what it is trying to do. I hope that Iain Gray will support it in trying to avoid compulsory redundancies and lend his voice to that aim and ambition.

Aberdeen City Council, like every public authority in Scotland, has major economic pressures bearing down on it. That is the case for every public service—even the health service, which has been protected by this Government and which would face an uncertain future under the Labour Party.

Of course, the Labour position is that it has nothing to do with the situation, which is why Iain Gray should catch up on the wise words of Ed Miliband—his colleague in government. On “The Andrew Marr Show” just a week past Sunday, he said:

“we should have acknowledged earlier ... the financial crisis happened”

and

“there would have to be cuts under Labour. Our plans ... involved cuts and we should have acknowledged that ... we sometimes looked like we were pretending there weren't going to be cuts under Labour when in fact there were ... that is a point that I acknowledge.”

Unfortunately, Ed Miliband did not get the message through to Iain Gray when he campaigned with him. Iain Gray’s own leader acknowledges that two thirds of the funding pressure that is faced by Aberdeen City Council and by every council in Scotland is down to the Labour Party in government.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Maybe we can get back to Aberdeen. I call Iain Gray.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

We have an SNP First Minister here and an administration in Aberdeen with the SNP as part of it. Is the First Minister seriously saying that it is Ed Miliband’s fault? Of course, it was a different story when SNP councillors planned to close schools in Argyll. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning ordered them to do a U-turn and walk out on the council. When SNP councillors in Aberdeen are planning to sack 900 workers, will the First Minister get on the phone and tell them to walk out on their mess, too?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I was merely pointing out, from the words of Ed Miliband, that he is prepared to accept responsibility for at least two thirds of the funding cuts that are now being imposed on Scotland.

The SNP Government has increased the share of expenditure to local authorities in Scotland; it has now risen to 34.5 per cent of the Scottish budget and we inherited a rate of 33.5 per cent. If we have increased the share to local government, the Government has done well by local authorities, which is acknowledged by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It must therefore be that the overall budget is too low not to put public services under enormous pressure.

Ed Miliband is prepared to acknowledge that situation, and Labour’s responsibility for it, so when will Iain Gray accept responsibility on the part of the Labour Party in Scotland? If it is a question of the share that is allocated to Aberdeen City Council, why on earth did the Labour Party in Glasgow describe an attempt to redress the imbalance as a “bribe”—or is Steven Purcell to be written out of Labour Party history? The facts are that this Government is protecting local government and that this Administration is doing everything that it possibly can to avoid compulsory redundancies in Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

If Ed Miliband is willing to take responsibility for anything, that puts him one step ahead of Alex Salmond, who has never taken responsibility for anything in his life.

The First Minister is right, though: it is not just Aberdeen. In Dundee, the SNP has the nerve to claim that it is improving schools by cutting education budgets. In Edinburgh, Alex Neil was sent in last week to cut the Edinburgh jobless services in half, by more than £2 million—at a time like this. And yes—then there is Glasgow. The SNP cancelled the Glasgow airport rail link last year, and this year it has cut the Glasgow gateway—the biggest regeneration project in Scotland—by half. What is it with Salmond and the city? Does the First Minister have some sort of vendetta against Scotland’s cities?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

First Minister, I must ask you to be relatively brief, please. Time is marching on rather too quickly. [Interruption.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As everybody in the chamber knows and would acknowledge, the 2.6 per cent decline in revenue funding to local government for next year is a difficult settlement. However, it is better than for any other major public service except the health service, which we are protecting under this Government. It is acknowledged across local government that that causes pressures, so councillors must do their best to avoid compulsory redundancies—as they will do in Aberdeen and as the Government is doing in Edinburgh.

I do accept responsibility. It is time that Iain Gray accepted responsibility for voting for a £500 million trams project in Edinburgh that nobody wanted and, for that matter, for voting for an illegal war that we now know was a tapestry of lies. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. The chamber will come to order.

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2858)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future, but I heard him on the radio this morning.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

In Scotland, cancer sufferers are being denied access to a range of drugs that can prolong life for some patients, which are now available in England. A report in October by the Rarer Cancers Foundation published a list of at least 18 drugs that are available in England but not in Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives have proposed the setting up of a Scottish cancer drugs fund to help patients in Scotland to get those drugs. Does the First Minister agree that Scottish cancer patients deserve the same access to those drugs as patients in England have?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Annabel Goldie should acknowledge that the Scottish Medicines Consortium is a very robust system of authorising drugs in Scotland and has been widely admired. It has difficult decisions to make, as resources are constrained in the health service even though the NHS budget is being protected by this Administration. The SMC has to make difficult decisions, and they are made only after tremendous consideration has been given to their effects.

