Scottish Parliament, 15 September 2011

449 contributions from 86 members. The official report.

Waste Management

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-00853, in the name of Michael McMahon, on waste management. In the light of the possibility of sub judice matters being mentioned, I advise members that although I am content to allow references to be made to general concerns about the planning process in relation to incinerators. There are active legal proceedings in the Dovesdale and Carnbroe cases, so they should avoid straying into matters that could be considered sub judice. I call Michael McMahon to speak to and move the motion.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Although, as all colleagues did, I came into politics to make life better for those whom I represent, I confess that—unlike for a good number of fellow members of the Scottish Parliament—environmental issues were not my most prominent consideration when I first entered this place. To be honest, they are still not the most important issues for me; nevertheless, over the years I have come to realise that we generally spend too much time doing things that undermine our ability to enjoy our tenure of this rather beautiful country. Although it did not occupy much of my initial thinking, I am now firmly of the view that creating waste is both a consequence and a symptom of living unwisely.

To date, too much thinking has been directed at accommodating our excesses, and we rarely consider curtailing our use of the resources that we have. For many years, rubbish was seen as a health issue and a problem to be dealt with; then it began to be seen as a resource and something of value. That is why it is important for us to have an effective, deliverable and clear zero waste management strategy. To meet the target, all our local authorities need to become zero waste local authorities. Some have done a good job of waste minimisation, but we cannot ignore the warning from Audit Scotland which, in its report from 2010 that is cited in the motion, concluded:

“Collectively, councils’ plans are not sufficient to meet landfill and recycling targets beyond 2010.”

Although councils such as North Lanarkshire Council easily exceeded their 2010 target, the average was simply not good enough and there is little prospect of future overall targets being met, according to Audit Scotland.

There remains a reluctance to spend even the amount that councils previously spent on burying the stuff to find more productive uses for the stuff that we throw away. Where a job was done well, it owed more to the enthusiasm and passion of environmentally and socially aware officials and stakeholders, who forced local authorities to think about the long-term consequences of throwing stuff into holes in the ground. Reducing environmental stress means not only reducing the amount of waste that we generate, but changing the way we think about our use of resources.

The Scottish Government’s zero waste strategy should therefore be a good launch pad, but we need more than a launch pad; nothing less than changing the culture of waste will suffice. No one should claim that that will be easy, but to those who argue that culture shift is too difficult and that we should do only what is easily achievable, we must respond by saying that we should at least expect it to be the overarching goal that underpins our activities.

If we are genuinely committed to zero waste strategies, we must commit to what is necessary to achieve zero waste. The waste management hierarchy is an accepted guide for prioritising waste management practices with the objective of achieving optimal environmental outcomes. It sets out the preferred order of waste management practices from most to least preferred. The waste management hierarchy must be one of the guiding principles of the zero waste strategy, and I am pleased that the Government recognises that green pecking order.

Reuse requires less energy than recycling, although factors such as the consumer desire for newness can conspire against reuse. There are many ways in which clothes, books and other materials are currently reused, even through the use of new technologies such as eBay. It is already part of our society and there are precedents on which we can build. Reduction also requires less energy, by designing out waste before it is created. We must also recycle and recover, but it would certainly be best to avoid waste. That is the ultimate zero waste challenge—the highest point on the hierarchy. To address zero waste effectively, there needs to be a move beyond recycling to the largely uncharted territory of the higher end of the hierarchy.

To get to that point, we must also plan. When a local authority is asked to deliver on waste management targets, it is vital that the planning framework, based on which it makes decisions, is as clear as it can be. Local authorities that respond to the concerns of local communities cannot be left to carry the can for decisions that are made—against the wishes of local people—when their decisions are overturned by ministers.

I welcome the fact that, from previous answers to me and others, Aileen Campbell is committed to recycling, to reusing and to preventing waste, and has conceded that production of energy from waste is a part of that. However, the former Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, Jim Mather—in recognising that energy from the waste process has a role to play—stated that current regulatory measures prevent the building of large-scale energy-from-waste plants. Tell that to the communities that are now lined up to oppose exactly such facilities in their areas.

Regarding one energy-from-waste proposal, a current cabinet secretary even had the brass neck to state publicly—and to tell local campaigners—that his party

“opposed this application since day one”

despite his Scottish National Party Government having since endorsed the proposal. It must also be a huge disappointment to Stewart Maxwell that his Government has approved so many incinerators since he asked for, and received, a promise from Mr Mather that an incoming SNP Government would continue to oppose such plants.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Perhaps Michael McMahon did not read the full question and answer exchange with Mr Mather when he was minister. We were talking about a particular plant in my area—a large-scale waste incinerator. Perhaps Michael McMahon should check the definition of large-scale incineration. That plant is more than 1 million tonnes, which is quite a different scale from the one he is talking about.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

A plant of 1 million tonnes might be of a different scale from the ones that we are talking about, but people on the Government side of the chamber campaigned against what Mr Mather said would be introduced. That is the point that I am making.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Perhaps the member will acknowledge another example in my constituency, where an application for an incinerator handling 300,000 tonnes a year—well over twice what is required locally—was rejected by the local authority but then approved by Scottish ministers. Perhaps he can ask the minister to explain to my constituents how that is not consenting to large-scale incineration.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

I agree, because that is the level at which Jim Mather said incinerators would be unacceptable. However, they are being approved by this Government against the promises that were made to members who asked for that commitment from ministers in the previous Government.

It is not acceptable in any circumstances that there is a lack of clarity, but certainly not when it involves the planning process that local authorities have to apply and that businesses have to work to, and when it leaves local communities exploited for political ends when they need honest representation from their elected members.

I concur, therefore, with Christina McKelvie, who asked the Minister for Local Government and Planning to agree that the creation of national guidance on dealing with planning applications for waste incinerators and waste-to-energy plants would help local planning authorities that are facing decisions about proposed developments, and the communities that would be affected by them.

The minister has so far refused that request, but I make it again today and ask the Scottish Government to consider my request that the development of such guidance be sought so that no waste-to-energy project is approved unless it meets strict environmental justice tests.

There are many issues that will legitimately divide politicians. However, I am sure that the chamber will unite in agreeing that any politician who cynically sided with local campaigners in order to gain their support at the ballot box, then reneged on the promises that were made and, indeed, failed to deliver on those promises when subsequently promoted to the ministerial office that could affect those outcomes, would be open to ridicule and reproach.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Will the member take an intervention?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Right on cue.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Does the member not recognise the role of local authorities in that case? That decision was rightly up to South Lanarkshire Council and it made its decision.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

The minister has clearly not been listening and makes the point for me. The minister passes the buck to local authorities for issues that ultimately rest with her. Guidance is required for local authorities. She should stop blaming local authorities for decisions that she does not like.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

It is part of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 that local decisions would be made locally.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

The minister makes the point for me. We have asked her to review the guidance and the planning laws. She refuses to do that but continually campaigns and claims that she is on the side of communities when she will not lift a finger to help those communities. I am sure that, like the minister, members who speak after me and people who join us in the public gallery might know of an example or two.

What I do know is that Scottish Labour supports the ambition of a zero waste Scotland but has serious doubts about the Scottish Government’s ability to meet recycling and landfill targets. We believe that the lack of a coherent national approach to planning guidelines for waste developments has led to significant problems in a number of communities. In particular, local authorities need more clarity. That is why I have brought the debate.

I move,

That the Parliament supports the ambition of a Zero Waste Scotland and the waste hierarchy of reduce, reuse, recycle and recover; notes the need for an effective national framework to guide waste management strategy; further notes the Audit Scotland report, Protecting and improving Scotland’s environment, published in January 2010, which concluded that “collectively, councils’ plans are not sufficient to meet landfill and recycling targets beyond 2010”; notes the increasing number of waste incineration projects currently in the planning process across Scotland and that many of these projects are opposed by local communities and were opposed by a number of successful candidates during the recent election; believes that local authorities need more clarity on planning guidelines with regard to waste incineration developments, and further believes that no project involving biomass and waste-to-energy should be approved unless concerns such as environmental justice and the impact on wood supply have been thoroughly considered.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I welcome the opportunity to debate this important topic and thank Michael McMahon and his colleagues for giving Parliament this opportunity.

I listened carefully to Michael McMahon’s opening speech and I agree with many of his comments. However, I cannot agree with his assertion that we should scrap Scotland’s planning system and scrap the appeals process unless we reject every appeal that comes before us.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

I make it clear that we are not asking for the scrapping of planning system. I said that I concur with Christina McKelvie in asking for a review to ensure that planning guidelines are helpful to local authorities.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The debate addresses some of the challenges that our society faces on the road to zero waste Scotland—a destination that we all, I am pleased to say, appear to support.

I hope that we can all agree on at least one important point: it is no longer acceptable for Scotland to landfill 4.7 million tonnes of the 17 million tonnes of waste that we produce as a nation. We must reduce the amount of waste that we produce in the first place, and we must reuse and recycle as much waste as possible.

Michael McMahon pointed to the challenges that are outlined in the Audit Scotland report. I am grateful to him for highlighting the report, because I can now highlight that many of the points that it made have been overtaken. For example, Scotland has now achieved its landfill diversion targets, which were due to be met in 2013. That is good news for Scotland. It is also excellent news that many councils in Scotland are now approaching 50 per cent of waste being recycled in their areas.

However, we must extract maximum value and environmental benefit from the residual waste that we will be left with and which cannot be recycled. Scotland therefore requires to have the infrastructure in place in the coming years to treat the nation’s residual waste. There are different technologies for treating residual waste, of which energy from waste through incineration is but one option. This Government does not specify which technology should be used, as long as it meets appropriate standards and fulfils our policy aims.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for taking an intervention. I do not think that anyone disputes the fact that there will be residual waste. The problem is that facilities are often not available to facilitate the recycling.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I have an element of sympathy with the member’s comments. That is why more infrastructure needs to be built in Scotland.

I am acutely aware of the strong emotions and opinions that surround energy-from-waste facilities. They are not restricted to energy-from-waste plants; the location of recycling centres, waste-processing facilities and, of course, landfill sites all stir strong feelings in our communities.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

On a very specific point, my understanding is that the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 provides that there should be a fit and proper person test for anybody owning or running such a plant. However, it is also my understanding that, under the Electricity Act 1989, there is no fit and proper person test for somebody running such a plant. A large-scale plant, such as the one that has been proposed for the edge of Newton Mearns, comes under the Electricity Act 1989, because of the proposed output of electricity from the plant. Will the minister take up the issue of the lack of a fit and proper person test under the Electricity Act 1989?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The member raises an interesting point. Of course, the Electricity Act 1989 is reserved to the United Kingdom Government, although elements of it are devolved to the Scottish Government. I will certainly bring his concerns to the attention of the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who I am sure will be willing to write to the member with his views.

Our approach to tackling Scotland’s waste is set out in our zero waste plan. Simply put, we wish waste to be treated as a valued resource, rather than as something that is simply to be discarded. Achieving our zero waste agenda will require changes and improvements to the infrastructure for managing Scotland’s waste, not to mention the development of a reprocessing sector. We need to stop exporting materials that can be recycled and start recycling them here. I think that we can all agree on that. I want to be clear that the majority of infrastructure that we need will support improvements in recycling and collection. However, that does not mean that energy-from-waste plants or other types of residual-waste treatment facilities will not be needed.

We are heading towards a level of 70 per cent recycling with no more than 5 per cent of waste going to landfill in the longer term. Not all waste is suitable for thermal treatment. Therefore, the reality is that less than 10 per cent of Scotland’s total waste is ever likely to be processed in that way. The importance of avoiding overcapacity in infrastructure to treat residual or black-bag waste is clear. We do not need to look too far afield to see the consequences of infrastructure overcapacity. Other European countries have established large networks of energy-from-waste facilities. Scotland incinerates around 2.7 per cent of municipal waste, while Denmark, the Netherlands and France—which have good environmental credentials—incinerate 53.8 per cent, 32.9 per cent and 33.7 per cent, respectively. Those plants rely on a constant supply of waste, which can restrict the levels of recycling that can be achieved.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Will the member give way?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I apologise, but I have taken three interventions already.

I have no desire to see such levels of incineration in Scotland. That is why we have set some of the most ambitious recycling targets in Europe, including a target of recycling 70 per cent of all waste by 2025. It is why all new facilities must be highly efficient in producing heat and energy and why there is a presumption against large-scale facilities, and why this Administration is progressing legislation that will ensure that only materials that cannot be recycled are incinerated.

Of course, none of that will remove the need for difficult planning decisions—around not only waste infrastructure, but a variety of large-scale infrastructure—which is why local accountability and decision making are key to successful planning decisions, and why ministers get involved only when planning decisions are appealed or when there are matters of national significance.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and our local authorities are not knocking on our door and asking for planning decisions to be taken on a national basis—they want local accountability. That is what this Government supports and will continue to support.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Will the member give way?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am sorry, I have taken three interventions already. I will take the member’s intervention in my closing speech.

At each stage of the planning process, whether it involves a decision by a council, reporters or ministers, those who are responsible must give material consideration of public representations in national policies and guidelines. In the case of waste infrastructure, that means that all elected members must recognise the need to take responsibility for waste and must show support for the development of appropriate infrastructure to manage our waste.

However, when it comes to public concerns over the siting of incineration plants, we attach the highest importance to protecting and improving the health and wellbeing of our communities. For example, experts who have been engaged in a wide range of independent scientific and medical studies have examined the evidence around the impact on health of modern incinerators, and have concluded that the relative health impact that is associated with their operation is very low. We need to put all of that in context. I have been told by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency that a modern incinerator would have to run for 120 years to produce the amount of pollution that was produced by the millennium firework display in London.

SEPA and our other authorities have responsibility for regulating all the applications that are being received. They will continue to do so, taking into account local representations and the very fit-for-purpose national framework that is in place at the moment. I am clear that energy-from-waste technologies and other technologies are safe and sustainable and represent a valuable option for dealing with Scotland’s big problem of residual waste.

I move amendment S4M-00853.1, to leave out from the first “notes” to end and insert:

“and notes the importance of an effective national framework to guide waste management, represented by Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan.”

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

This is a timely debate, for there is little doubt that waste management is contentious, complicated and emotive—almost always because communities do not consider that their views are being taken into account.

The motion outlines the waste hierarchy that is important in achieving a zero waste Scotland, which focuses first on attempts to reduce waste. In that regard, the Westminster Government’s announcement today on sell-by dates is welcome and should be helpful. The hierarchy goes on to cover the reuse of waste, and then emphasises recycling and recovery.

For the benefit of the layperson and anyone else who is bemused by the different types of waste management systems, recovery means extracting other value—for example, creating energy. However, the hierarchy does not mention landfill as a means of disposing of waste, which would come a poor fifth in the pecking order.

To put the issue in perspective, householders are undoubtedly trying to do their bit, but are increasingly angered and frustrated because despite their supporting the zero waste objective by conscientiously concentrating on reusing or—if that is not possible—recycling their waste, the local authorities have not put in place the necessary services to facilitate that.