I have heard many stories emanating from England that complain about some drugs being authorised in Scotland but not by the processes down south. The decisions are made in the best interests of patients; however, inevitably, in any decision to authorise drug use, there is always a resource issue as well. The balancing of effectiveness against resources is an extremely difficult decision and I hope that Annabel Goldie will acknowledge that there is a robust process to help ministers with that decision.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have listened carefully to what the First Minister has said. Difficult challenges confront us, but I do not think that we should ever be timid about looking at what is happening elsewhere. This specific issue is one of importance and urgency. The United Kingdom Government’s commitment to set up a cancer drugs fund for patients in England and Wales has been warmly received by cancer sufferers, their families and campaign groups there. It is time that the Scottish Government took action here. The UK Government thinks that the issue is so important that it has provided interim funding.

Will the First Minister agree to meet me and my health spokesman to discuss how we might proceed on the matter in Scotland, including the setting up of an interim fund, to give cancer patients in Scotland the same access to the drugs as patients have in England?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

It is wrong to say that in Scotland we do not have access to the range of drugs to which people in England have access. That is just not true. The process that we have at the moment is independent and robust. We are always prepared—and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing is always prepared—to meet members to discuss ideas and concepts that could improve the situation further. However, on this most sensitive of issues, Annabel Goldie should acknowledge that we have a robust and independent process in Scotland that serves patients and the people well. Every decision in this area is a difficult one. It is extraordinarily difficult to have to have resource consequences as part of the decision making. We will meet Annabel Goldie to see what ideas she can suggest, but let us start from the basis that the process that we have in place in Scotland now is independent and robust.

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-2859)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Last week, I informed the First Minister that the high pay bill for the public sector had increased by £53 million in just one year. Does he know what the bonus bill is for the same period?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have all the figures here. I am delighted that Tavish Scott has returned to this subject, as I can now explain the conundrum that he put to us last week of the so-called £50 million that Jeremy Purvis said we could save.

Last week, Tavish Scott compared salaries of more than £100,000 over two successive years. Some £40 million of that £50 million came from the national health service. It was caused by the fact that the maximum consultant’s salary increased from £98,962 to £100,446, covering some 450 consultants. I lead Tavish Scott to the conclusion that, to save £40 million, we would have to sack every one of those consultants. By reducing their salaries to under £100,000, we would save £450,000.

I do not really think that, whatever Tavish Scott believes about consultants, he is going to stand up the claim that was made by him last week, and which was repeated by Jeremy Purvis yesterday, that there is a £450 million pot of gold. That could be achieved only by sacking 450 consultants in the NHS.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

That answer was utterly dreadful. It had nothing to do with the question that I asked. The First Minister’s answer needs to be clearer, because the bonuses were signed off by his Government—they are the First Minister’s bonuses. It was his policy that promised punitive action on high pay, so why have bonuses gone up by 50 per cent at Scottish Water, Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Prison Service? Bonuses are up to £48 million in the public sector and high pay is up £50 million. Will the First Minister tell us what has been cut to pay for his bonuses and high pay?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

For the second year running, we are asking chief executives to waive all or part of any bonus, and many have agreed to do so. We have restricted the level of non-consolidated performance payments for senior civil servants to £600,000, which is down from the £1.2 million that we inherited from the Labour-Liberal Administration.

The vast majority of bonuses in the public sector are, indeed, consultants’ bonuses. That is the system that we inherited, and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing is the first minister with responsibility for health to freeze those bonuses, and has been urging action on the Westminster Government—past and present—so that we can move together on these issues.

Because Tavish Scott read out his second question, he slipped out the £50 million figure from the first question.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That is because it is true.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I know—after that wonderful point of order yesterday, which had us all spellbound—that such things often do not occur to Mike Rumbles very quickly, but the point is that the only way in which we could save £50 million is by sacking 450 consultants. If we just want to reduce their pay to under £100,000, we would save £450,000. Those things are not matters of politics; they are matters of arithmetic. Just as we should beware of Greeks bearing gifts, we should beware of Liberal Democrats with budget-saving ideas.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

What is the Scottish Government’s position on the report by the Scottish digital network panel that a new television network for Scotland should be created and funded from the licence fee?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government welcomes the panel’s report and agrees with the central recommendation that a new digital network for Scotland should be established and funded from the television licence fee.

This Parliament has already seen cross-party consensus in support of the Scottish digital network. I hope that we can build on that unity and, as a Parliament, press the United Kingdom Government to implement the panel’s recommendation. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. I am sorry, First Minister.

If members at the back of the chamber wish to have debates among themselves, could they do so outside?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

In response to the UK Government’s recently published local media action plan, the Scottish Government will argue that a Scottish digital network, with scope for local opt-outs, is the best way of delivering more localised broadcasting and will bring benefits for viewers and the creative industries in Scotland.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

At 2 per cent of the licence fee, the proposals for a Scottish digital channel should be taken seriously by the BBC.

Members on all sides of the chamber have been highlighting the need for a dedicated “Scottish Six” news bulletin without success for a number of years. Does the First Minister agree that a new dedicated digital television channel for Scotland could bring a “Scottish Six”—a Scottish news bulletin—one step closer?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, I do. I acknowledge, in supporting the idea, that it has had cross-party support. I am looking for the Conservatives’ media spokesperson; I do not know whether he is here today, but nonetheless—

Members: He is in Malawi.

He is in Malawi. There was no disrespect intended, because I was going to say that Ted Brocklebank, with his experience in broadcasting, was one of the first people to bring forward that idea. It is an idea whose time has come, and we should continue to unite as a Parliament to press the issue. We should be extremely grateful to the network panel that was headed by Blair Jenkins, the former chair of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, which has produced such an excellent and thoughtful report that members in the chamber can, I hope, unite behind.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The First Minister is aware that Labour has supported the idea of investing in and growing the Scottish broadcasting industry, and a Scottish digital channel, provided that it is not at the expense of existing Scottish output and that it is a channel of quality.

Given that the BBC already reached an agreement last October on how the licence fee would be used, and given that the Tory-Liberal coalition Government has imposed new costs on the BBC—including £340 million for the cost of the world service—and has frozen the licence fee for the next six years, how does the First Minister propose to open up those talks? I presume that we are not proposing to reduce BBC Scotland’s budget, in that argument.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Pauline McNeill knows, and has acknowledged and supported in previous discussions and debates, if one looks at the spending of the licence fee in Scotland and the spending on BBC Scotland, and at the Scottish contribution to the network, which is still way under population share, it is not unreasonable for the digital network panel to suggest a proposal that would cost 2 per cent of the licence fee.

If the discussion is closed until 2017, the report proposed that bridge funding might be provided from the proceeds of auctioning the cleared spectrum after the digital switchover in 2012. The report anticipated that we might get a shut door from Westminster on the basis that agreement had been reached until 2017, and therefore proposed an alternative funding mechanism. With that in mind, and given the strength behind the report and the broad welcome that it has received across the media and cultural industries in Scotland, I hope that we can continue our unity as a Parliament, which is the best possible outcome in terms of achieving what we all want to see in Scotland.

Domestic Violence

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the violence reduction unit’s report that 4,783 domestic violence incidents were logged by police forces during December 2010. (S3F-2866)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Domestic abuse is completely unacceptable and the Government continues to work closely with all key partners, including the police, to ensure that perpetrators are held to account and victims have access to appropriate support.

We know that domestic abuse is under-reported, which is why the violence reduction unit campaigns annually to encourage and increase reporting. As part of that campaign, Scottish police forces have introduced a number of measures to combat the most serious offenders, including global positioning system tracking and third-party reporting. We will continue to tackle the issue head on, with funding of more than £11 million proposed for 2011-12, which is 40 per cent higher than the budget in 2006-07.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the First Minister agree that those figures show the need for continued support for the groups that are doing excellent work to deal with the serious and stubborn problem of domestic abuse in Scotland? Given that sentencing for those offences is crucial to the overall approach, what consideration has been given to building on the success of the domestic abuse court in Glasgow that was established in the previous session of Parliament, and to developing approaches in other parts of the country?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The route that we have chosen, in distributing the 40 per cent increase in funding to tackle this serious issue, is to ensure that a variety of support services and groups are assisted directly. For example, there is £2 million to fund ASSIST—advice, support, safety and information services together—and 73 projects are funded under the violence against women funding stream, many of which directly address domestic abuse.

There is also three-year funding for specialist children’s services through the Women’s Aid fund. The equality budget, from which violence against women funding is allocated, has been retained at its 2010-11 level for 2011-12, despite the £1,300 million of cutbacks that John Swinney has had to accommodate in the Scottish budget. Those statistics and the track record say that the issue is of the highest priority for the Government. I hope that that priority is shared by the entire Parliament.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

It is a particular worry that more than half of domestic abuse victims have previously suffered abuse. There are good examples, such as the domestic abuse task force that Strathclyde Police has established, and which targets the more persistent offenders. Can the First Minister cast any further light on what the Government can do throughout Scotland to get into the intractable problem of repeat offenders?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

A range of funding streams provide support to look at that particular issue. We obviously have a serious problem, and the statistics bear that out. The Government has had Robert Brown’s support on a range of justice measures that we now see are yielding results, given the 30-year low in recorded crime in Scotland. However, there are still areas where there is much to do, and domestic abuse—violence against women in particular—is one of those areas. I hope that Robert Brown will acknowledge that the variety of projects and funding streams that are being introduced show that we recognise the seriousness of the issue, just as the reporting of it indicates that we now understand the problem better and are seeking to address it in the most serious way.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is the First Minister aware of concerns that have been expressed by Scottish Women’s Aid regarding the effect that alcohol has on domestic violence, including the perception that being drunk can somehow be seen as an excuse for committing such appalling crimes, and the fact that violence is likely to be more severe when the perpetrator is drunk? Does the First Minister agree that it is imperative that we tackle and reduce overconsumption of alcohol if we are to have a serious reduction in those terrible figures?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, I agree with that. Alcohol is not an excuse for domestic abuse or any other crime and can never be considered so. Parliament and society must recognise that the role of alcohol in a range of crimes is hugely significant in Scotland. That is why the Parliament, sooner rather than later, will have to tackle the booze culture in Scotland head on, which would result in remarkable improvements in the social fabric of Scotland on domestic abuse and on many other issues.