The minister and the cabinet secretary may be interested in a situation that has arisen in Central Scotland. The courageous communities of Greengairs and neighbouring communities in the north Airdrie community group in North Lanarkshire currently live with the largest-capacity landfill site in Europe, as well as four other recently completed landfills. Those communities have taken the reasonable and responsible positive action of supporting—and even, in some instances, suggesting—the establishment of recycling and reuse waste technologies in North Lanarkshire in order to avoid the need for an incinerator. However, despite the communities making those suggestions and taking part in the local plans, and despite the designation as a rural investment area—which should have precluded the presence of an incinerator—the Drumshangie incinerator, which will have the capacity to burn 300,000 tonnes of waste a year, was approved in May 2009. In effect, that ignores the hierarchy of waste management and the willingness of people to support the creation of reuse and recycling facilities in their communities. North Lanarkshire will now have a huge capacity not only for landfill, but for incineration.

In addition, two more applications for incinerators are pending in North Lanarkshire, the most recent in Harthill. With that number of applications currently on the go, it is difficult not to conclude that, rather than concentrating on need, people are making widespread speculative planning applications.

If all that was not enough, there is also an issue with incinerators in South Lanarkshire and, at the other end of my region, Forth Energy has applied to build a biomass plant in Grangemouth. I am reliably informed that biomass facilities often turn into incinerators.

It is therefore clear that the waste management priorities as outlined in the hierarchy are not being implemented, and that consequently, the people of North and South Lanarkshire, Falkirk and elsewhere in Scotland are not being rewarded for their perseverance and participation. Furthermore, given the strength of feeling against the use of landfill and incinerators, the communities that are involved are, more often than not, much better versed in the issues than are politicians, yet there is a definite lack of meaningful consultation of local residents.

To take the latest example, in Harthill the developer held the consultation on a weekday afternoon when it was clear that the vast majority of local residents could not attend, so—not surprisingly—only seven did. It is particularly frustrating that in councils such as North Lanarkshire, there appear to be startling inconsistencies on how incinerator planning applications are dealt with. In those circumstances, I suggest that the following should be considered as a priority: first, the Scottish Government should consider the reasons why local authorities do not have appropriate recycling facilities and ensure that the issue is addressed. In the meantime, a moratorium on large incinerators and biomass applications should be implemented—

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Will the member take an intervention?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am in my last seconds.

Finally, the Scottish Government must consider the reform of subsidies for renewable energy operators in an effort to discourage speculative planning applications, which cause communities such anxiety.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The debate is vital, because how we deal with our waste will have consequences for our planet for generations to come. People recognise that. Masses of people across Scotland are engaged in disputes about safe waste disposal. In my constituency, a campaign against incineration has been run in the past few years. I have fully supported my constituents’ campaign from the start, because their research was thorough and their arguments were compelling. Recently, I spoke at a march and rally that was attended by hundreds of people, including many young people, who oppose incineration and call for environmental justice. I have raised the issue in Parliament in various ways and much of that is on the public record.

On health issues, I recently received from the Scottish Government a response that said:

“the evidence suggests that any potential damage to health of those living close to incinerators is likely to be very small, if detectable.”

That is not good enough. We can accept no level of threat to public health, particularly in Lanarkshire, where people are 44 per cent more likely than people anywhere else in the UK are to be admitted to hospital with a chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, which pollutants aggravate. Incinerators could have dire health consequences, which might become apparent only when it is far too late.

A leading campaigner—Maggie Proctor—summed up the problem of dealing with private companies at a packed public meeting in Coatbridge when she said:

“Their only risk is financial, they are asking us to risk so much more.”

Waste management is too important to leave to the private sector, whose prime motive is profit—not safety or the environment. To make their money, private companies depend on volumes of waste, which they will ship in from far afield to meet their business needs. Of course, the residue goes to landfill, which completely contradicts the Government’s zero waste plans. There is no doubt that continuing to incinerate waste will have a detrimental impact on our efforts to reduce, reuse, recycle and recover.

If the Scottish Government cannot guarantee the safety of incineration, it should oppose the technology and put that opposition in Scottish planning policy. If the Government now supports incineration, it should not be left to the private sector to make private profit from it. However, before the election, the Government seemed to be against incineration. Jim Mather said:

“I reaffirm that the Scottish Government’s position remains that we do not support large-scale, inefficient energy-from-waste facilities.”—[Official Report, 10 March 2011; c 34244.]

He did not say what the scale was or that that position applies only in some areas.

North Lanarkshire Council is exceeding its waste targets. It recently refused planning permission for a pyrolysis incinerator but, when the company involved appealed, the Scottish Government referred the case to a reporter, who found in the applicant’s favour. So much for local decision making.

At the inquiry in February, I gave evidence on my constituents’ behalf. I will raise concerns about that process. On the opening day, we were told that the Scottish Government had changed annex B to the zero waste plan, which materially altered the proximity principle. The reporter therefore adjourned the inquiry, and we were all told to read the new version of annex B and change our precognitions. That was totally unacceptable. Those precognitions had to be submitted a week in advance, and any changes to policy on a Government whim should have been subject to a similar cut-off date. The goalposts were moved, to ordinary people’s detriment. The situation shows that the planning system is stacked in favour of big business, which has the resources to pay for top legal advice, and is against ordinary people who are trying to defend their communities. The Scottish Government must ensure affordable access to environmental justice, in line with its commitments under the Aarhus convention.

My constituents clearly say no to incineration. They are not daft—they know who is responsible, and they know that I will not stand by and allow my constituency to become Scotland’s dumping ground. We have suffered enough from our industrial past and we demand environmental justice now. MSPs who support that demand must support Labour’s motion tonight.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I know that the Labour Party does not oppose energy from waste per se, and I give it credit for that. I know that because when Aberdeen City Council—I declare my interest as a member of that council—discussed and decided on our waste strategy, which includes options for energy from waste, the strategy received the unanimous backing of all political parties that are represented on the council, which include Labour. Labour does not oppose the general principle of energy from waste.

I will broaden the focus of the debate, but perhaps narrow it in terms of geography. We have spoken about the waste hierarchy, but we are in danger of being caught between the two fixed positions of landfill and incineration. However, there are other ways in which to deal with waste. There are good examples of companies in my region that deal with waste creatively and add value to it. I know that the minister is keen on the approach of viewing waste as a resource. One of those companies is Keenan Recycling of Turriff, which for several years has been recycling food and garden waste into compost material. The company can process up to 100,000 tonnes every year and now operates the largest vertical composting unit in Europe. The recycled organics are used in products that benefit the end users, communities and the environment. The main products are compost, garden bark and, as I found out only recently, a specialist product for indoor and outdoor equestrian areas called Equishred.

There are also examples of small organisations in the north-east, such as the Pitscurry project, which is run by the Pitcaple Environmental Project, and Wood RecyclAbility at Udny. Both are small local enterprises with community benefits and which provide meaningful employment for adults with learning disabilities and minor physical disabilities. They involve taking delivery of uncontaminated wood pallets and turning them into garden furniture and other items. Michael McMahon spoke about the consumer demand for newness but, particularly in times of economic difficulties, there is a focus on, and genuine interest in, products that have been developed in a way that involves reuse. Those enterprises provide not just environmental value, but social value. We must consider that in thinking about how to deal with the waste hierarchy.

Another project that I want to highlight is The Box Room in Banchory, which is a community project that takes old furniture and either sells it on or passes it to good causes. I mention it because it launched the magpie project, which it runs in partnership with Aberdeenshire Council and which is a scheme that aims to divert waste from landfill. It involves intercepting reusable household objects and furniture that are brought to the household waste and recycling centre in Aberdeenshire and then selling them or passing them on to local good causes. All too often, we do not see that part of the process. We see things going to the waste recycling centre and assume automatically that they will either go to landfill or somewhere else, but there are often small social enterprises that can deal with them. If such enterprises do not exist in other areas, we need to consider how to encourage local authorities or entrepreneurs to consider taking that approach to diverting waste. The magpie project was so successful that it had to relocate to new premises after only seven weeks, such was the demand.

I do not dispute for one second that local concerns exist on waste incineration. We have heard them in the north-east, most recently in Peterhead, where an application caused a great deal of protest and was rejected by the local authority. However, we must be careful that we do not get into a situation in which we automatically rule out an approach to waste management that is based on particular examples. We have to be cautious in that regard. I urge members to consider the issue on a broad basis. There will always be local concerns, but we must have an eye on the bigger picture.

Siobhan McMahon (Labour, Central Scotland)

The Scottish Government’s zero waste plan was intended to lead to waste disposal being regulated in

“a better, more consistent way”,

and to help clarify the existing waste management regulations, which were described as

“complicated and difficult to understand.”

The targets that are laid out in the zero waste plan are ambitious, and such ambition should be lauded, but we must ensure that, in the rush to meet the targets, we do not sacrifice long-term benefits for short-term gains.

The introduction to the zero waste plan states that it is underpinned by a determination to make

“best practical use of the approach in the waste management hierarchy: waste prevention, reuse, recycling and recovery.”

There are currently 20 proposals for waste incinerators in Scotland, many of which do not meet those criteria. For example, pyrolysis incinerators burn waste at high temperatures to extract energy from waste. That is one of the two least-favoured options in the waste hierarchy, as it undermines efforts to reduce, recycle, and reuse.

The zero waste plan states that, by 2025, no more than 25 per cent of municipal waste should be used for energy from waste, with the remaining 75 per cent recycled. In January 2010, Audit Scotland reported that councils were highly unlikely to meet the target and noted that, to have any chance of meeting it, councils would require additional composting and recycling centres—so, not more waste incinerators. However, Government reporters who were reviewing a recent case contradicted that by stating that an incinerator was “urgently” needed to work towards zero waste targets. That leaves us in something of a quandary, because the more incinerators we build, the less likely we are to meet our recycling targets.

The inconsistencies do not end there. According to the zero waste plan, waste management developments

“should be located in sites where potential impacts on the human, built and natural environment can be minimised.”

However, in certain recent cases, seemingly legitimate concerns about the potential impact of the development on the human, built and natural environment have been dismissed.

Finally, and perhaps more pertinently in this debate, the zero waste plan states:

“Members of the public and community groups have an important role in the planning system and are encouraged to get involved in the development planning process and planning applications.”

In the past two years, local people have united in opposition to proposals to build incinerators in their areas. The groups have involved themselves from the start of the planning process and, where they have thought that they have been excluded, they have made great efforts to ensure that their voices are heard. Thousands of objections that have been lodged against waste management planning applications and many thoughtful and reasoned arguments that have been offered in support of those objections have effectively been discounted. The final recourse in such cases is to instigate costly legal proceedings.

That brings us to the equivocal position that the Scottish Government and Scottish National Party MSPs occupy. Although the Government is on record as being opposed to large-scale and inefficient energy-from-waste facilities, that did not prevent it from appointing reporters to review a local council’s decision to refuse planning permission for a pyrolysis plant, despite the fact that the Government retains complete discretion over which appeals it chooses to delegate. Some local SNP MSPs who were seeking re-election were vocal in their condemnation of local planning decisions about waste management facilities, only for post-electoral changes in their professional circumstances to cause them to become a great deal more circumspect. Rather than calling for Government interventions, they have ceded responsibility and neglected to represent their constituents.

The zero waste management policy was designed to iron out inconsistencies and contradictions in the current planning regulations, to make the process more transparent, to give local communities a voice and to ensure that waste management targets are met in the most efficient and environmentally friendly ways possible. It has not achieved those things. We need more than effective waste reduction targets; we need a realistic programme to achieve those targets and we need clear and concise planning regulations across local and national government, on which there has been wide consultation and which take into account the views of local people. We need to ensure that environmental justice is available to all and is not prohibitively expensive, as it currently is.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

As we conduct this debate, it is obvious that waste incineration is an immediate concern for many members. It is also an immediate concern for many of my constituents. As the Presiding Officer said, there is an on-going judicial review process that concerns the planning decision in question, so I cannot discuss the specifics of the case. As a constituency member who works every day to respond to those concerns, that is obviously frustrating. From a selfish point of view, I would prefer the debate to take place at a time when I could speak more freely, but it would be churlish of me to complain, as I fully support the judicial review, which was fought for and won by an action group in my constituency. I certainly do not want to compromise it. This is an important debate that we need to have, regardless of the timing. It is a shame that, in Labour’s typical negative fashion, it is being used as a party-political stick to try to beat the Government with and, indeed, to attack individual members with. That is a shame, particularly as there is much on which we agree and on which we could work together across the parties.

There is enormous disquiet in many communities about the potential effects of waste incineration on their environments. In the part of my constituency that is affected, there is also considerable worry about the economic impact. It is hard to overstate the importance of agriculture and horticulture to the local community in the Clyde valley. The view of local farmers and market gardeners is that the area’s outstanding reputation for producing top-quality fresh produce could be seriously adversely affected by the presence of an incinerator in its midst. Images of the garden of Scotland and fumes from burning waste do not exactly go well together. My constituents are entirely justified in questioning the impact that emissions would have on their ability to sell their eggs, milk and fruit and vegetable produce to supermarkets and other retailers. Modern consumers demand quality and retailers respond. Producers are all too aware of how even a perception of impaired or tainted quality could be a hammer blow to their livelihoods. Those producers have a right to expect that the councillors and officials in their local authority would give at least as much priority to the environmental and economic health of the local area as to the desires of commercial companies to profit from incineration. I agree with other members on that, but perhaps I am straying into areas that could become sub judice.

I emphasise that I fully support the Scottish Government’s zero waste ambitions and agree that we need to move away from the use of landfill. I recognise that the Government has to strike a fine balance between competing environmental issues. I know, too, from my extensive correspondence with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment that he is fully aware of the strong feelings of communities in my area.

The Scottish Government has undertaken to publish further planning guidance on waste management this autumn. In my extensive correspondence with the cabinet secretary, I have already asked for that guidance to pay particular attention to the issues surrounding incineration. I repeat that request today.

I can confirm that, in my experience, some local authorities are not handling the planning processes at all well and communities feel that their sincere concerns are being treated as an irrelevance. Strong, clear national guidance is badly needed to ensure that local authorities carry out their duties properly, especially given that we are likely to see more planning applications of this type throughout Scotland.

Given the concerns about incineration, the subject is an obvious candidate for an inquiry by a committee of this Parliament, which could listen to the concerns of action groups from throughout Scotland, such as the one in my constituency. Too often, such groups are not being listened to locally and this Parliament could ensure that their voices are heard.

I say to Mr McMahon that my constituents, my party, this Government and I are taking action—instead of having mealy-mouthed debates for the purpose of party-political point scoring.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Thank you for finishing on time. I call Rob Gibson, to be followed by Jim Hume, who have four minutes each.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

We know from the whole nature of this debate that policy making does not stand still. The Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, which was introduced by the previous coalition Government, set up the appeals system, which came into effect during the time of the minority SNP Government. That system has taken some time to bed down. In cases in my constituency we have had to deal with an appeals process that was interrupted by an intervention by the Court of Session, and a new appeals process with regard to an incinerator in Invergordon.

The 2006 act deliberately took the decisions away from ministers and put them in the hands of officials. Whether that is the best way forward for planning has to be looked at carefully.

My next point is about things moving on. At the end of the previous session of Parliament, when debates were being had about the kind of incinerators that people have complained about, I asked questions pertaining to the nature of measurement that SEPA can achieve. It is likely that when some of the applications were made the particulates could not be measured very carefully. However, in a written answer from 18 March 2011, Roseanna Cunningham said:

“The Scottish Environment Protection Agency ... has recently enhanced its ability to measure ambient fine particulates. There are, however, some technical limitations in the methods available to measure low levels of fine particulate emissions in the stacks of incinerators.”—[Official Report, Written Answers, 18 March 2011; S3W-40283.]

That shows that the science is improving. It is not perfect yet, but it is one of the conditions for deciding whether incineration can take place safely. We will find ways to tighten that up in due course.

Guidelines that SEPA issued in 2009 make quite clear, in general terms, how thermal treatment will be dealt with. That is why local authorities have a fairly good idea about what they should be doing when such planning applications come forward.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

If that is the case, does the member think that their decisions should be agreed to and should not be referred on?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

That is not the planning process at the present time—the planning process that Elaine Smith’s party put in place. Let us be clear: we are working in a framework that was created by a Government that was determined to take ministers out of the equation. The current Opposition wants to put ministers into the equation, to take responsibility, much like some campaigners do—

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention? Did he vote for the 2006 act?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I am sorry—I do not have time.

The unintended consequences of that change are coming out in the debate. The most important issue for all of us to recognise is that speculative applications for thermal incineration will be affected directly by the control of materials that are allowed to be used in those thermal processes. I believe that, in many cases, such speculative applications will fall because they cannot meet the guidelines that the Government has put forward.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

Much has been made of the Scottish Government meeting its 2010 European Union landfill directive target on the quantity of biodegradable municipal waste that it is permitted to send to landfill. I draw members’ attention to the fact that it was the Lib Dem Minister for Environment and Rural Development who increased the target recycling rate in Scotland from 7 per cent in 2001 to 25 per cent in 2006. The cabinet secretary’s predecessor established a good, strong foundation for where we are now.

I suspect that the Government will be aware of the key findings in Audit Scotland’s 2010 report, which is referenced in the motion. The report said that

“Collectively, councils’ plans are not sufficient to meet landfill and recycling targets beyond 2010”

and that some councils are still significantly short of meeting their recycling and landfill objectives. Therefore, I was surprised that the SNP’s mooted zero waste bill failed to make an appearance in its legislative programme, particularly given that the EU can impose fines on member states. I am interested to hear more about how the Government plans to assist councils to meet those targets and to provide the additional waste management facilities that Audit Scotland states are necessary for the future.

In our manifesto, the Liberal Democrats were committed to establishing a network of anaerobic digestion facilities to process organic waste and divert it from landfill. Such new and innovative solutions will be required if local authorities are to fulfil the target of recycling or composting 70 per cent of municipal waste by 2025. Although the Government’s modest investment in that area last year is a welcome start, now is the time to explore the expansion of the use of anaerobic digesters and to be mindful of the benefits of such technology over and above the obvious landfill benefits, which include its ability to assist us to meet our renewable energy and emissions reduction targets.

I am aware that two waste incinerator disputes are on-going and sub judice, so I assure the Presiding Officer that I will take care with my words. I share the concerns of Michael McMahon, whose motion speaks of local authorities requiring

“more clarity on planning guidelines with regard to waste incineration developments”,

but I point out that local area plans and local planning regulations are absolutely pointless if a local area planning committee contravenes its local area plan by approving applications on greenbelt land.

As we try carefully to engage in discussion of waste incinerators, I am reminded of the vocal opposition of one nationalist MSP to an application for such an incinerator in the run-up to the election. The member concerned will recall the disappointment and concern that she expressed in February, following the application’s success, and her comments that a council had ridden roughshod over its own policies. Since the election, the member has been silent. She is now the minister responsible for planning, and has stated that, because of her ministerial position, it would not be wise for her to comment further on the matter. I am afraid that, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to our constituents and cannot simply pick and choose when we wish to be active on certain issues. Constituents deserve better, and that minister should consider what is more important—a ministerial Volvo or her constituents.

I support the Labour motion.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I intend to put forward another view. Prior to the conversion of most council houses to gas fires, rubbish and waste were burned in householders’ fireplaces. Since the 1960s, the amount of waste that we produce has risen dramatically, and thousands of tonnes have gone to landfill. That must change.

We now have a policy of zero waste, and we have made tremendous progress on waste management. In 10 years, we have reduced the amount of waste that we send to landfill by more than a third. Waste is a resource that can be used as a catalyst to create products and to generate renewable energy, heat and fertiliser. It has also been suggested that Scotland’s waste policy could create more than 2,000 jobs.

We need a broad policy to tackle waste. We need companies to reduce their packaging. How much waste is produced because companies use too much packaging? We also need councils to increase their recycling rates and to have a common policy on recycling. Too many councils still have different collection policies: some collect glass and some do not; some collect cardboard and some do not. If somebody moves from one council area to another, they find that the councils tackle waste differently.

Energy from waste has a part to play, but it should be used only for material that cannot be recycled. In 2009, only 2.7 per cent of our waste was incinerated, and 4.7 million tonnes was landfilled. Local councils have a responsibility to listen to and react to their voters’ needs, especially when it comes to incineration projects. Incineration should be the last resort in tackling waste.

The Labour Party has made great play of how it has opposed incinerators. In North Lanarkshire, the Labour Party supported the Greengairs incinerator—I was there and I know that Labour pushed it. However, it now opposes the other incinerator, in Coatbridge in Elaine Smith’s constituency. I agree with that decision, because we have enough incineration in North Lanarkshire.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does Richard Lyle agree that we need not a review of the guidelines but a change in political will so that councils start to listen to local people?

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Labour Party goes from one end to the other, as Margaret Mitchell knows. North Lanarkshire Council’s Labour-led planning and transport committee needs no clarity on planning guidelines in the area. If all councils fully embraced recycling of all items that they could recycle, we would not need to review planning guidelines, as most of the waste that would otherwise go to incineration could and would be recycled.

It is well known that the Scottish Government has a presumption against large-scale, inefficient energy generation from waste facilities. We have an effective national framework to guide waste management. It is quite simple: if a council reduces waste in its area, it will reduce the need for a local waste incineration project.

I note from today’s newspapers that there is a proposal to scrap sell-by dates. Those new rules would mean that food and drink would be labelled only with a best-before date or a use-by date. That would also reduce the tonnes of food that shops and customers throw out.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

The late Robert Robinson might have called this the “Ask the Family” debate, with Michael McMahon and his daughter Siobhan both making speeches. I was refreshed by Mr McMahon’s speech, which chimed with my own view of the matter. Pragmatic realism, rather than some evangelical quest, brought him to wishing to see it addressed. I am always slightly alarmed by those who say they have come into politics, as he obviously has, to pass waste more efficiently—or to pass waste measures, in any event.

In my speech, I will concentrate on where mass waste incinerators sit in relation to waste policy and where public consultation fits in.

The term “mass waste incineration” is regularly used. The Government’s zero waste plan says that there is no need for mass waste incineration. The Institution of Civil Engineers, whose report said that waste infrastructure was just a grade C that required a lot of attention still, said under questioning that there was no room for mass waste incineration.

The plant to which Mr Maxwell referred—the one that is proposed for the south side of Newton Mearns—will take 1.5 million tonnes of waste, so it is clearly a mass waste incinerator, but is it formally defined as such? I was pleased when, in answer to a parliamentary question earlier this session, the Minister for Local Government and Planning eventually confirmed that the definition of a mass waste incinerator is one that processes 300,000 tonnes of waste. Given that there is to be no room for mass waste incinerators, I was quite surprised that 300,000-tonne incinerators are being approved. It is a concern that, despite there being no role for mass waste incinerators, they are being approved.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

For clarification, the upper limit is 300,000 tonnes.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

How very convenient. It is just like student fees: we get to the upper limit as quickly as we can.

Mr Lyle said that if waste is being processed efficiently in a community, there is no need for a mass waste incinerator in that community. East Renfrewshire has reduced its total waste from 50,000 tonnes to 35,000 tonnes per year, so I do not quite know why it needs a 1.5 million tonne waste incinerator, which is a big concern for local people.

If the largest lorries in Britain today were to be filled to capacity with all the waste that they can hold and taken in and out of that 1.5 million tonne plant 24 hours a day, it would mean a movement every 3.45 minutes, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. As I have said before, the M77, which is the access road to the proposed plant, would look like the approach road to Heathrow airport, with a stack of heavy goods vehicles going all the way back and causing all manner of congestion. I do not think that many people are reassured by the promoters saying that they would target journeys so that they avoid the rush hours. How can that be done with a journey that starts at point X and ends at point Y?

I will be more direct in relation to Mr Maxwell’s point. Does the minister regard someone who has waste infringement convictions as a suitable person to be given the opportunity to take on a waste management plant?

I contradict one of the minister’s points. I thought that I heard him say that he does not think that the effects on health are going to be of much concern. In 2009, SEPA, Health Protection Scotland and NHS Scotland produced a report that said that the evidence was that the effect on public health of waste incineration was “inconsistent and inconclusive”. That is not a basis on which one can say with any great conviction that we can be certain that no potential effects on public health will follow.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

We can all agree that the debate has been interesting and valuable. The issue of waste and how best to manage it is one that never fails to stimulate discussion in the chamber and throughout Scotland.

I was slightly confused at some points about whether the debate was about the future of Scotland’s environment or about the distress that the Labour Party is experiencing at losing some key constituencies in Lanarkshire. Of course, those issues are linked, because the election of SNP MSPs is good for Scotland’s environment.

I was struck by Jackson Carlaw’s opening comment that he agrees with the Labour Party on the issue. If I were in the Labour Party, I would be slightly concerned that the Conservative Party was agreeing with Labour’s environmental policy. I also note that he and some of his colleagues have criticised the attempts to roll out waste food collections across Scotland, which shows that, in relation to some of these issues, they are still stuck in the 1980s.

I have no doubt that companies will continue to pursue planning consents for a range of waste infrastructure across Scotland. I am also confident that our zero waste plan and the measures that will be introduced through the zero waste regulations will significantly reduce the volume and type of materials that can be disposed of through incineration. The feedstock will simply not be available to feed large-scale plants or an extensive network of incinerators across Scotland. Our zero waste plan is the right national strategy to deliver real and lasting change to how Scotland’s waste is managed.

I am going to be generous to Elaine Smith and address two of the points that she raised during the debate. First, she and other members mentioned private sector involvement. We cannot say that it is really important to deal with Scotland’s residual waste but then attack the role of the private sector in helping us to solve that problem. The resources and expertise must come from somewhere. Jim Hume said that he wants anaerobic digestion to be rolled out across Scotland, but he did not remark on the fact that Scotland’s budget has been cut by his own party at Westminster. That really takes the biscuit. We must start to realise that the private sector’s resources will be required if we are to deal with Scotland’s waste challenges and that that sector has a valuable role to play.

Elaine Smith and Jackson Carlaw raised the issue of the health implications of incinerators that may be built in Scotland. SEPA is responsible for regulating the waste industry, and before it considered issuing a permit for an incinerator, the operator would have to undertake health risk assessments and demonstrate that human health and the environment would be protected. Waste incinerators must also comply with stringent emissions standards and controls, which require plants to meet minimum burn temperatures and strict emissions limits.

Clearly, we all take very seriously potential increases in health risks. I can reassure Parliament that we are not resting on our laurels in that regard. The Government recognises that there is public concern on the issue, and we are reflecting more on what can be done to alleviate some of those concerns. For instance, I am examining whether more can be done to give the public easier access to real-time, continuous information on emissions from facilities through SEPA’s website. We are also considering other ways of communicating the issues to the public. However, we all have a responsibility in our own constituencies to keep things in perspective and ensure that information that we get from others is checked out properly and that the information that we give to constituents is accurate.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

On clarity of information, can the cabinet secretary clarify for us that current planning law means that ministers can decide to accept local authority decisions and that, even if they then refer such decisions to reporters, right up until the decision letter is issued ministers could call it back and take their own decision? Unfortunately, in a recent case, the decision letter was issued just after the election, and not just before it.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

In certain situations there are, of course, exceptional circumstances of national significance that mean that ministers cannot intervene. However, a very important part of the debate is what should be decided locally and what should be decided nationally. If ministers took into their remit decisions as part of a national decision-making process, Labour members would be the first to complain if ministers then said that one of Scotland’s incinerators was going to be based in a Labour member’s constituency. They would suddenly start to complain that there was not enough local input or local accountability. We must therefore stick with what local authorities, COSLA and—I believe—most if not all parties in the chamber support, which is that some decisions must be decided locally and within the planning framework because that is what is delivering at the moment.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

I agree with the minister on that point. However, our concern is that we cannot have a situation in which a member says one thing in their locality and then hides behind sub judice in the Parliament in order not to say it here.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The member will be aware that the Presiding Officer made it clear to Parliament that some applications that are causing contention around Scotland are subject to judicial review at present and cannot be referred to by ministers or others in the chamber. The member has just made a ridiculous accusation. Surely he is not suggesting that members of the Scottish Parliament should not stand up locally for their constituents and work with them on local issues. It is our democratic right to do that, and we should all stick to doing that. Perhaps if Labour Party members had done that a bit more, they would not have lost so many seats at the last election.

We all have a responsibility to deal with Scotland’s waste. I hope that the debate has been about that. I think that there is a lot of agreement across the chamber that we must deal with residual waste. We cannot just put it in a big hole in the ground, which is a waste of money and bad for the environment—and, of course, bad for our climate change targets. Let us all move forward together on the issue. Let us stick to our national framework, put the waste strategies in place and ensure that local decision-making continues to be seen as important.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Labour wanted the Parliament to have this debate because we think that the current situation is totally unsatisfactory and that the Scottish Government’s position on waste management facilities lacks clarity.

Across the country, people are up in arms at the plethora of large-scale incinerators. At the very least, they expect that the planning system will allow their concerns about health and transport impacts to be heard. However, there is a strong feeling that the Scottish Government is not listening. That frustration is reinforced by the fact that SNP candidates across the country campaigned against waste incinerator proposals at the election but have been silent on the issue since then.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

Will the member give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No, thank you. I am not even into my first minute.

The truth is that the SNP put in place a system of decision making that is less transparent and tilts the balance of power towards the centre, which means that local authorities, developers and local communities do not have certainty. That is totally unacceptable.

Even more disappointing, we have been here before. In 2007, Scottish National Party candidates who are now ministers campaigned against the Beauly to Denny line, but when they were elected to Government, that Government green-lighted the project. This is not about members’ right to disagree with the Government; it is about consistency. On waste management, the SNP Government has presided over the changes that have led us to the unsatisfactory situation in which communities and businesses across the country now find themselves.

I welcome the chamber’s total support for the Government’s ambitions for a zero waste Scotland—the cabinet secretary should take heart from that. We also support the principles that underpin those ambitions in the waste hierarchy of reduce, reuse, recycle and recover. However, members of every party have expressed concern that the strategy is not yet being implemented.

The SNP put in place ambitious targets for delivering on its strategy and, again, there was support across the chamber for that move. However, what the Audit Scotland report made clear was not that every single local authority was not going to meet its targets but that, collectively, council plans were not in place. That is the problem. Why are those plans not in place? In the Lothians, there was joint planning between the authorities but one of the first acts of the minister in the previous parliamentary session was to dismantle the regional strategy that would have enabled them to put facilities in place. The regional strategy was simply dumped. At the time, we warned of the consequences. When that co-ordinated approach was taken away, the Government left the private sector to fill the vacuum, and that has led to the problems that we face today.