Student Support

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

6. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that the choices made in its draft budget 2011-12 represent fair support for college students. (S3F-2869)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, I do. As Jeremy Purvis knows, the draft budget will ensure that not a single student place at college or university will be lost, despite the savage cut in Scotland’s budget that has been imposed by the Liberal and Tory United Kingdom Government. The draft budget also protects the funding for student support, with a guarantee that no student will receive less living support next year than they receive this year. We have provided record funding of £84 million for student support in the current academic year, and the draft budget maintains that for 2011-12. That is a 25 per cent increase over the period of the Administration.

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

On Monday, I met three students who are in receipt of bursaries that give them the opportunity to be at college. In my discussions with John Swinney on the draft budget, I have indicated that we will work with the Government to tackle the £1.7 million real-terms reduction in the bursary budget for such students. Given that, as part of the bonuses that Tavish Scott talked about, £4.25 million was paid out at Scottish Water in the past year, is that fair arithmetic?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The arithmetic that counts is the 7.5 per cent increase in the number of places at college and the 25 per cent increase in the student support budget. We always listen to students and others in society who have a case. For example, we listened when we preserved the education maintenance allowance, which has been cancelled by the member’s colleagues south of the border, but which helps tens of thousands of people from poorer backgrounds in Scotland to maintain their places in education.

We listen when we refuse to go down the road that has been taken by the member’s colleagues south of the border, of having tuition fees of £9,000. We also listen when we do not cut college funding by 25 per cent or university funding by 40 per cent over the review period. That is how the Scottish Government is protecting the rights of Scottish students, as has been acknowledged. I say to Jeremy Purvis that there will have to be considerable rearrangement of the Liberal Democrat position before a single student in this country votes for his party at the coming election.

12:30 Meeting suspended until 14:15.

14:15 On resuming—

Finance and Sustainable Growth

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Question 1 has not been lodged.

Fiscal Autonomy (Economic Growth)

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will specify the work published by Professors Andrew Hughes Hallett and Drew Scott that forms the basis of the First Minister’s assertion that “with economic powers we could grow the Scottish economy by an extra 1% a year.” (S3O-12810)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Professor Hughes Hallett and Professor Scott make clear in their policy forum research paper “Scotland: A New Fiscal Settlement” that the additional economic levers available under full financial responsibility would provide the opportunity to increase Scotland’s gross domestic product. Ultimately, the impact on Scotland’s economic performance would depend on our ability to put in place policies that are right for Scotland and have the greatest impact on the drivers of growth such as productivity, participation and population. I am confident that the Parliament, focusing on what is right for Scotland, would do just that.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The wild and unfounded assertion that was made by the First Minister at the Scottish National Party conference was, of course, not featured in the work of the professors—work that is also found in a doctored form in a Scottish Government publication, although not exaggerated to the same extent.

Will the cabinet secretary accept that the evidence base for a relationship between economic growth and economic performance on the one hand and fiscal devolution, autonomy and decentralisation on the other is both tenuous and contentious? It flies in the face of logic, which is that it is not who exercises a power that counts but how that power is exercised at whatever level of government. Is it not the case that there is no better illustration of that than the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to cut corporation tax in Scotland to encourage economic growth and jobs, and the cabinet secretary wishes to impose super-taxes on business to do the very opposite?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I suspect that the point on which I can agree with Mr McLetchie is that the issue is contentious. He certainly participates in this debate in a contentious fashion, as he does on all matters, and not in the fashion in which I, with my usual sense of consensus, do.

If we follow to its logical conclusion Mr McLetchie’s argument that it does not matter who exercises the fiscal levers, it is an argument for the United Kingdom to surrender all its fiscal independence to the European Union. The last time I looked, Mr McLetchie was a confirmed Eurosceptic who has vigorously defended the fiscal independence of the United Kingdom. If it is good enough for the fiscal independence of the United Kingdom for the chancellor to want to be able to use economic levers to deliver economic growth, why on earth should it be any different for those of us in the Parliament who have aspirations for better things for Scotland?

Community Energy Loan Fund (Co-operatives)

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive how the community energy loan fund will be used to promote co-operatives in the energy sector. (S3O-12767)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The aim of the proposed community energy loan fund is to maximise the benefits of renewable energy for communities, not only in terms of access to locally produced low-carbon energy but in terms of social cohesion and economic development. Co-operatives are one of the business models that applicants will be able to use.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

Recently, I had a meeting with the co-operative-owned group Energy4All, which expressed to me concerns about restrictions on community-owned co-ops in relation to the community renewables implementation group. I therefore welcome the minister’s answer, but I ask him to clarify that groups such as Energy4All will have access to the fund. Also, will he agree to meet me and representatives of community co-ops to discuss how best to promote the use of co-operatives in the energy sector?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am certainly willing to have that meeting, as it would build on the many other meetings that we have had across Scotland to open up the opportunities that renewables offer to build the fabric of and social cohesion within communities. As for Energy4All, our intention is that co-ops will be eligible for the fund subject to similar eligibility criteria that apply to other applicants, chief among which is that such moves demonstrate a level of benefit to the wider local community. I think that that sets the scene rather well for the conversation that I will have with Mr Kelly and Energy4All.