When, in the previous session, the proximity principle was introduced in new guidelines that the cabinet secretary issued, we thought that the idea of local facilities that were planned locally sounded good but questioned how it would work in practice. In fact, it did not give clarity to local authorities, which have to set out the development plans that provide certainty for infrastructure investment. That is what the planning system is about. It is also, crucially, about democratic accountability. Local people must be able to see the plans for their area.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Will the member give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I would love to.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I just point out to the member that the Scottish planning policy and zero waste plan provide a framework for waste treatment and that planning advice is forthcoming that will be peer reviewed and go out to consultation later this year.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

As Elaine Smith pointed out, the problem is that the Government is changing the rules in the middle of decisions that are being taken now. Moreover, she made clear that the proximity principle was unceremoniously dumped earlier this year in the middle of a public inquiry. That cannot be right.

Not only that, but the Scottish Government has also quietly removed crucial planning rights and planning requirements on local authorities with regard to notification. SNP members supported the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 but, quietly, the Scottish Government has removed the requirement for local authorities to report to the Scottish Government when they breach their local plans. The only categories left that require notification are developments in which the local planning authorities themselves have an interest; objections by Government agencies; and opencast coal and related minerals applications. The fact that there is now no trigger notification with regard to neighbouring local authorities or development plan breaches is part of the problem in waste management.

This is a centralising Government. Having dumped the regional planning framework for waste management and the proximity principle, the Scottish Government has removed the capacity for local authorities to make decisions on waste management proposals. Nobody wins. Local authorities know that the planning applications they refuse can be approved by Scottish ministers; indeed, that is what has happened with two major waste management schemes. Community campaigners know that, in the end, these decisions are made by Scottish ministers and there are no upfront safeguards, because this Government has been undermining them.

I say to Mark McDonald, who I thought made an excellent speech, that local authorities’ decisions about cumulative impact have not been taken on board. Indeed, a number of SNP back benchers highlighted points about cumulative impact and the impact on recycling programmes. It is clear that large-scale incinerators provide no incentive to drive up recycling rates; after all, in the long term, it is cheaper to burn rubbish instead of separating it out and finding markets in which the materials can be reused or recycled. The cabinet secretary acknowledged that very point in his opening speech. However, planning decisions are not being based on those needs and are not taking cumulative impact into account. The environmental costs need to be factored in. Large-scale projects mean large numbers of lorries travelling long distances, and environmental justice has to be part of the picture.

I was really disappointed that the cabinet secretary did not address our points about wood, biomass and waste-to-energy projects. Projects are not sustainable if wood is not available and has to be imported.

The Confederation of Forest Industries and RSPB Scotland have flagged up their concerns about the major expansion of large-scale biomass-to-energy projects. They highlight the fact that we already have a limited supply of wood and that the problem with projects of major and significant size is that they will damage United Kingdom jobs and have a counterproductive impact on our carbon emissions. That needs to be factored in. I was disappointed that the cabinet secretary did not specifically address that point and wants to take it out of our motion completely.

RSPB Scotland has also raised concerns about the impact on forests, not just in relation to how we use our wood in this country but in relation to habitats in exporting countries and rainforests. There is a wider responsibility here that is not being addressed, and I was disappointed that those issues did not even get a name check in the cabinet secretary’s speech.

At the local level, local authorities are left without clear guidance. Developers are not being given clarity, either. They spend thousands of pounds on planning inquiries and on making proposals. It is not in anyone’s interests not to take up the issue of need, not to address the issue of cumulative impact and not to give clear guidelines.

Throughout the country there are debates. I need only mention Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and the Lothians. We know that in all those places, SNP candidates were clear about their views before the election—

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

Will the member give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I am not attacking the SNP.

Their own Government has removed the guidance that would help these decisions to be made properly. People can see through that.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the member take an intervention?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No. I am in my last 30 seconds. The cabinet secretary had two speeches and did not even have the courtesy to address the issues in our motion. He has merely gone for a delete-all-and-insert amendment. That is not good enough. He should stand up for his principles and debate the issues in the motion, but he has ignored them. I am disappointed that he has gutted the motion. No one disputes the need for a zero waste strategy in Scotland. The problem is that he is not delivering that. This is happening on his watch—it is his strategy and he has played around with the rules. That is why his strategy will not succeed.

Social Care Services (Procurement)

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-00854, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on the procurement of social care services.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

How we care for the old, the vulnerable and the young is considered to demonstrate the essential character of a society, its values and its beliefs. The provision of social care is an essential service to our older people, those with learning disabilities, physical disabilities and mental health problems. At its best, it is about providing care and support to help people to live independent lives. It plays a key role in sustaining people in their own homes, in their own communities, without the need for more formal care.

Social care is provided by local authorities, the voluntary sector and the private sector. We all know about the pressures facing local government, with an average 5.5 per cent real-terms reduction in its budget this year. Nowhere is that financial pressure more evident than in the social care budget.

Local authorities are facing real challenges, such as increased demand set against a backdrop of tightening budgets. We need to be creative about how we do things and how we deliver good outcomes for people and design services to meet their needs and aspirations. There are some positive examples of that, yet they are few and far between.

What appears to be happening across local authorities is a race to the bottom in the procurement of social care, driven solely by cost, and the inevitable sacrifice of quality. Let me be clear: that is not just happening this year; it has been going on for some time. We need only consider what is happening with employment conditions among voluntary sector care providers to see the truth of that. For the past three years, 79 per cent of staff have had no cost of living increase equivalent to local authority rises; 57 per cent of them have had pay freezes. Sixty per cent of voluntary sector care providers have made cuts to their training budgets. Only 15 per cent have any link to public sector pension arrangements.

If members need any more convincing, they should consider what is happening at Quarriers today. Ninety-day redundancy notices have been issued to all staff, front-line staff have been asked to take a 23 per cent pay cut and changes have been made to terms and conditions. Quarriers is not alone: that is happening across the social care sector. I welcome the Unison members from Quarriers who are in the public gallery today and remind members that those front-line staff are being asked to take a 23 per cent pay cut, which, on a modest salary, is staggering. Although I do not want to comment on industrial relations at Quarriers, it is clear to me that the problem that is being experienced there lies with the procurement system.

Local authorities are questioning the hourly rates of care employees of other organisations—interfering, in effect, in the internal pay arrangements of provider organisations. Surely, we should seek to commission services on the basis of the outcomes that are delivered and on quality, rather than on the volume of service that is delivered boiled down to an hourly rate. What does the kind of cut that is being experienced at Quarriers do to staff morale? We would all do well to pause and think. We all agree that the quality of care is of primary importance and that that quality is delivered by people: by families, by friends and by social care staff. In my experience, the people who work in social care are well motivated and care passionately about how they do the job and the people whom they work with, who are often the most vulnerable in our society. We all value what they do—we have said so many times in this chamber. They are at the very heart of ensuring the quality of care that we all care about so much; yet, we choose to reward them by cutting their terms and conditions and slashing their pay.

There is one central truth in all this: we cannot get good-quality care on the cheap. In the past few years, local authorities have increased their charges for services to make up the shortfall in social care budgets. I have some sympathy with the principle that, when people have sufficient resources, they should be asked to make a contribution. However, the approach across Scotland is piecemeal. We have a postcode lottery of care, with different eligibility criteria, different costs and 32 different ways of doing things, which creates an inherent lack of fairness in the provision of social care.

Let us consider the illustration that was provided to members by the Learning Disability Alliance Scotland for further evidence of that. The criteria for charging vary widely. Argyll and Bute Council considers 100 per cent of somebody’s income; across the water in Inverclyde, only 25 per cent of income is considered. How about the hourly rates for home care, which is just one social care service? A picture is painted of wildly different costs in that, too. In West Lothian, home care is £7.76 an hour, but in Angus it is £22 an hour—three times the amount. How is that fair? The guidance on the procurement process has been revised, but the opportunity to do it differently was missed. There are risks in our approach: the unforeseen costs, the disruption to service continuity and the real anxiety for the people who are being supported, their families and their carers. Even leaving those things to one side, it is increasingly clear that the guidance is being ignored in practice and that there is a need for stronger enforcement mechanisms.

The Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have published guidance on eligibility for social care. However, frankly, that is being used in local authorities as a rationing system to deny people with needs access to social care, as only the most critically ill and those with the highest needs are getting services. Where is the focus on prevention now? I know that the Scottish Government and COSLA intend to review care charging, but members will forgive me for being slightly impatient. I have been raising the matter for almost three years and voluntary organisations have been doing so for a lot longer—we are nothing if not persistent. It is becoming boring, but every time that we raise the issue, we are told that COSLA and the Scottish Government are going to sit down and review care charging. If they were on performance-related pay, they would take a salary cut for that kind of approach.

Let me resist the temptation to apportion blame, because doing so would not serve us well. I acknowledge that local authorities are struggling to do the best that they can with increasingly limited resources. I want to look ahead. We must urgently ensure that our social care provision is the best that it can be, and I believe that that ambition is shared across the chamber. It is therefore not good enough for the Scottish National Party to sit to one side and say that responsibility lies with the 32 local authorities. The Scottish Government must provide a lead; it must provide a coherent framework that brings together all the different strands of social care—setting minimum expectations across the country, but at the same time stimulating innovation at local level.

The framework could include how to promote choice and independence, and I commend the Government for introducing a bill on self-directed support. The Government knows that it will enjoy the support of members on this side of the chamber for that bill. The framework could also ensure consistent criteria and fairness in the determining of care provision and charging. The framework could focus on prevention and early intervention, not just on crisis, and it could set out a new form of commissioning based on outcomes and quality, not on volume and unit price.

Scotland is not such a vast country that we should experience such wide variation and injustice in the provision of social care. Whether a person lives in Dumbarton or Dunbar, in Dingwall or Dumfries, they deserve a care system that supports them to live as independently as possible and which offers access to the best-quality care possible. The basis of the system, and how much people pay for it, must be fair.

Today’s debate is about people, standards and quality of care. I am therefore disappointed that the cabinet secretary is unable to be here with us, given her personal commitment to the issue. I am astonished that the planning minister is leading in this debate for the Government, and I hope that the Government is not sending a signal that it is more interested in producer interests than in vulnerable people receiving a service.

This task is not for local authorities alone. This is a task for the Scottish Government, and it needs to get on with it. There is no room for complacency. We will contribute; we will feed in ideas; and we will push the Government to do more, as it would expect us to. Above all, this chamber must ensure that our system of social care is overhauled so that it is fair and available to the most vulnerable in our society.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the 5% real-terms cut to the local authority settlement by the Scottish Government; further notes the demographic and financial challenges facing local government in the delivery of social care; recognises that these financial pressures have resulted in substantial reductions in service, with some care providers proposing changes to staff terms and conditions and pay cuts of up to 23%, leading to unprecedented industrial action; further notes the increasing postcode lottery of care, with differing criteria for eligibility and charges across Scotland; believes that the procurement of social care is characterised by short-term decisions based on reducing the cost of existing services rather than having a focus on the improvement, development and redesign of services to provide long-term value for money; further believes that quality and continuity of care is of primary importance and cannot be achieved on the cheap, and calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward a framework for social care to ensure consistency and raise standards for the benefit of some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I thank Jackie Baillie for raising such an interesting yet critical issue during this period of imposed austerity for Scottish public expenditure.

Although I note the sentiments in the motion that was lodged for debate by the Labour Party, I have suggested an amendment to it. I hope that the amendment will be accepted: it attempts to reflect the broad consensus on the need to improve care for all vulnerable people and to provide a system that works in all cases. I also note Mary Scanlon’s amendment and fully understand the sentiment behind it, but I do not feel able to support it at this time. This debate is complex enough without adding in charging for residential care, which requires much more thought and further debate.

To answer Jackie Baillie’s point, I am leading in this debate as I am not only the planning minister but the local government minister. She cited local government a number of times, so it is entirely appropriate that I should answer. That illustrates this Government’s commitment to working across sectors—in particular, across health and social care.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Does the minister not accept that a signal is perhaps being sent that the Government is reflecting producer interests in this debate?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I think that we are sending a clear signal that this Government has a joined-up approach, and we are reflecting the importance of local government in the debate.

Let me be clear from the outset that, despite the overall £1.3 billion funding cuts imposed by the United Kingdom Government, the total funding package of £11.5 billion has maintained local government’s share of the overall Scottish budget in 2011-12. I also want to make it clear that, despite the tightening of funding, this Government will do what it can to ensure that every vulnerable person receives the highest level of social care, and that the appropriate structures and regulations are in place to ensure that they receive that care.

We are working with the public and key partners to develop a compelling vision for the care of older people in Scotland now and into the future—a vision of fully integrated care, and a vision that sees our increasing older population living longer, healthier lives, and staying for as long as possible in their homes or in the community.

Over the summer, I have been lucky enough to visit a number of inspiring projects across the country, which serve to illustrate how people’s lives can be changed for the better when public services do what they can to work in partnership and take innovative approaches to the delivery of health and social care.

In South Lanarkshire, I learned about a very important project between the council and NHS Lanarkshire, which was focused on reducing falls and their associated hospital admissions. The project’s early success has led to it being rolled out widely around all council care homes and to it being looked at furth of South Lanarkshire. In Highland, I visited Nairn hospital, which is a multi-use facility that has been jointly commissioned by the council and NHS Highland. Those projects underlined to me how much more we can achieve when we work together, but they also underlined to me that people who use such services care about the service and its quality, not about who delivers it. What is important is the person, not the way in which we structure our organisations.

We need to provide better services, with better outcomes, for more people, using resources that will be under pressure for some time to come. Audit Scotland’s review of community health partnerships made it clear that a voluntary approach towards the integration of health and social care has not delivered fast or far enough. We therefore need to drive up efficiency and productivity, and we need to accelerate the integration of health and social care delivery, which will help to ensure the sustainability of high-quality care. We are ensuring that we speak to people—key stakeholders—about how we do that. We want to build on the systems that are already working well and not get diverted into reforming structures for the sake of change.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I hear what the minister is saying, but there has been a joint futures unit in the Scottish Government since we set it up in 2001 to integrate care. Is that unit still in existence? What is it doing? Where is the compelling vision coming from in practice?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

We are taking forward that joint approach. The cabinet secretary will provide further detail later. As I said, we have been speaking to key people, but we must accelerate progress on shifting the balance from acute hospital settings to the community and get better at early intervention. I think that that goal is shared across the chamber.

We have established a £70 million change fund as bridging finance to help make those shifts. That has driven the integrated approach and I am sure that it is of interest to Richard Simpson.

The need for change is urgent and non-negotiable, so we are examining a range of options for how health and social care services can be reconfigured and integrated so that they can meet many more people’s needs.

We are working with partners to reshape radically the provision of care for older people. That will prioritise delivery of the care, compassion, support and dignity that they need and deserve. That reshaping cannot be driven by short-term needs to reduce expenditure and there must be a strategic approach to joint commissioning.

Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) rose—

To that end, we are developing proposals to help partnerships develop joint commissioning strategies; we asked them to work on those strategies together with third sector and independent sector organisations as part of the change fund guidance for 2012-13.

The reshaping also requires us to enhance the role that people can play themselves, with support, to play a fuller part in their own care. We see the importance of giving people as much flexibility as possible in how they manage their care arrangements.

Bill Walker (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Does the minister agree that we are trying to make a virtue out of financial necessity—a financial necessity that has been forced on us not only by the coalition Government in London but by previous Labour Governments? Through their gross economic mismanagement, we are now in the position of doing the best that we can by looking at all the most efficient ways of doing things. There is no good in Labour members jumping up all the time to intervene, when the key is to make the best of what we have in a situation that was caused by Labour’s inefficiency in the past.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The member makes a very good point: the cuts that have been imposed on the Parliament were started by Labour and have been continued by the coalition.