Fuel Prices

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what representations ministers have made to the United Kingdom Government regarding fuel prices. (S3O-12729)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Since 2007, the Scottish Government has made regular representations to the UK Government regarding fuel prices in Scotland, most recently on 14 January, when I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to urge him to introduce a fuel duty regulator. A fuel duty regulator would ensure that some of the additional revenue that the UK Government receives from the North Sea when oil prices increase unexpectedly is used to reduce fuel duty, thus providing welcome relief to hard-pressed households and businesses. The chancellor and the Prime Minister advocated a similar scheme prior to last year’s UK general election and it is essential that they now take urgent action to tackle the issue.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

I know that the cabinet secretary is aware of The Courier’s fight for fairer fuel campaign, because he has signed the accompanying petition. I, too, have signed the petition, along with my colleagues Shona Robison and Tricia Marwick and many others, and I have been told that the completion of the form that I am holding up brings the tally of signatures to more than 3,000. Given the campaign’s popularity with readers throughout Scotland and constituents’ concerns about high fuel prices, is the cabinet secretary surprised that Iain Gray, the leader of the Labour group in the Parliament, has failed to support The Courier’s campaign?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am certainly aware of The Courier’s campaign; I read about it in my morning newspaper and have been delighted to support it. It is a very welcome intervention in the efforts to encourage a change of heart in the UK Government. I am surprised to hear that the leader of the Labour Party has not been prepared to sign the petition, given the number of hard-pressed households and businesses that I am sure would appreciate his support for The Courier’s efforts. I am also sure that the welcome and helpful way in which Mr FitzPatrick has put forward the issue in Parliament today will encourage the Labour leader to change his mind.

Fiscal Autonomy

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it continues to support full fiscal autonomy for Scotland. (S3O-12790)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Yes.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I thought that the cabinet secretary might say that. I know that he is a very reasonable man and that he would like to debate these important issues on a solid factual basis. A while ago, the Scottish Government put into the public domain a document entitled “Summary of Full Financial Responsibility & Independence”. In the interests of greater clarity, does the cabinet secretary now accept that that Scottish Government paper doctored a quotation from the two professors to whom Mr McLetchie referred by adding in a reference to “revenue” that was not in the original, to suggest that it was tax-raising powers that would make the difference? Does the cabinet secretary accept that, although greater public expenditure can certainly lead to growth, there is no academic or, indeed, commonsense basis for a link between greater devolved tax-raising powers and growth? If so, is the suggestion in the Scottish Government paper of a follow-through to £18 billion in additional public spending resources not entirely spurious and misleading, never mind that the academic paper in question talks about 1 per cent over five years, not the Scottish Government’s staggering claim that 1 per cent growth every year would result in £18 billion? Does he now accept that there is no connection between fiscal decentralisation and growth and, in the interests of clarity, is he now prepared to withdraw the Scottish Government’s dodgy document?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I certainly had plenty of time to take many breaths during Mr Brown’s extensive and rather rambling question.

On the quotation to which the member refers, the Government was giving a clear explanation of the context of the arguments surrounding fiscal devolution. I have to say, though, that I am very surprised by Mr Brown’s argument about fiscal powers, because everything that I have read from the Liberal Democrats on many of these questions suggests an inherent acceptance that control over the fiscal levers helps to encourage economic growth and improvements in economic performance.

I come back to my helpful answer to Mr McLetchie on the same issue. If these things were irrelevant, the United Kingdom would have surrendered these powers to the European Union. The Liberal Democrats may have argued at times in the past for the surrender of all these powers to the European Union—Mr Rumbles looks as if he is chastising me, so perhaps I am not doing justice to the full complexity of the Liberal Democrats’ approach—but the key point is that having control of fiscal levers enables Administrations to deliver improvements in economic growth and economic performance. That point lies at the heart of the debate and it is one on which the Government is delighted to set out its arguments.

Small Business Bonus Scheme

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how many businesses are in receipt of business rates relief under the small business bonus scheme. (S3O-12740)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The latest figures show that the small business bonus scheme has reduced the rates burden for 74,000 properties in Scotland; of those, 63,000 paid no rates at all. In total, almost 30 per cent of all properties in Scotland benefit, with an average saving of £1,400. Since its introduction, the bonus scheme has saved Scottish businesses almost £300 million.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The cabinet secretary and I both believe that it is the flourishing of small businesses in Scotland that will drive economic growth. Does he agree with the Federation of Small Businesses not only that the small business bonus is important for the survival of small businesses but that

“it is now more important than ever that the playing field is level wherever possible”

and that his proposal for an additional business rates levy on the largest supermarkets is vital for the future survival of Scotland’s small businesses?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The supermarket levy has been well debated in Parliament and will be debated further when the Parliamentary Bureau makes provision for it to be discussed next week. The issues around the supermarket levy are very important. At a time of public expenditure constraint, there is an obligation to look at both reductions in spending and increases in revenue. I have settled on a proposal that increases revenue to the Scottish public finances, which helps to support our public services and helps us to deliver schemes such as the small business bonus scheme. I hope that Parliament will consider those points when it discusses the issue.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will remember a question from my colleague Johann Lamont back in May 2008, when she asked whether the Scottish Executive would carry out an evaluation of the small business bonus scheme. His reply was that there was a plan to evaluate the scheme after it had been fully implemented in 2009-10. Has that evaluation been carried out? When will it be published? Does it show how many jobs have been created as a result of the small business bonus scheme?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