What is driving forward the change is the need to ensure that we work in partnership together to ensure that the person is the focus of the changes and that we work innovatively together.

Some people have packages of care that are funded by the local authority and the health service, and we need to ensure that they have the opportunity to shape their care package in a way that meets their needs. Self-directed support will require far greater emphasis on commissioning strategies that focus on outcomes for individuals. Block contracts may have provided some security for providers in the past, but such contracts and the constraints on monitoring them have not necessarily empowered citizens.

We are supporting providers to adapt to the change in culture and approach. This year, we are allocating £1 million to help providers to build their capacity to deliver self-directed support.

The future shape of the way in which we provide care in the community raises very timely and legitimate questions about who should provide that care. The Scottish Government procurement directorate and the joint improvement team developed social care procurement guidance, which was published in September 2010, following consultation with a wide group of internal and external stakeholders. It emphasises that decisions on procurement should rarely be taken on price alone and that there should be greater emphasis on the quality of services provided.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member give way?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am in my last minute, and I have taken three interventions already.

It is important that public bodies and service providers work together to find innovative ways to provide services to make the best use of available funds and maintain quality services. I have attempted to outline how this Government will respond to that question.

Care for people is, rightly, an issue that is high on the public and political agenda. I intend to ensure that we treat our people with respect, compassion and dignity and provide them with the care that they deserve. However, we must go further in joining up service delivery if we intend to do that.

I move amendment S4M-00854.2, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert:

“notes that, despite cuts to the Scottish Budget by the UK Government and the previous Labour administration, local government funding in Scotland has been significantly protected compared to local government funding in England; welcomes the commitment of the Scottish Government to continue to improve care for older people by maintaining free personal care and improving the integration of health and social care to help ensure long-term sustainability of high quality care; believes that local authorities should have due regard to the Scottish Government’s guidance on the procurement of care and support services, which was co-produced by a reference group involving all key stakeholders’ interests and which sets out guiding principles for use by local authorities as a framework for evaluating local practice; further believes that, in accordance with the guidance, local authorities should promote the achievement of positive outcomes for service users and carers through the delivery of good quality, flexible and responsive services and ensure that continuity of care and the importance of a skilled and competent workforce are fully taken into account, and further notes COSLA’s intention to tackle variation on charging via its fundamental review of the cost of care.”

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the Labour Party for giving us this opportunity to debate the procurement of social care services. Given the amount of information that I have on the care of the elderly, I will focus my comments on those care services, in the knowledge that similar procurement and pricing procedures are used for all vulnerable people who are in need of social care.

The briefing paper from the Learning Disability Alliance, which Jackie Baillie quoted from, was very interesting. As she said, it highlights the fact that the hourly rates for care at home range from £7.76 in West Lothian to more than £22 in Angus, which is three times more. It also says that, in Highland, the hourly rate is more than £15 per hour, which is £5 more than it is in neighbouring Moray. There is no doubt that there is a postcode lottery for care, and we need to focus on improvement, development and redesign of services to provide long-term value for money and, as important, to raise the quality standards of care.

Jackie Baillie said that she has raised those issues for three years. I have been raising the issue of the postcode lottery in relation to care home fees since 1999, and my persistence has not paid off—yet.

The postcode lottery with regard to care is true, with 7 per cent of care homes for the elderly in West Dunbartonshire being given the highest grading, compared with 70 per cent in Highland and 69 per cent in Inverclyde. Quality matters—let us not all get caught up with the issue of the costs and the fees. Several councils have no care homes in the weak or unsatisfactory categories, but up to 35 per cent of homes in certain council areas are in those categories.

Not only is there disparity between the gradings of care homes, but there are huge differences between the fees of those who self-fund their care and those who do not. As responsible parliamentarians, we need to do something to incentivise people to save for their old age but, with the way that things are at the moment, there is no incentive. I will give a few examples relating to council-run homes, which I obtained through a freedom of information request. In South Lanarkshire, a self-funding client pays £474 a week to be cared for in a council home. That rises to £552 a week in North Lanarkshire, £650 a week in Fife and East Lothian and £843 in Dundee—a difference of £369 between the lowest and the highest mainland councils.

The costs of care differ widely, too. They range from £474 in a council-owned and council-run home in Midlothian to more than £900 in one in Angus—a difference of 91 per cent. In the independent and voluntary sector, councils pay £474.16, in agreement with COSLA. For the same quality of care and support, a self-funding client in the same home can pay £950 a week—twice as much. How can it be fair that two people in the same care home receive identical care, with identical quality standards, when one has to pay twice as much as the other is funded?

We should ask why councils charge self-funders up to 78 per cent more in one area than in another, and so much more than they pay to fund a place in the independent and voluntary sector. How can there be a difference of 91 per cent in the costs of providing care between one mainland council area and another?

There is another postcode lottery in relation to self-funding clients. As they are self-funded they are placed instantly in a care home, while others—through no fault of their own—must wait for funding packages from local authorities and are labelled as bed-blockers, the numbers of whom are rising week by week. That is why we are seeking a review of the charges. There is nothing complex in it: anyone with basic mental arithmetic could compare those figures.

In March 2010, there were 39,150 places in care homes for the elderly, with 33,900 residents. In simple terms, we have 5,209 empty beds out there, yet the cost of emergency admissions to our hospitals is one of the largest health budgets. Those homes could be better used for respite care. If we were to concentrate on delivering high standards of care to people in their own homes, there would be many fewer emergency hospital admissions and less need for long-term stays in homes.

It need not cost more to improve, develop and redesign services. If a general practitioner and a pharmacist visited a care home more regularly, medication could be reviewed and potentially reduced. With the right skills, knowledge and training, much more effective personalised and appropriate care could be provided.

I find it quite upsetting that 75 per cent of elderly people in care homes are on psychoactive drugs, perhaps because they have become agitated in one instance. If our elderly people are constantly on those drugs, we are not serving them well.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I am afraid that the member is over her time.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I move amendment S4M-00854.1, to insert at end:

“and calls on the Scottish Government to review the system of charges for care home places whereby, at present, self-funders pay considerably more than those placed and funded by a local authority.”

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

I welcome the staff of Quarriers who are sitting in the gallery. I ask the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy to speak to them today after First Minister’s questions about the impact that social care procurement has on the lives of the staff and the service users to whom they provide excellent care, and to step in to help everyone who is involved in the current pay and conditions dispute between the management and Unison. Those people represent the damage that is being done to our social care services throughout Scotland.

As many members know, I have been very vocal on the situation that the Quarriers staff and service users face. I understand the financial pressures that are forced on the organisation by local authorities, but I cannot stand back and allow the staff to bear the brunt of cost cutting that procurement has led to.

Like many others in the chamber, I strongly believe that local authorities have been using the procurement process to lower costs, and that there has been little focus on quality of care when services are retendered. Social care services provide essential care to the most vulnerable people in Scotland, and they require well-trained and qualified staff. Such services are a lifeline to many in society, and must not be provided on the cheap.

I will give members an example of how cuts to the third sector are harming the care of the elderly, the disabled and the vulnerable. This case, which was brought to my attention by Epilepsy Scotland, involves a young girl who is legally blind with no verbal capacity and has two or three full-blown seizures every night. She was formerly receiving weekly support, and is cared for by her mother while her father serves in Afghanistan. Her funding and care were not renewed, and the choices support was withdrawn.

That has had a huge detrimental impact not only on the girl’s wellbeing and care, but on her mother, who is a full-time carer with no respite. SNP members will howl and moan when I say that the problems of the economy and budgets were not caused by that young girl or other service users like her, but local authorities should be ashamed of the treatment of service users and the third sector as they cut budgets throughout Scotland.

The procurement process has its merits, but its advantages are being exploited to bring cuts to social care. When a local authority believes that care is insufficient, it is right to retender that service, but retendering is being done to cut costs. If we continue to retender services—particularly those that provide the greatest level of care—we will have a system that forces the third sector to its knees and in which competition is less about care and more about how low we can go. That will be a race to the bottom.

I call on the Scottish Government to introduce a minimum five-year term for social care contracts that are well funded, allow the organisations involved to plan for the longer term and give employees job security. Increasing the terms of contracts is essential for the stability of organisations such as Quarriers and for the quality of services that our vulnerable service users deserve.

Local authorities must consult the third sector and trade unions more to deliver a clear procurement system that has care—not cost—at its heart. A distinct approach must be taken—that can be done by consulting other bodies.

In previous years, many organisations in the third sector have taken massive steps to survive.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Will Mary Fee take an intervention?

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

I am sorry—I do not have time.

Operating costs have been reduced hugely through cuts to staff pay and changes to terms and conditions, for example. If we continue to make cuts, carers will become demoralised and the level of care will suffer.

In February, the director of the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland wrote to The Herald to highlight that

“more than 80%”

of its members

“have been unable to”

provide pay increases that

“match the cost of living increases awarded by councils to their staff during the same period”.

Why has the Scottish Government allowed local authorities to cut the budgets to organisations that care for our elderly, disabled and vulnerable, while the wages of top managers and chief executives have increased?

The cuts that have been enforced on the third sector are short-sighted and based on cost cutting, not improvements to the care that councils tender.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

The organisations that deliver our social care must not be attacked further. I call on the Government to protect organisations, staff and service users alike.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

I declare an interest, as I worked in the social care sector for more than 30 years. As a member of the third sector, I was very much involved in working with a local authority on service procurement.

I applaud Jackie Baillie for not apportioning blame—thank you, Jackie. That was reassuring to hear.

We must consider what is essential in procuring services for our people who require social care across the board. Having sat round the table to look at procurement, I do not believe that quality is compromised. One of my duties as a service manager was to ensure that the quality of care was never compromised, regardless of the cost-cutting exercises that the local authority sometimes imposed.

It is right that every local authority tries to get the best value that it can from organisations with which it has contracts for care provision, because spending from the public purse must be held to account. However, we should never ever compromise on the quality of care.

There will always be examples of care that has been removed or of care that is inappropriate to the need. That comes down to basic assessment, which is essential to ensuring that we provide the care that an individual requires. That care is a moving thing. We cannot think that doing an assessment one week means that it is done for the next two, three or four years. Requirements constantly move and need to be monitored.

That is why it is important that all our people in social care have the appropriate training. It is disturbing to hear that many organisations in the public, private and third sectors are reducing their training budgets. However, many of them are starting to be innovative and to share training costs and are providing appropriate training, which is to be applauded.

We need minimum standards for qualifications. The work that is being done by the Government in collaboration with the Association of Directors of Social Work and the CCPS, and across the third sector, needs to ensure that the national standards and the guidelines that were set in September last year are being met. I note with concern the suggestion that the guidelines are not being adhered to in some authorities. If guidelines are not being adhered to, those authorities should be brought to account. We must ensure that we do not compromise social care in 2011. It should never be compromised at any time, because we are dealing with the most vulnerable in society.

The other day, we welcomed the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy to the Equal Opportunities Committee. She told us that outcomes and preventative care are extremely important and gave assurances about ensuring that we support our carers. The infrastructure has to be in place. Many vulnerable people in society these days are supported by carers, who are often unsung heroes and who are the heart of care. We must ensure that they are supported so that they do not become the people who require care.

I reassure Dr Simpson that the joint futures approach still happens, although a lot of dialogue still goes on. I was certainly a member of joint futures committees in the Grampian area.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

I do not believe that we should compromise quality at any time. I thank the Labour Party for bringing the motion to the Parliament.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I, too, welcome the debate and, knowing full well Jackie Baillie’s integrity and intent on the questions, I am particularly happy to participate in it. However, Labour’s motion shows that party to be one of many opinions although, thankfully, most of them are of short duration. The motion is well meaning but misguided. There is the usual attempt—I wait for the guffaws—at a selective rewriting of the recent history of financial management by the current London Government and the previous Labour Government. I have yet to hear how Ms Baillie would cope with the existing financial situation in Scotland and what that would mean for social care.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Does the member accept that the Scottish Government’s amendment is factually inaccurate because, actually, the Scottish Government budget rose year on year under Labour and the most recent resource budget that was received rose again in real terms, from £25.2 billion to £25.9 billion? I look forward to the apology and correction.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

No apology is needed, because Ms Baillie knows that the local government financial settlement for 2011-12 is exactly the same as it was for last year. The impact of inflation means that we will have to continue to seek change and efficiencies to improve care for the elderly and other vulnerable dependants in our society.

As the motion points out, there is significant demographic change and a significant financial challenge. However, that does not mean that the principle of the quality of care necessarily needs to be prejudiced. The motion claims that the current financial pressures

“have resulted in substantial reductions in service”.

Jackie Baillie mentioned Quarriers, which she knows is slightly mischievous, because other care companies that operate in Scotland are having similar discussions, but they are having them outwith Scotland and with less focus. I am sure that, as Mary Fee and I have done, Ms Baillie has spoken to the staff, management and unions. The charge that they would countenance such a reduction in service will lead to anxiety among those to whom the service is provided. That denigration is not at all helpful. We must achieve a compromise settlement, but the motions that have been lodged on the issue have not been particularly helpful in resolving what is a difficult situation.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

The motion that my colleague Mary Fee lodged encouraged Quarriers to go to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which is the national organisation that encourages conciliation and arbitration. What was unreasonable about that?

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I am sure that Mary Fee knows as well as I do that direct discussions between management and the union were going on at that time, although I accept that there was resistance to going to ACAS at one stage. However, they did go to ACAS, of course. I am saying that we should be circumspect in debates such as this, as getting involved is not particularly helpful.

Last week, I said that change is constant. We must recognise that, in the current financial situation and environment, there must be change across a range of care provision and procurement. That is why we announced a £70 million agenda for change programme. That was not a short-term decision; the programme is a long-term one for the integration of health and social care services through lead commissioning and a partnership with the local authorities.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I would like to see from Labour an explanation of its national care programme. Where are the operational, financial and service details? What are the planned outcomes?

We need to grasp the change that confronts us, and ensure that we secure the care service and care provision. We do not need shibboleths, although they may be well meaning.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I think that we all agree that the Parliament faces a significant challenge in ensuring that the most vulnerable in our society are given the dignity, care and support that they need and deserve. We need to face up to the difficult demographic changes and falling budgets, which are creating real pressures. Irrespective of who is to blame, that is the situation that we are dealing with. Just last week, in his evidence to the Health and Sport Committee, the architect of free personal care, Lord Sutherland, compared our approach to that significant challenge with our approach to global warming. There has been a lot of planning and there have been many calls for investment, but we still have not seized the issue. We have heard about that this morning.

I am pleased that we have the opportunity to focus on at least one key area: procurement. That area is not part of the Health and Sport Committee’s on-going inquiry into regulation, but it continues to raise its head regardless. We know from our constituencies, wider experience and even personal experience that the pressures go right across the board. Wherever care is delivered—whether in the public sector, the private sector or even in the third sector—the pressures and issues have been present for some time.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Will the member give way?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I am sorry, but I do not have enough time, as we have under four minutes.

In the public sector, there was a stark example in April 2009 of the consequences when we get procurement wrong. A “Panorama” programme exposed the delivery of services in the country in a very bad light. It showed that we had a system in place in which our elderly people were being humiliated and mistreated in their own homes. That was a wake-up call to many people. I see members shaking their heads, but the experience was horrible. The programme forced the Local Government and Communities Committee, which I convened at the time, to look at e-procurement practices—the reverse auctions that drove prices down to the bottom. Thankfully, the Scottish Government intervened after the inquiry to end those practices altogether.

Low pay and the high turnover of staff are problems in the private sector. What about continuity? How can people’s skills be developed in that situation? A situation has been delivered that is lowering standards.

In his evidence last week, Lord Sutherland spoke about care homes in Edinburgh that have difficulties in recruiting workers during August. It seems that we live in a country where it is more lucrative to hand out flyers during the festival than it is to provide vital care for the most vulnerable in our society.

If that is the reward that we attach to this difficult job, it can be no surprise that concerns are raised about standards. In the third sector, the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland showed this week that 79 per cent of the workers who provide these valuable services have not been awarded a cost-of-living pay rise for three years—it is the lowest-paid people who are delivering these services—and 57 per cent of the organisations that deliver care have implemented pay freezes. We realise the necessity of training people to understand the situation that they are working in, yet 60 per cent of the organisations in the third sector that are delivering that care for us are cutting their training budgets.

There are very real consequences of all that. It is not just about the hard facts and figures in the budget; we are dealing with people. They are the victims of the squeeze on social care. If we do not value the people who deliver these care services, we devalue the care that we provide to those vulnerable people.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

It is a pleasure to follow my colleague on the Health and Sport Committee, Duncan McNeil; I particularly welcome his impassioned contribution.

Ensuring the long-term provision of good-quality social care for members of our society is one of the biggest challenges that the Parliament faces. The wellbeing of people who require social care is a fundamental issue and the decisions that we take in this place will most certainly affect future generations. We must work together constructively across the chamber to strengthen and safeguard the sustainability and quality of social care services.

We face a number of challenges, of which we are all well aware: the integration of health and social care; the need to ensure that quality and not just price is the driver in the procurement process; and the need for a robust system of regulation with a strong voice for the public and with service users at its heart. There is an opportunity, through the proposed social care (self-directed support) (Scotland) bill, to empower many more people who wish to commission and receive care that is customised to fit their individual needs.

We are well aware, too, of the demographic shift: by 2031, the number of people aged over 65 in Scotland is expected to rise by 62 per cent. That figure alone testifies to the fact that there will be more people with long-term conditions and complex needs who will require to be cared for.

Therefore it is clear that health boards and councils have no choice but to work together more closely and effectively. Ultimately, we want a situation where more older people can access care packages faster. We want to see cuts in delayed discharges and, as Mary Scanlon said earlier, we want to address unplanned emergency admissions. The national health service, local authorities, the third sector and the private sector all have a crucial role to play in delivering social care services.

The Scottish Government is up for the challenge—if you will pardon the pun—which is why it has allocated £70 million through the change fund, which was established to bring about greater integration of services. The establishment of a lead commissioning implementation group backed by £2 million over the next financial year is taking this agenda forward.

Lord Sutherland said:

“Lead commissioning provides the best and quickest way of achieving an integrated care system, and ... avoids the need for new legislation and wholesale re-organisation, which means improvements can begin to be made straight away.”

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

I have only four minutes; I apologise to the member.

It would be a mistake to assume that large-scale structural change, as has been advocated by others, provides a silver bullet in meeting these challenges. Creating a new nationwide bureaucracy would make no difference to those who require services.

The Association of Directors of Social Work, which represents senior social work managers in local authorities, has sounded a note of caution about taking a top-down approach. It states:

“We need to provide the very best care that we can for the people in our communities that need our help. We do not believe that this can be achieved through nationally driven integration.”

There is a need for an integrated system that can cut through red tape and focus directly on people’s needs.

We need an open system in which members of staff can freely and confidently report shortcomings in the system and contribute to the improvement of services. However, without a radical culture change that leads to staff feeling comfortable about submitting complaints, we will not see progress.

As has been said, the Scottish Government and COSLA have published guidance to ensure that quality is at the heart of the procurement process. The development group and the work programme that arises out of it aim to identify and disseminate good practice. I recognise the challenges that face Unison members who are employed by Quarriers and welcome their presence in the gallery. I acknowledge the constructive approach that Unison has taken in seeking an acceptable solution.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

The false belief that people with learning disabilities, our older people and others with complex healthcare needs are somehow a burden to society has to change. Their contribution to society is invaluable and it is our duty to guarantee their wellbeing throughout their lives for the benefit of the whole of society.

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I suppose that I should declare an interest, given that Jackie Baillie described councils as providers. As a local authority councillor, I am a member of such a provider.

It is right that we do not talk about the specifics of the Quarriers situation. All that I will say on that is that I believe that continuity of care is paramount, regardless of the outcome of the discussions between the trade unions and management in that dispute.

Jackie Baillie said that she would not allocate blame but then spent a few minutes doing so. Furthermore, the allocation of blame is there in black and white in the motion, which says that the Scottish Government is responsible and sets out what it should do. There is some legitimacy to that but, although I was interested in what both Opposition parties had to say, it was what they did not say that was telling.

Mary Scanlon pointed out the pressures that exist with regard to delayed discharges, but she did not indicate that the level of delayed discharges is lower under the Scottish National Party Government than it was under previous Labour-Liberal Executives.

Mary Fee commented on the dispute at Quarriers and expressed her support for the workforce, but she did not mention that, back at Renfrewshire Council, she voted to close a newly built care home, which has been described since as a mistake. It was a mistake at more than one level.

Jackie Baillie described quite eloquently some of the pressures on local government and care provision, but she failed miserably to tell us about the national care service that the Labour Party proposed at the election.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

It is astonishing the number of SNP members who have mentioned the national care service. Perhaps they misunderstand the fact that the motion is about social care procurement now; it is about the services that are provided to the most vulnerable people in Scotland now; and it is about voluntary organisations that are going to the wall now.

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I am amazed that the Opposition spokesperson does not see the relevance of the Labour Party policy of a national care service to the procurement of social care. It is important that, if Labour or the Conservatives have any ideas about how to reduce the pressures, they bring forward their proposals. All that we have had is crocodile tears and empty rhetoric.

Despite the doom-mongering that we have had from the Labour Party, the world that I am aware of is not as bad as Jackie Baillie makes out, and the inspection agencies would agree. It is an insult to the professionals in this country to say that they put cost before quality, human lives and the support of our most vulnerable. It is an insult to social work, to managers and to many organisations to suggest that it is only cost that matters.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I have taken one intervention and I am three quarters of the way through my time.

Great work is being done by the Scottish Government on increased integration and collaboration, and shared services. Sir John Arbuthnott’s work on the Labour policy of the national care service was pretty weak, but at least it has led, in the west of Scotland, to good work on social collaboration, which will ensure that we can address the demands on services and the pressures that we face.

Why say, when we involve the third sector, that it is social care on the cheap? Sometimes third sector organisations address need that would not otherwise be met, in partnership with the health service, local government and others. That is an extremely constructive way forward. How dare you describe the third sector’s support as policy delivery on the cheap. The UK cuts of the UK Government are difficult to manage, but we are weathering the financial storm and are innovating every day of the week to ensure that people get the services that they require. You have no credibility when it comes to Glasgow City Council, for instance. If it wants to improve working people’s working conditions, why has the Labour Party not increased the minimum wage or implemented the living wage where it is in administration?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Finally. I know that the Labour Party does not like accurate facts on social care, but I will give you another. There may be 32 variations in charging policy but, unless we have a unitary charging system, there will be variations. That is what local democracy is about. You either let the councils decide or you set a national charging policy. If that is the Opposition’s position, so be it, but so far it has not said anything concrete about what it believes.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the Labour Party and Jackie Baillie for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. I am disappointed that she has not yet put her hat in the ring to be Labour leader. However, there is still time and I look forward to seeing it happen in due course.

A number of important points have been raised and I have only four minutes. First, a very important point was made about the amount of care that third sector charities and voluntary groups provide. As Jackie Baillie pointed out, there is a sorry tale throughout the third sector of, for example, pay cuts, poor packages, reductions in hours and poor pension provision. We understand that local authorities face serious budget pressures, notwithstanding what the Government has said. However, we are concerned that local authorities are too ready to protect their own in-house services at the expense of the third sector, which often bears the brunt of the cuts.

There is often a disconnect between councils and the voluntary sector. As the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland said in its briefing for the debate, we need better

“Recognition and respect for the third sector as an engaged partner, not just a contracted supplier”,

and the funding to those arm’s-length bodies should not be the first port of call when there are cuts to be made.

On Friday, I was at a question time in Perth for the local voluntary sector. It came out strongly in the contributions from the voluntary sector representatives who were there that they feel that councils are too ready to make cuts to their voluntary sector services rather than cutting in-house. COSLA and the Scottish Government need to take that point on board.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

In Perth and Kinross, in Murdo Fraser’s region, the change fund has helped to enhance service delivery and provision. That has involved local government working with the third sector.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That may be the case, but that is not the message that I got on Friday at the conference for the Perth and Kinross voluntary sector, which is extremely concerned at cuts coming down the line.

Charging has been at the core of the debate. Learning Disability Alliance Scotland has referred to dramatic increases across council areas in charges for some of the most vulnerable people in society, leaving them worse off.

We have heard a lot about postcode lotteries. That brings us to a serious issue on which Derek Mackay touched in his speech: localism against national standards. If we believe in a localist agenda and in local democracy, of course we must recognise that local authorities have the right to set different charging rates. At the same time, there is no contradiction in saying that there should be nationally set standards and parameters, as well as local flexibility. Indeed, in its amendment, the Government talks about

“COSLA’s intention to tackle variation on charging via its fundamental review of the cost of care.”

That is a sensible way forward and there is no contradiction between that and promoting localism.

Mary Scanlon talked a lot about funding arrangements. We all trumpet free personal care, which is treated with a certain degree of irony by people who pay large sums of money to be in full-time residential care. There has always been a discrepancy between the high cost of council-run homes and those in the third sector or private sector, but Mary Scanlon raised another serious issue: the disparity between self-funders and those who are funded by local authorities. Under COSLA arrangements, those who are funded by local authorities pay £474 a week, but some self-funders can be paying up to double that amount. There is a moral hazard there: how can we expect people to save for their old age when they are being penalised as a result? The amendment in the name of Mary Scanlon simply calls for a review. That is a sensible suggestion, and I am disappointed that the minister is not prepared to accept it.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

This has been an interesting debate. It started off being about procurement, but it has gone into a range of areas around social care.

It is important to properly recognise the financial environment in which the debate is taking place. The Scottish Government’s budget has been cut by £1.3 billion. That was started by the previous Labour Administration at Westminster and it has been accelerated by the current UK Government.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Does the minister recognise that the resource departmental expenditure limit to the Government has increased in real terms from £25.2 billion to £25.9 billion? That means that there was an increase to the Scottish Government’s budget in every year of the Labour Government.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The eight years of Labour’s Administration in the Scottish Executive led to a year-on-year decrease in the percentage of the Scottish Executive’s overall budget going to local government. This Government has protected the share of the overall budget for local government, and increased it when it could.

That is the financial environment in which the debate is taking place. We must also recognise that a substantial amount of money is spent on social care every year—£1.18 billion. Purchasing social care is not like purchasing paperclips. It is about providing the care that people need to support them in their most vulnerable situations, so it is important that it is high quality and flexible.

To get greater consistency in the social care procurement process, the Government issued procurement of care and support services guidance to all local authorities in September last year. I recognise that it is early days for that guidance, and some members, such as Dennis Robertson, are concerned about whether it is being properly adhered to. However, Audit Scotland is considering the guidance as part of its investigation into the commissioning of social care and will report on it in January. That will show us clearly where local authorities are not adhering to the guidance, so we will be able to look at the matter in more detail. It is important that we do not call for a review or a new framework now when more than 100 different organisations were involved in developing the guidance over a two-year period. We should not simply throw that out and say that we need to do something else. We need to see what the Audit Scotland report comes out with early next year and then consider what further progress needs to be made.

Some members referred to the integration of health and social care and the central importance that that has in improving people’s experience of how their care needs are properly met. That is not a new thing. Jackie Baillie might be new to the issue of the integration of health and social care and the variation in charges, having come to it during the past three years, but Mary Scanlon is right to say that it has been going on for almost 20 years. Jackie Baillie became involved in the issue when she went into opposition, but she was not interested enough to do something about it when she was in government.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the minister give way?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I will finish my point. The Government is determined to drive forward the integration of health and social care in a way that has not been achieved for the past 20 years, so that people can receive care as they wish to receive it.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The member might recall that my involvement came about three years ago when constituents raised the issue of charges for care in my constituency. A constituent in Argyll and Bute paid £300 a week for exactly the same service that was being delivered in West Dunbartonshire for £30 a week. The Government has done nothing for the past three years.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am surprised at that, because the variation in charges has existed for almost two decades and not just for the past three years. Derek Mackay was right: what was Labour’s big idea to address the issue of health and social care integration? It was a national care service, involving a super-quango of 180,000 people stripped out of local government and the health service. However, Labour has gone all quiet about that now because it realises that no one supports the idea.

On the issue of providers, I welcome the staff from Quarriers who have come to listen to the debate. I am more than happy to meet them later on today and have a discussion with them, if they get in touch with me. I recognise that real change is taking place in the sector, which different organisations must address. I encourage Quarriers and Unison to work as constructively as they can together to resolve their differences.

I accept that there is variation across the country in charges for the provision of social care. However, what is important is that we take action to address that issue, which is exactly what COSLA is doing. It will report in November on how it intends to take that forward. The variation in charges for care homes has been around for a long time. Currently, we are working with COSLA and the sector on our national plan on payments for care homes to address the issue of charge variation. That occurs for a variety of reasons, but it is extremely important that we address the issue.

The Scottish Government is determined to ensure that we integrate health and social care and that we get quality care for people who need it. We will continue to take the necessary action to ensure that that happens.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The debate has been a bit like the curate’s egg: there have been some very good speeches from members of all parties, but others have been—frankly—somewhat below standard.

We need to start by looking at similar situations overseas. For example, Sweden went through its banking crisis in the 1990s, a consequence of which was, we now know, a significant deterioration in care of the elderly. That is what this Parliament faces, and it is the Government’s responsibility. You must make the choices that you must make within the budget that you have.

We cannot accept your amendment, because there is a factual error in it. It states that the budget to the Scottish Parliament decreased in the last two years. That is just incorrect.

In a good speech, Jim Eadie talked about the efforts to achieve joint futures—I think that Dennis Robertson also referred to that.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The member referred to a factual inaccuracy in our amendment. Will he clarify which factual inaccuracy he is referring to, because I am afraid that the budget cuts to the Scottish Government—not to the Scottish Parliament—started under the previous United Kingdom Labour Administration?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There was no reduction in the budget for Scotland in the last two years of the Labour Administration. That is a fact.

Turning to the question of integration, I will not get into the debate about the national care service just now, because that is for another day. However, I have to say to you that your suggestion that we wanted to create a super-quango is completely and utterly erroneous. If you looked at our manifesto, you would see that it was all about local democracy and community health partnerships. So, I think that you just—

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Dr Simpson, can I remind you to speak through the chair and not to use “you”?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Sorry—my apologies, Presiding Officer.