If Mr Whitton is in dialogue with small businesses in his constituency, he will have to accept the clear point that many small businesses express to me—it is evidenced in some of the material published by the Federation of Small Businesses—that the small business bonus scheme has been an integral part of providing financial stability and support to businesses at a very difficult time economically and that it has allowed many of them to survive and to invest in their businesses. The Government will certainly be happy to evaluate the effectiveness of the small business bonus scheme, but Mr Whitton should not belittle the enormous contribution that it has made to safeguarding the interests of small businesses in Scotland.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

How many small businesses are entitled to the small business bonus but are not in receipt of it?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I think that the number of businesses that are eligible for but not subscribing to the small business bonus scheme is in the order of 20,000, but I had better safeguard myself by—I have been informed that the figure is 19,300, so I was not too far off. I will ensure that that number is confirmed for Mr Brown if there is any requirement to do so.

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

On the latest Government estimates of the yield from business rates as we come towards the end of the current financial year, what is the latest Government estimate of whether the pot of business rates will be in surplus or in deficit? If it is due to be in net surplus, what is the figure?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The question that Mr Purvis wishes to have answered is one that can be answered only once the financial year is concluded and we see the yield from non-domestic rates in 2010-11. I explained at some length on two occasions yesterday—both in committee and in the chamber—that, although estimates can be made of that calculation, we will know the status of the non-domestic rates account only once the financial year is closed and the account has been settled. We will then formally know the starting point for the next financial year.

While I am on my feet, I should say, further to my answer to Gavin Brown’s question on the number of companies that are eligible for but not subscribing to the small business bonus scheme, that we have written to those companies to encourage them to take up the offer of that scheme. That has resulted in an increase in the uptake of reliefs in recent months.

Former Mining Communities (Financial Support)

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has had with the Minister for Housing and Communities regarding financial support to former mining communities in 2011-12. (S3O-12758)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I regularly meet ministerial colleagues to discuss how best to deliver real benefits and better outcomes for people in communities across the whole of Scotland.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that coal mining was a major industry and source of employment in my constituency. To help to deal with the loss in coalfield communities, the Coalfields Regeneration Trust was set up and has enjoyed funding support from successive Governments, allowing it, in turn, to support communities. In my constituency, organisations such as the youth football team have enjoyed support over a number of years. We get good value for money from the trust. For every £1 that is given in grant, a further £1.37 is generated from other sources, so taxpayers are getting a very good return on their investment. How will the cabinet secretary protect this vital investment in the coming year?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I acknowledge the importance of the work that Cathie Craigie talks about and the importance of the regeneration and rehabilitation of the former coalfield areas. Support has been made available to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust through Scottish Government grant support. Representatives of the organisation met Alex Neil on 10 November at Mrs Craigie’s request. We are obviously under financial pressures in the coming financial year and will be for some years to come. Resources will be under pressure, but continuing financial support will be given to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in 2011-12.

Given that there is such pressure on public finances, I encourage organisations such as the Coalfields Regeneration Trust to identify additional financial support for projects. There are other funding streams such as cashback for communities, which is a spin-off of the fines collected from criminals and which she may wish to explore with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, who takes all responsibility for distribution of those resources.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Is the cabinet secretary aware of figures that were secured by our colleague Dr Eilidh Whiteford, in the House of Commons, which demonstrate that more than 2,000 miners throughout Scotland—including 52 in the Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East Westminster constituency—died before they received compensation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease largely as a consequence of the obfuscation and obstruction of the previous Labour Government?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

That is a cause for concern. People in the mining communities and those who have been involved in mining have taken great risks on behalf of the rest of society. Those who have suffered from respiratory illness as a consequence have deserved the fairest and most prompt support in dealing with the difficulties that they have faced.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Question 8 has not been lodged.

Bus Manufacturing Industry

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

9. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support the bus manufacturing industry. (S3O-12736)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Scottish Government provides a wide range of support to manufacturing companies, including bus manufacturing companies, which is delivered through Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scottish Development International, local authorities and Skills Development Scotland.

All manufacturers are eligible for business development support through the Scottish manufacturing advisory service, which has gone from success to success since its inception in 2005. Bus companies in Scotland also receive support through a number of transport initiatives, such as the Scottish green bus fund and the low-carbon vehicle incentive, which encourages bus operators to invest in more environmentally friendly buses.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The minister will be aware of the delight of Alexander Dennis Ltd, the bus manufacturer that is based in my constituency, at the recent announcement of the green bus scheme, which will see 46 of the 50 buses that will be manufactured under that scheme being made by the company in Falkirk. The workforce recognises the importance of the scheme and the fact that, proportionately, the spend on the Scottish green bus scheme is significantly greater than that on the English green bus scheme.