To return to the question of integration, Perth and Kinross was the first area to integrate services back in 2001, but it has just been given a change fund to achieve integration for the second time. The community health partnerships in Glasgow attempted to achieve integration, but they fell apart. Our point is that there have been attempts by us—and I am sure that there have also been attempts by this Government—to integrate, but they simply have not been successful. In the current climate, the attempt is even less likely to be successful, unless it is underpinned by a new commissioning framework.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Will the member give way?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry—I do not have time to take any more interventions.

Although the third sector is critical to how we move forward, the lack of a true partnership with it is extremely evident. Dennis Robertson mentioned the 60 per cent cut to training budgets and Duncan McNeil referred to the 79 per cent of the third sector that has been subject to a pay freeze. Such cuts are hugely significant to the sector.

Other colleagues have already dealt with the issue of Quarriers but, after 150 years, the organisation is clearly facing a difficult situation if its dedicated staff feel that they have to go on strike. However, it is not alone. Epilepsy Scotland has reduced its monthly running costs by about 30 per cent from £90,000 to £60,000; even though every single member has taken a pay cut, it is still in very grave difficulties because of the cuts that have been imposed. The cuts range from the 5 per cent that has been imposed on local authorities to more than 20 per cent. Why should the third sector have to bear much more of those cuts than other areas?

Despite what Derek Mackay might have said, the cuts to the local authorities are quite real; indeed, Mr Mackay must know that. However, they vary across the country. Argyll and Bute is facing a 7.3 per cent cut, while Stirling and Clackmannanshire, which are quite different councils, are getting the same level of cuts. That is just not fair.

Mary Scanlon’s comments about the variation in charges are absolutely valid.

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Will the member give way?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry—I just do not have the time to take an intervention. Because the minister ran over by a minute and a half, my own time has been cut.

Members: Aw.

The massive variation in charges has been going on for a long time and we accept that the issue needs to be looked at closely as part of the overall examination of the situation. However, as Jackie Baillie pointed out, there are substantial variations in charges between authorities that are very close to each other. The hourly rate in Angus, for example, is £22.10; in Glasgow, around £16; and in West Lothian, £7.76. Those variations are huge. The Welsh Assembly has capped charges and I suggest that the chamber look very carefully at doing the same. We should not stop all localism, Mr Mackay—[Interruption.] I am sorry for addressing Mr Mackay, Presiding Officer. [Laughter.] We should not stop all localism but charges need to be capped because some of them have become quite excessive. [Interruption.]

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I would welcome it if they were going to have a sensible conversation—but I doubt it. I have to say, though, that Duncan McNeil welcomed the Government’s ban on reverse tendering; however, it has not gone far enough. There is still a race to the bottom. The promotion of low pay is bound to affect quality and such a situation cannot be tolerated. If we are going to ensure dignity in the care of our elderly, we have to provide decent pay, conditions and training, and that can only happen through the introduction of a new framework.

In the minute that remains, I stress that we must have a new contract with the third sector. The Government has said that that will be introduced through its change fund, but the fact is that the third sector is really suffering. If the Government does not recognise that now, it will reap a significant reward for that later. After all, in the care home sector, the number of trained nurses has fallen from 34 per cent to 25 per cent. How can that happen without a change in quality? It simply cannot because the complex needs of those who go into care homes are increasing, not decreasing. We must examine the issue very carefully.

We do not deny the financial difficulties of the situation. Nevertheless, the time has come to open up the debate and introduce a new national framework that respects and has a genuine partnership with the third sector.

I commend our motion to the chamber and welcome Mary Scanlon’s amendment.

Living Wage (Local Authorities)

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to encourage the adoption of the living wage by local authorities both for their own staff and for tendering and procurement processes. (S4O-00144)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government is leading by example by including a requirement in our public sector pay policy for 2010-11 for a living wage to be paid to employees covered by the scope of the policy.

We welcome the fact that some local authority areas are paying the living wage to their staff. However, we recognise that local authorities are autonomous bodies that have responsibility for setting the terms and conditions of employment of their own staff and deciding their own tendering and procurement processes.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I have in my hand a response to a freedom of information request that shows that 16,000 people who work directly for local authorities throughout Scotland still earn less than £7.20 an hour. Is the cabinet secretary aware of the power of local authorities to help the working poor to work their way out of poverty? How will he ensure that those people have a better chance of earning a decent living wage?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The issue comes back to the points that I made in response to Kezia Dugdale’s first question. Although the Government can set an example, we have to accept that local authorities are statutorily autonomous bodies. They are responsible for setting the terms and conditions of employment of their own staff. It is entirely up to local authorities to determine the stance that they take.

The Government believes firmly in the importance of adopting the living wage and of tackling low pay issues. In the areas for which we have responsibility—those that are directly under the control of ministers—we are taking such action.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

In those local authorities that have adopted the living wage, has that been passed on to and adopted by arm’s-length organisations and trusts within their remit?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

That would again be a matter for the local authorities involved. Clearly, the logical extension of a decision on the part of a local authority to take a stance that is designed to tackle the issue of low pay and provide a living wage for individuals would be to incorporate the bodies that act on its behalf. As Clare Adamson will know, the Government has encouraged public authorities to support the living wage campaign and we will continue to do so.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the minister meet Kezia Dugdale and me to discuss the plight of contracted staff in this very building, a number of whom are being paid below the living wage and whose terms and conditions leave a lot to be desired?

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

That is a matter for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Mr Findlay may wish to meet me and others on the matter, but I do not think that it comes within the locus of the cabinet secretary.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the downside of the living wage is that it does not apply to the private sector, that the real answer must be to look at the low level of the national minimum wage and that power over that should be devolved to Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I rather like the approach of the Presiding Officer answering questions that are sent in my direction. I hope that that is a trend that will carry on for some time to come.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am aware of that, Presiding Officer. I thought that I would chance it for a second, but I will not do so again. [Laughter.]

Mr Mason makes an important point about pay across the private and public sectors. The Government’s aspiration is to control the full range of issues that affect the lives of our citizens in Scotland. Clearly, employment and issues around the minimum wage are significant issues affecting the public in Scotland, and we would aspire to have responsibility for them.

Enterprise Zones (Selection Criteria)

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether the selection criteria for enterprise zones will favour areas with long-standing high unemployment and deprivation. (S4O-00145)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government is currently developing plans for the introduction of a number of enterprise areas in Scotland so as to maximise their economic impact. The criteria we will use to identify specific sites will balance a number of considerations. Those include the potential for attracting significant investment in Scotland’s key sectors and the scope for impact on areas of Scotland where we need to improve economic performance and address issues of disadvantage and deprivation.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Although we all welcome the recently published Scottish unemployment figures, which contrast starkly with the United Kingdom figures, unemployment endures in some parts of the country more than in others. Is the cabinet secretary aware that three Glasgow constituencies are in the top five for unemployment claimant count, with Maryhill and Springburn, where I stay, having the highest? Does he agree that there is a strong case for enterprise zone status in those key areas? Does the Government agree that there is a moral duty to use economic interventions to improve opportunity for people in the worst-hit parts of Scotland, not merely to maximise economic growth more generally?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There is a challenge in ensuring that areas of deprivation and disadvantage are appropriately and adequately supported to encourage an improvement in the life chances of the individuals who live there, whose economic prospects depend on the economic activity in those areas. As I said in my initial answer to Mr Doris, areas such as those that he mentioned, including Springburn and Maryhill, will be considered in relation to issues of disadvantage and deprivation. I assure him that the Government is determined—as we set out in the economic strategy that was launched on Monday—to support and deliver increased economic growth in Scotland in a way that reaches every part of Scotland, no matter the scale of the challenge that exists in certain parts of the country.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I would expect a place such as Inverclyde to be high on the cabinet secretary’s priority list. Can he assure us that the enterprise zone work that the Government is going to carry out will be in addition to, supportive of and complementary to the existing work of the urban regeneration companies in such areas rather than to its detriment?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

All the approaches that we have had about enterprise zones will be assessed dispassionately to determine how the maximum economic impact can be achieved. Support is being directed to different parts of the country in different ways. Mr McNeil has asked questions about urban regeneration company issues on a number of occasions in the past. I point out, in passing, that he was unable to support the provisions in the budget that supported the urban regeneration company in Inverclyde, but that is history. I assure him that the Government’s approach will be to look dispassionately at the opportunities to strengthen economic impact in all parts of the country.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Cowdenbeath)

What can the cabinet secretary do to address the concerns of the companies that have approached me with the perception that Government policy simply is not working for them? They are concerned that, although Cowdenbeath has seen the largest increase in unemployment in the whole of Scotland, regional selective assistance is not working for them and they are being driven down to England, where the terms seem to be much better for them.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am happy to explore any representations that Mrs Eadie wants to make to me about the position of individual companies. The approach that has been taken by Scottish Enterprise has been to set out a mechanism that supports companies in every part of the country to maximise their potential. I do not have to hand the details of the companies in Cowdenbeath that will receive that support, but I am happy to explore the matter for Mrs Eadie. The Government’s ambition is to ensure that we properly and effectively support Scotland’s company base to expand. We saw some of the fruits of that in the labour market statistics that were published yesterday, which showed a rise in employment and a fall in unemployment in Scotland.

Credit Unions (Devolution)

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on calls by credit unions for regulation of the industry to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. (S4O-00146)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government believes that Scotland should have greater responsibility for the decisions that affect our economy and our collective prosperity, including decisions on the work of credit unions.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary share my concern that credit unions in Scotland are now being instructed by the Financial Services Authority to furnish a well-known credit reference agency with their individual members’ personal details?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am aware of the issue, which was the subject of representations that Mr Lyle made to me on behalf of the Newarthill credit union. I will work to address the issues raised. I understand the concerns and we will work to identify whether a solution can be delivered to improve the position and allay the fears of the credit unions.

Royal Alexandra Hospital (Children’s Ward)

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde regarding the future of the children’s ward at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley. (S4O-00148)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Scottish Government ministers and officials regularly discuss matters of local importance with the management of national health service boards. I understand that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s consideration of in-patient paediatric services at the RAH are at an early stage. Nonetheless, the board has assured me that any proposals will be based on the need to maintain and improve the quality of the service provided to local children and their families. It will also ensure that that thinking is informed by meaningful engagement with local stakeholders.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

In the past, ministers have been willing to intervene to stop the reduction of health services. If the health board presses ahead with its proposals, will the cabinet secretary use her influence to retain children’s services at the current level at the RAH in Paisley? Will the cabinet secretary come to Paisley to meet staff and parents and hear their concerns at first hand?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I appreciate the member pointing out this Government’s proud record in keeping care local. Where any proposals from a health board constitute major service change, as Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy I have the ultimate say in whether the change goes ahead. The member will appreciate that, due to my formal part in the process, it is important that I do not pre-empt consideration at this stage. Just as I would expect the health board to consult widely, if the decision comes to me I will take into account all representations and I would be happy to visit the hospital to speak to patients, their families and staff who are concerned by any proposal.

Stagflation

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive whether there are any indications that United Kingdom Government policies are resulting in stagflation in the Scottish economy. (S4O-00149)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Economic recovery is taking place in Scotland, as shown by the strong labour market performance yesterday. We are concerned however that this progress could be undermined by the coalition's spending cuts, which are front-loaded to this year and are particularly severe for capital spending.

While we recognise the need to restore the public finances to health, that can be achieved only if there is sufficient growth in the economy. We have urged, and continue to urge, the chancellor to respond by implementing a plan B to promote growth and secure the recovery in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

Is the cabinet secretary aware that UK input prices overall rose by 18.5 per cent over the 12 months to July 2011? Significantly, imported food prices rose by 13.8 per cent, imported metals prices rose by 22.1 per cent and oil products prices rose by 45.4 per cent. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, with UK economic activity stagnating and serious inflation at our factory gates, Scotland—more than ever—needs the political and economic power to manage its economy?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I agree with the point made. The current economic circumstances demonstrate that it is possible to take a policy course appropriate to the Scottish economy that delivers results for the people of this country, as evidenced by the labour market statistics announced yesterday, to which I referred. The conclusion we must arrive at is that Scotland would be better placed to exercise judgment on economic issues on its own terms, which is the position of this Government.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take the opportunity to explain the ground rules according to which every positive economic indicator is claimed as a credit to this Government yet every negative economic indicator is blamed on the evil Westminster Government? Will he also take the opportunity to explain how, in an independent Scotland, pigs might fly?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will persistently remind Mr Johnstone of two things that he has said in the past 24 hours. First, he said that the United Kingdom Government is evil. Secondly, yesterday he showered me with praise for my economic management. I have not yet been to a framing shop to frame the Official Report of the debate, but I am sure that one of my colleagues will attend to the challenge.

I simply point out to Mr Johnstone that the Government accepts its responsibilities fully and is deploying a set of interventions in the economy to promote recovery. I just hope that they are not interrupted by the decisions of the United Kingdom Government.

Infrastructure Investment Plan

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive on what date it expects to publish an updated infrastructure investment plan. (S4O-00150)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

An updated infrastructure investment plan will be published by the Scottish Government in the autumn.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Of course, the autumn is a wide category, but I look forward to seeing the plan.

When I called for the publication of an updated plan in June, I reminded ministers of the recommendations of Audit Scotland. Will the new plan provide comprehensive information on the whole-life costs of capital projects and their impact on future revenue budgets, as Audit Scotland said that it should?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am more than happy to include in the plan as much information as it is possible to provide at the time. The plan takes a very long-term perspective—around 10 years—and will contain less of the precise information that the member described for projects that are planned for towards the end of a 10-year period than it will for projects that are taking place within, say, the next three years. However, I am always happy to share with members information about the excellent suite of projects that we are taking forward.

Policing

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

8. To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to maintain front-line policing levels. (S4O-00151)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The Government will continue to put in place the resources needed to maintain front-line policing. This year, despite the unprecedented cuts to Scotland’s budget from Westminster, the deal that we struck with local councils means that our commitment to keeping 1,000 additional officers in Scotland’s communities is being maintained.

Looking forward, we will continue to provide the resources needed to maintain front-line policing, helped by police reform that will remove the unnecessary and unsustainable duplication that comes from doing things eight times over and will free up resources to protect and enhance front-line services.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer and warmly welcome his proposals to streamline our police service and accountability structures. Currently in North Ayrshire, where my constituency is, only two councillors are involved in policing matters. Will the cabinet secretary indicate how many North Ayrshire councillors might be involved under a single police force, which would make it much easier for people to raise policing issues with their local representatives?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The member makes a valid point, which is why we are keen to ensure that accountability is not only maintained but enhanced. As the member points out, in North Ayrshire currently two councillors out of 30 sit on a joint police board of 34. In a single service, we anticipate that there would be around six times that number, which would mean that, instead of two councillors each representing 68,000, we would have 12 councillors each representing 11,000 people. That will provide local members with far better opportunities to meet on policing, to put forward their points and to maintain the local accountability that is necessary in Scotland to ensure that the excellent police service that we have is maintained.

Scotland Food and Drink (Targets)

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

9. To ask the Scottish Government whether it considers Scotland Food and Drink’s targets of increasing food and drink revenues from £10 billion to £12.5 billion and exports from £4 billion to £5.1 billion between 2009 and 2017 achievable and how the Scottish Government can help the organisation achieve them. (S4O-00152)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Yes, the Scottish Government considers those targets to be achievable. Statistics published last week show that revenues from food and drink reached an all-time high of £11.9 billion in 2009, an increase of more than £700 million on the previous year. We are making phenomenal progress, and we will continue to work with the sector to ensure that it goes from strength to strength.