Given the importance of the scheme, will the minister consider whether it can run into the future to try to promote greater moves towards green buses, which have great environmental benefits and also help manufacturing industry players such as Alexander Dennis, in my constituency?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I am happy to give the member the assurance that he needs. I congratulate the member and Alexander Dennis on the work that is being done and on the way in which the member has pursued his constituency interest in this area, which is reflected in the fact that the First Minister, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and my predecessor in this post all visited the Alexander Dennis site.

Although we should not always compare ourselves with England, it is true that Scotland has invested around £4.4 million in its green bus scheme while England has invested around £30 million in its, which means that we have made a higher per capita investment. Our investment has produced major dividends, especially in relation to the manufacturing sector, where it has safeguarded hundreds of jobs, so I am happy to give the member the assurance that he seeks.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I add my congratulations to the minister on building on the pioneering work of the previous United Kingdom Government by establishing a green bus fund, for which we on the Labour benches campaigned relentlessly. Last year, the Scottish Government gave similar funding to Strathclyde partnership for transport, to enable it to acquire green buses. Is there funding in the draft budget to fund green buses that are operated by the public sector?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I am delighted that Charlie Gordon and his colleagues followed the lead of Michael Matheson in campaigning for those funds to be made available. I know that Michael Matheson met my predecessor and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth a long time ago to discuss the matter. Whoever has pushed for the policy, I think that there has been a good outcome.

I met people from SPT about an hour and a half ago and saw some evidence of its green bus initiatives, not least the fact that some of its new buses now have three-times-improved fuel consumption, which is extremely important. We are in discussion with a number of people about how such things can be taken forward in future, but that will depend on budgetary considerations.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Question 10 was not lodged.

Renewable Energy (Skills Shortage)

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

11. To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had to address the reported skills shortage in the renewable energy industry. (S3O-12804)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The First Minister’s Scottish energy advisory board, which is co-chaired by Professor Jim McDonald of the University of Strathclyde and has representation from the key energy companies, has taken a specific interest in the future skills demands of the energy sector, including renewables. The board has commissioned Skills Development Scotland, as a member of the group, to produce a study on Scotland’s future energy skills demand.

In addition, the skills sub-group of the forum for renewable energy development in Scotland, under the energy advisory board, is charged with delivering the skills requirements that are needed for the developing renewable energy sector. By bringing together industry and key skills bodies, the group is focused on the delivery of the skills framework for action, as set out in the renewables action plan, including actions on developing appropriate qualifications and learning provision and raising awareness of the renewables industry as a positive career choice.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

Given the significant plans for onshore and offshore wind energy, does the minister agree that it would be in the long-term financial interests of Scotland for there to be a stepped increase in investment in wind turbine technicians, such as that which is already provided, on a small scale, by Carnegie College in Dunfermline?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

There is a lot to build on vis-à-vis Carnegie College, and a lot is happening in the private sector, such as the work that is being done by Scottish and Southern Energy.

There is an opportunity for Mr Tolson and his Liberal Democrat colleagues, as well as members on the Tory benches, to come together with us as we debate electricity market reforms to ensure that the fabric of the low-carbon economy in Scotland is fully considered as we develop issues in the area along with his colleague, Chris Huhne.

Local Authorities (Early Severance Schemes)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

12. To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on local authorities funding severance schemes from reductions in pay. (S3O-12774)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As independent corporate bodies, local authorities are responsible for managing their own financial affairs, including the terms and conditions of pay for their staff.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

That is an interesting contrast with the answer that Mr Swinney gave me on 16 December, when he described pay cuts as an “unnecessary” tactic that was not even worth discussing.

Mr Swinney will have heard the First Minister suggest earlier today that Aberdeen City Council was seeking to avoid compulsory redundancies by promoting what Mr Salmond called “pay restraint”. Has the cabinet secretary had any discussions with the council or his Scottish National Party councillor colleagues in Aberdeen with a view to the council avoiding compulsory redundancies? If he has had such discussions, what have the outcomes been?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As Lewis Macdonald will know from the comments that I have made in Parliament over a sustained period of time, and in light of the commitment that the Government has offered and fulfilled for the past three years—which has been fully honoured—that there will be no compulsory redundancies in the public sector areas that the Government controls, I am working on the creation of a framework that will provide an assurance on the avoidance of compulsory redundancies based on the delivery of flexibility in the workforce to enable us to manage the financial constraints that we face. The priority and aspiration for the agreement that I am working to secure is to ensure that we can maintain head count as far as possible in the public sector. I assure Mr Macdonald that I am applying all energy to ensure that that comes about.

On Mr Macdonald’s specific point about Aberdeen City Council, I have of course discussed with the council the issues that have been raised publicly in the past few days. It is a matter for the council to consider, but it is important that it fully considers the approach that the Government has taken. We have said that we are working to provide an assurance that there will be no compulsory redundancies, provided that sufficient flexibility is deployed to manage the financial strain that should be evident to any independent observer of the budget challenges and choices that we face.