Engagements

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00130)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

This afternoon, we will debate the First Minister’s plans for corporation tax. I have often criticised the First Minister for failing to build a consensus but, this week, he has managed to unite the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry in rejecting his plans for a regressive corporation tax competition within the United Kingdom. Will he listen to the STUC and the CBI and drop his plan?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

No.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I guess the First Minister listens only to those who tell him what he wants to hear. Last week, he was clear that one person he listens to—he called him a voice of economic sanity—is Nouriel Roubini, the economist. The very next day, Professor Roubini was railing against economic nationalism, warning against a race to the bottom on tax and imploring us to leave behind

“the nationalist demons of our past”.

Surely the First Minister will take the advice of a Roubini and slay his own nationalist demons.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I saw the Labour press release last Saturday morning and, in a kindly way, assumed that Iain Gray could have had nothing to do with such nonsense. To translate that quote and say that it refers to Scotland is extraordinary, even by the Labour Party’s standards.

Let us have a look at some of the people who back the Scottish National Party’s position on corporation tax. They include Sir Tom Hunter, one of Scotland’s most successful businesspeople and formerly a major supporter and, if I remember correctly, funder of the Scottish Labour Party—I certainly do not hold that against him, with his substantial business record. They also include Jim McColl, currently Scotland’s most successful businessperson. However, the one person whose firm support for the sensible policies that are being pursued by this Government I would quote more than anyone else’s is Wendy Alexander, Iain Gray’s predecessor. The report of the committee that she convened said that the unanimous view of the committee was that,

“if a scheme to vary corporation tax were to be available in some of the devolved countries of the UK as a tool of the UK Government’s regional economic policy, it should be available as an option for a Scottish Government to use also.”

If only Iain Gray would follow the example of his predecessor, Wendy Alexander.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Of course, my predecessor, Wendy Alexander, would happily make the point that she does not believe in a corporation tax race to the bottom at all. The point that she made was that, if one part of the UK were given such a scheme—and it would be a mistake to do so—others should have it as well.

Professor Roubini was very clear that the way forward was fiscal integration, not economic nationalism. Yes, he was writing in the context of Europe. Maybe that is why the First Minister thinks that Professor Roubini’s views do not matter this week. It might be that the First Minister does not care about Europe any more. Last week, the Minister for Culture and External Affairs said that we might not be in the European Union at all if we were independent. What about the First Minister? Does he still believe in independence in Europe, since his minister apparently does not?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I know only two people who actually believe that—one is Iain Gray and the other is The Daily Telegraph. Perhaps Iain Gray now sees The Daily Telegraph as the house journal of the Labour Party in Scotland. [Interruption.] I think that The Daily Telegraph is friendlier to the Conservatives in Scotland than it is to the Conservatives in London at the moment, as far as I can determine, but I am sure that it could shift allegiance quite easily to the Labour Party in Scotland.

For the second week in a row, I have brought to the chamber a copy of “Your Scotland, Your Voice: A National Conversation”. I will not read the whole of the contents of page 10, although I commend them to Iain Gray, but section 8.12 states:

“An independent Scotland would continue membership of the European Union”.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The house journal of this chamber is the Official Report, in which Mr Salmond’s minister said that perhaps an independent Scotland did not need to be part of Europe.

I did not believe that that could be the Scottish Government’s position, so we asked the Government for all the work that it has undertaken on the case for independence. I have it here. On business investment there are three pages; on joining the euro, two pages; and on share of the national debt, two and a bit pages. Frankly, kids in modern studies write longer essays—and this is the case that the First Minister is making for Scotland’s future.

Is it not the truth about the case for independence that when one scratches the surface, there is nothing there?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

“Your Scotland, Your Voice” has 176 pages; it is obviously too long and too detailed for Iain Gray. I will have to send him the management summary.

Iain Gray says hard things about the Government week by week in the chamber, but I do not think that he means them, and I will tell members why. He used to sit next to Andy Kerr, who similarly attacked the Government in vehement terms. However, only a few days ago, Andy Kerr—remember him?—stated in The Herald:

“There are people in the SNP I like more than ... in the Labour Party”

and:

“I’d argue Alex Salmond is the foremost politician not just in Scotland, but in the UK”.

He also stated:

“I spent a lot of time with John”

Swinney

“over the years due to my financial brief. I have a great deal of time for him. He’s got a difficult job which he does very well ... he works incredibly hard.”

I know that when Iain Gray has retired, he will be writing just like Andy Kerr.

Prime Minister (Meetings)

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

2. Can the First Minister contain himself? It is absolutely extraordinary to watch such self-satisfaction.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00113)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have no such plans in the near future.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

Last week, I asked the First Minister twice what would—if he got his way—be his personal preference for our currency: the British pound or the euro. Twice he ducked it, and would not tell us—no doubt too embarrassed to say what his personal preference is. All we got was an endless stream of words on process.

Let me try again. Does he believe, given what is happening at the moment, that an independent Scotland should join the euro zone?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The position is as I set out last week. I am sorry that I have to keep reading it out—I assumed that Annabel Goldie would, over the course of the past seven days, take the opportunity to read the document that Iain Gray did not read. The Scottish Government’s position this week is exactly the same as the position that I read out last week.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

When he talks about himself, you cannot shut him up. [Laughter.] When he is asked a serious, substantive question, a quite uncharacteristic coyness overwhelms him.

Everybody who is watching and listening knows that the First Minister is not answering the question because he is squirming with embarrassment. He is too scared to admit his personal preference. It is pathetic, and what a contrast to his colleague, the member of the European Parliament Alyn Smith, who was asked the very same question—whether he believed that an independent Scotland should join the euro—on Radio Scotland this morning. He replied:

“I do. And the euro will emerge stronger from this. The SNP’s position on the euro has been robust and intellectually sound throughout.”

If the First Minister’s MEP colleague can come clean, why can Alex Salmond not come clean? Why does he not just admit that Alex Salmond wants the euro?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I heard the interview this morning, and the MEP concerned said exactly what is in the “Your Scotland, Your Voice” document, which is that

“Scotland would continue to operate within the sterling system until a decision to join the Euro by the people of Scotland in a referendum when the economic conditions were right.”

That is a robust position and it is remarkably similar to another political party’s position. I quote page 67 of last year’s Liberal Democrat manifesto:

“We believe that it is in Britain’s long-term interest to be part of the euro. But Britain should only join when the economic conditions are right, and”

when the decision is

“supported by the people of Britain in a referendum.”

It is extraordinary that, when Annabel Goldie—or at least her party—is in alliance with the Liberal Democrats at Westminster, she should attack a policy that seems extraordinarily similar to that party’s policy. I would have said that the Scottish Government is a model of consistency on the issue in comparison with the Conservative and Liberal parties’ deep divisions on a policy that is part of a single Government’s platform. I do not know whether Annabel Goldie supports her party’s part of the coalition or the Liberal Democrats’ part of the coalition but, until those parties resolve their difficulty, it is difficult to attack the consistency of the SNP’s position.

I note that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government proposed legislation on sell-by dates today. I do not think that that was a specific reference to the Scottish Conservative Party’s sell-by date.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Christine Grahame has a constituency supplementary.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale is part of the south of Scotland. Does the First Minister share my concern that the south of Scotland—notwithstanding the fact that it does not even receive STV—is not on the eligibility list for consideration in Jeremy Hunt’s consultation on local TV? Is the Government in communication with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport at Westminster about that omission?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will ensure that the Government is in touch with Jeremy Hunt. I thank Christine Grahame for her information and I will write to her. She raises a serious issue that I know is deeply felt in her constituency.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00121)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

At its next meeting, the Cabinet will discuss an extraordinary—even threatening—letter that Mr Swinney has received from Danny Alexander. In response to what I thought was a reasonable request for the United Kingdom Government to consider delaying the onset of increased pension contributions in the public sector until the pay freeze period is over, we received the following reply about the schemes for which we have administrative responsibility:

“If you decide not to take forward these changes, the Treasury will need to make corresponding adjustments to your budget. ... I would have to reduce the Scottish Government’s budget by £8.4 million for every month’s delay.”

That letter can be called many things, but it does not seem liberal or democratic to me.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Before the summer, the Scottish Government said that Supreme Court judges were ambulance chasers who visited Scotland only for the Edinburgh festival and that the Supreme Court was a court in another land. Yesterday, the First Minister welcomed his expert group’s conclusion that the Supreme Court has a role to play for Scots and is well qualified to do that. Has he dropped his threat to cut the court’s money?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I welcome Lord McCluskey’s report. As Willie Rennie knows, Lord McCluskey made it clear that he would consider his report within the current constitutional arrangements. Within those arrangements, he has made two significant proposals—that the Supreme Court should become involved only if the High Court gives leave to appeal, as is the case under English jurisdiction; and that appeals should be on points of human rights law and should not affect the disposal that the court in Scotland makes. In the context of the current constitutional arrangements, those are substantial steps forward.

Willie Rennie will have noted Lord McCluskey’s contribution to the recent House of Lords debate and his critique of the amendments to the Scotland Bill that Lord Wallace has proposed. Now that Lord McCluskey and his group have pronounced, I hope that the Parliament sees the importance of retaining the integrity of Scotland’s criminal law system.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister’s tone is certainly different from the inflammatory tone that he and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice adopted before the recess. However, the First Minister was at it again yesterday in his press release. That is why Lord Steel resigned from the Presiding Officers panel. The review supports the Supreme Court—it wants to widen access and it says that the court is particularly qualified to do the job. In the summer, we saw the First Minister’s toxic mix of prejudice and nationalism. Will he agree that that has no place in the future and will he change his ways?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Somebody who talks about a “toxic mix of prejudice” hardly seems in a great position to complain about other people’s language, in this chamber or elsewhere. If that description were to be applied to anything, public sector workers who are watching the broadcast today might apply it to the letter from Danny Alexander and find that entire attitude of huge importance, and they would consign his political party to even lower support than it has now, if that were possible.

Oil and Gas (Tax Regime)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

4. To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding changes to the tax regime for North Sea oil and gas. (S4F-00116)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The North Sea makes a huge contribution to the Scottish economy. It supports more than 200,000 jobs and is expected to raise £13.4 billion in tax revenue for the UK Exchequer this year, which in cash terms is the highest total in history. However, the chancellor’s decision to increase the supplementary charge has damaged investor confidence and means that a number of marginal fields are no longer commercially viable. Last week, I wrote to the chancellor to propose the introduction of a statutory consultation period on any future changes to the North Sea fiscal regime, which would help to restore much-needed confidence and ensure that concerns about future reforms could be identified and discussed before being implemented, rather than afterwards.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I thank the First Minister for his wise intervention with the chancellor. I hope that the UK Government will listen.

Does the First Minister agree that the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday, in which he branded as “stupid” the 68 per cent of Scots who believe that North Sea oil revenue should be allocated to Scotland, were disgraceful? Would the Prime Minister’s disparaging comments not be better reserved to describe his chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, whose fag-packet formulation of changes to the North Sea tax regime have caused an immense amount of grief to the industry and those who work in it? [Interruption.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am not certain why there was that negative reaction to the question from the Labour benches, given that my understanding is that at least the Labour members of Parliament from Aberdeen agreed exactly with Kevin Stewart’s point. The Prime Minister’s comments yesterday were deeply misguided. They came on the same day as the press launch of “The Official History of North Sea Oil and Gas” by Alex Kemp, who is probably the foremost expert in the world on oil and gas tax and finance. One of the findings in that official history is that the wealth and potential and the benefits and revenues from North Sea oil were consistently downplayed by successive Labour and Conservative regimes.

We can see from that official history that the Prime Minister’s arrogance yesterday in describing the 68 per cent of Scots who believe—reasonably, in my view—that, after £300 billion of revenue has flowed from Scotland to London, perhaps it is time for Scotland to get a turn to enjoy the wealth of its natural resources, is part of a consistent pattern of the Conservative and Labour parties trying to mislead the Scottish people about the wealth and strength of their resources.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

If, as the First Minister has said, changes in the tax regime for oil and gas are so important that they require a statutory consultation period, does the same principle apply to other fiscal changes? If so, does the First Minister now regret the hasty abolition of transitional relief on non-domestic rates?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Most reasonable people would say that the offer of non-domestic rates in Scotland is the best in these islands by far, with 80,000 businesses benefiting from the small business bonus scheme, which is extraordinary. One reason why the Labour Party performed so desperately poorly in the recent election, particularly in the north-east of Scotland, is that people in the small business community looked at Labour candidates and could see no assurance or guarantee that that enormous benefit to business would continue if the misfortune of a Labour Administration came to pass. Fortunately for Scotland, that misfortune was avoided.

European Free Trade Association (Membership)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on an independent Scotland joining the European Free Trade Association rather than being a member of the European Union. (S4F-00131)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

For the second week in a row and for the third time during this First Minister’s question time, I refer to “Your Scotland, Your Voice: A National Conversation”. Section 8.12 on page 110 of that document states:

“An independent Scotland would continue membership of the European Union”.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Is it not time that the First Minister reflected on the confusion that he and his party are in? In the past week, we have heard three different Scottish National Party policy positions on Europe—from the First Minister, from an MEP and from the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs. The SNP’s position is so confusing that, last week, SNP back benchers seemed to be debating a motion that Ms Hyslop had chosen not to lodge. The First Minister has been at pains to reassure members that the SNP Government has a coherent policy on Europe, but given the events of the past week, I have to ask: is he sure?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am sorry; I was somewhere else as that question wended on. The record will show that we went through many alleys and byways. I was trying to work out where the motion was meant to be.

I say two things to Patricia Ferguson. First, she should look back at last week’s Official Report, which I have with me. Any reasonable person—okay, that excludes members of the Labour Party—would not take that interpretation of Fiona Hyslop’s reply to Margo MacDonald. I commend the Official Report to Patricia Ferguson, as I know that she is basically a fair-minded person.

The second piece of advice is that which I gave to her current party leader: please do not take The Daily Telegraph as the bible for reporting on parliamentary debates.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

Has the First Minister received from the United Kingdom Government any response to his request that an automatic right to representation in EU negotiations be included in the Scotland Bill?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

There has certainly not been a positive response as yet. I think that that right should be included in the Scotland Bill and I will tell members why.

Immediately after the UK general election last year, we were given a commitment—an understanding—by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that all the mistakes that had been made with excluding the Scottish ministers, and ministers from the other devolved Administrations where appropriate, were in the past, and that under the new respect relationship they would not happen in the future. William Hague even sent a letter—an instruction—around other ministers. In a matter of months, we found that that instruction—that request and reasonable suggestion—from the Foreign Secretary was being blithely ignored by successive UK Government departments. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary cannot persuade UK Government departments, even on issues such as fishing. Some 70 per cent of the quota that remains in UK hands lies in Scottish waters, and Mr Lochhead knows infinitely more about the fishing industry than any UK minister I can think of. Scotland was denied representation even on fishing.

Given the track records of first the Labour Party and now the Conservative-Liberal coalition, I see no alternative way within the current constitutional arrangements to protect Scotland’s right of access to where vital decisions are made. Of course, it would be much simpler if Scotland were an independent country within the European Union.