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

13. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to help protect small and medium-sized businesses from the economic downturn. (S3O-12730)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government is committed to maintaining a supportive business environment and to ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to protect small and medium-sized enterprises during the current economic downturn.

We have introduced a range of policies that are helping to protect small and medium-sized enterprises in Scotland. Those include continuing to match the English business poundage rate; maintaining support for the small business bonus scheme, which has reduced the rates burden for 74,000 properties in Scotland; transferring the business gateway to local authorities; investing in broadband; reducing unnecessary burdens on business; and making it easier for SMEs to access public sector contracts.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does the minister agree that our larger retailers have a moral and civic responsibility to help to bear the burden of the Westminster-imposed cuts? Does he agree that the proposed increase in business rates for large retailers would help to ease the burden that is borne by small and medium-sized businesses? Does he agree that Labour and the Conservatives would perhaps find it easier to support those proposals had they not received more than £14 million in political donations from the Sainsbury family over the past few years?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I agree that in a time when our budgets are being slashed, we need all hands to the pump. We are trying to optimise jobs, quality of life and economic growth in all parts of Scotland. The customers of the supermarkets are feeling the pinch as their incomes and pensions are frozen or declining and the cost of VAT and fuel is going through the roof.

I was criticised yesterday for suggesting that supermarkets and the people should come together. Those companies that do that will receive a big dividend in the future. That is the thought that we are hearing from the major business thinkers with whom we are meeting in the business schools.

As far as the donations are concerned, it is always best for donors and recipients to be seen to be even-handed. The current approach will not have escaped the attention of many people in Scotland and will make them think.

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

Does the minister still hold to the view that we should slash corporation tax for those very same companies?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The member confuses the situation. We are a devolved Government and we aspire to have a competitive independent country with full responsibility for all our taxes and the same growth that other countries have. The people who advocate that we stay where we are and stay in our box are advocating that Scotland should continue with our trend rate of growth at 1.8 per cent per annum, when the United Kingdom achieved a growth rate of 2.3 per cent, Norway achieved 3.1 per cent and Ireland achieved 5.2 per cent. We can catch up and match them if we get economic powers. Those who deny that will be condemned by history, Mr Purvis.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Small businesses in my constituency of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth are finding it difficult to provide the service that they want to provide because of the slow broadband links in the area. The minister will know that I have written to him on the matter. As I am sure he is aware, my Cumbernauld and Kilsyth constituency is right in the centre of Scotland, with great access to road and rail but, unfortunately, we are not connected up to 21st century broadband. Will the Scottish Government and the minister commit to investigating the issue further and bringing Cumbernauld and Kilsyth up to the speeds that people who move there expect?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We indeed commit to investigating that further. We are very much linked to that. We want the “Digital Britain” vision to come to the fore and we have done everything that we can, incrementally, to make up for the shortcomings in broadband—as a UK universal service—that we were delivered under the previous UK Administration and the early days of the current one.

Inveramsay Bridge (Congestion)

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

14. To ask the Scottish Executive whether funds are available to tackle congestion at the Inveramsay bridge. (S3O-12799)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Government remains committed to resolving the issues surrounding traffic flows at the Inveramsay bridge, and Transport Scotland will treat the project as a priority for the coming year’s preparation programme.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

In the run-up to the 2007 Scottish parliamentary election, local people were promised by no less than Alex Salmond that he would replace the Inveramsay bridge by the election that is due in May this year. Network Rail has confirmed that the work could be completed in four days. Why has the SNP Government failed to do it in four years?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

As I said, the Scottish Government is committed to the project, which has been in the strategic transport projects review since 2009. The bridge was surveyed by Network Rail in October 2010 and the outcomes of the survey have been passed to Transport Scotland. The outcome of Transport Scotland’s deliberations will be announced in early course.

Mr Rumbles mentioned the local constituency member, who has been assiduous in trying to push forward the issue and whom I very recently advised of progress on the matter. That progress and the investment so far are timely. In fact, the process has gone at almost lightning speed compared with the eight years for which Mike Rumbles supported a Labour-Lib Dem Administration that did precisely nothing, or even the 28 years for which there has been Liberal representation in the Gordon area and during which the issue has not moved along at all. The simple fact is that, even with the £800 million capital cut from the Con-Dem Administration in London, we will proceed with the project. That underlines the point that a promise from the SNP is a real promise, unlike one from the Lib Dems.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Mr Rumbles took the words out of my mouth regarding the pledge that the First Minister made in 2007. Local people and businesses are getting really fed up. For far too long, they have been waiting for action to address the issues with the Inveramsay bridge. Given that there are fewer than 100 days to go until the Holyrood elections, will the minister keep the pledge and announce a timetable for work to begin?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I have already said that announcements on Transport Scotland’s deliberations on the Network Rail survey will be made in early course. I wonder whether Nanette Milne can say exactly how that process is helped by taking £800 million out of the capital programme. Despite that cut, we will make progress and we have already done so, which is in stark contrast to previous Administrations.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Question 15 has been withdrawn.